g before I did?

All right, enough about you. Tucker Carlson's being really outspoken on his video recently. Said nothing is ever about our safety and that all the big political stuff is clearly about the interests of the people in power. He said this country and the world only changes when we eliminate the CIA. It'll take someone willing to be assassinated. He gives examples. He said you open the southern border to anyone who wants to come in. You're not checking IDs. You're not doing any kind of biometrics. You're not even screening for COVID. So clearly you don't care about my safety. Check, check, check. Correct. Yes, there is no evidence that the people in power of our country are interested in the well-being of the citizens. There is plenty of evidence, the open border, that they're operating against our interests for reasons we don't quite understand. I don't understand it. We'll talk about more of that later.

But he's saying directly that the CIA has to be cancelled completely. I saw an ex-CIA operative, agent, whatever you want to call them, also on Tucker show saying that when Trump was the president he didn't use the CIA as much as he used private intelligence people to tell him what was going on. Why would he do that? Why would you pay somebody to do the job of the CIA when the CIA is already being paid and therefore it's free on an incremental basis? Why would you do that? I can only think of one reason. That the president of the United States did not think that the CIA was on the same side as he was. In other words, Trump, the person who knew the most about the CIA while in office, had the most access, didn't believe that he could trust them with the security of the United States. You have to eliminate them under that situation. If a sitting president doesn't think they're even on the same side, not even on the same side, you can't live with that. So if you can buy these services on the open market and you don't trust the ones in the government, there is an argument for eliminating the CIA. And it's strong. You'd have to hear the other side, and I'm not sure they can tell the other side because it'd be full of secrets. But is there a surface-y argument that says getting rid of the CIA? The most, that's a pretty radical thing to do. Is there an argument for it? Yeah, there is.

You know, there was a time when the CIA was overthrowing governments and doing all kinds of things to help America control the world. And you could have at that time said I don't like America doing all these other things in other countries, so I don't like the CIA. But there would have been a good argument to keep them because, let me make the Machiavellian power argument here. Wouldn't it be nice if the United States left all the other countries alone and left them to pursue their best interest for their people until they become thriving democracies and allies of us in the future, once they've used their own free will and their own resources to become an independent country that could be like a strong ally for us? No, not in the real world. In the real world if we didn't take them over, somebody else would have, right? China would have taken them because whoever has money can control any small entity, whether it's a country, a politician, or another country. Yeah, any other country. So it doesn't take much money to overthrow a country. You just bribe the right people and there you go. Yeah, you maybe could bribe 50 people to overthrow any country and they're probably all bribable. So the levers are there for controlling other countries.

But here's my argument, the Machiavellian argument for the CIA. They might be complete bastards who are doing terrible things to other countries every day, but if they didn't, what would happen? Somebody else would. And then we would be surrounded by countries that, let's say China had a lot of control over. That's no good. So the thing is that the worst, or best, let me say the best criminal wins. We don't live in a world where there's good versus evil. There's just evil versus evil at the government level. Humans tend to be closer to good. You know, if you leave them alone they're more likely to be good to each other because we're sort of tribal. We grew up that way. But countries are evil. As soon as you have a country it's probably corrupt no matter who it is. So maybe the strongest criminal organization is the one you want to be with. The strongest criminal organization at the moment, America appears to be the strongest criminal organization, which might be your safest situation in a historical sense. Historically you just wanted to be in the strongest country and it didn't matter why they were the strongest, right? Don't you think you were safer being a Roman citizen when Rome was at its peak? Without supporting that Rome were good guys. They weren't good guys. But it was probably the safest place to live in those times, you know, to be a Roman citizen. So we're sort of the Roman citizens. It feels like to me.

So yes, there's an argument that the CIA works against our interests, but I'd like to hear the counterargument. I just don't know anybody can make it because you'd have to say what I said. Yeah, we're kind of criminals. We do terrible things every single day. You wouldn't even want to know what we're doing in your name, but it keeps you safer because we're the best criminals. That might be the argument. And I could be convinced by that. I hate it, but it's a world in which sometimes your best choice is also terrible. Don't know.

All right, well, but keep in mind that Tucker's father was in the CIA, I believe, and he often thinks that, I mean he has a good window into that world. So I take his opinion seriously.

Oh, trolls being really extra stupid in public is not hurting me. It's just amusing me. Yeah, it's just amusing me. So thanks. Say some more really dumb things about the future of technology to entertain the rest of the commenters. They would like to see your stupidity in full flower. So say some more irrational things, please.

All right, let's talk about the hoaxocracy. As you know, the Biden campaign is built entirely on hoaxes, from the fine people hoax to the Trump tears gas peaceful protesters hoax and a lot more. Drinking bleach. It's one hoax after another. And the Biden-Harris headquarters X account said four years ago today Trump tears gassed peaceful protesters outside the White House. Well, it took about a minute before Joel Pollak fact-checked them hard. And nope, that was all debunked by sources that Democrats trust as well as Republicans. So why is it that the campaign can be so blatant about something that's been fact-checked and very clearly didn't happen? I mean absolutely did not happen and it's well known. Their audience is so underinformed, of course they know it's a lie, but they know it works so they're going to say it anyway.

I'm not so sure. I'm not so sure. I think that the Biden-Harris campaign is so DEI-crippled that the level of incompetence there, you can't really assume that it's normal. It's probably extraordinary. And if you're new to my commentary, let me quickly add we're not talking about anybody's genes or culture. That's not in the conversation about DEI. DEI is a system. It's not a person. It's not a person. It's a system. And the system moves people around like little chess pieces, and there aren't enough chess pieces for what they need to do. So they meet their diversity targets whether they have qualified candidates or not, because humans always meet the targets that they're measured on and their performance is judged upon. And that big thing they're judged on. So if you assume that DEI as a system is guaranteed to fail because the pipeline of qualified people would be smaller than the demand, forcing them to take lesser and lesser qualified people just to meet their diversity go