Episode 1692 Scott Adams: Narratives That Are Being Created to Hide The Truth About Other Narratives
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Gavin Newsom vs Ron DeSantis
Gun crimes in LA increased 44% under Gavin Newsom
Ukraine narrative diversion story
Did CNN assassinate a Russian General?
Was Ted Cruz question absurd?
Lindsey Graham vs Ketanji Brown Jackson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Congratulations on making it to the finest moment of all civilization.
Yes, it's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's no better place in the world to be.
In fact, this is a show that's been enjoyed by Well, let's see.
Humans. Raise your hand if you're a human.
Good, good. I see a lot of humans.
How many of you are birds?
Are there any birds out there?
I understand that there's a cockatoo named Kaylee, or Casey.
Casey. Casey, right?
Yes, Casey. So I'd like to speak directly to Casey the cockatoo for a moment, because I know Casey is watching.
So if you could bear with me.
Casey? Casey?
Good bird. Good bird.
Casey, want a treat? Casey, want a treat?
Good bird. All right.
That was just for the cockatoo.
Now, there may be other cockatoos watching.
If I didn't mention your name, I am talking to you, too.
All of the cockatoos.
And... Some of you I know have had a good morning already, and maybe you've had a cockatoo too.
But let's do something that we call the simultaneous sip.
It goes well with terrible puns.
And all you need is a cup of mug, a glass of tank, a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the thing that will make your bird talk.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Put your beak in it and enjoy.
Now! Yeah, yeah.
Every time I'm surprised at how good that is.
Well, the airlines, the CEOs, a bunch of them have asked the government to drop the mask mandate.
And the only reason they're giving is that there's no reason not to, since people are huddling in bars and restaurants every day.
And do you know what's the difference between an airplane and a bar and a restaurant?
An airplane actually has good ventilation.
Unlike your restaurant and bar.
So the CEOs have just said, why are we waiting another month or so to drop these mask requirements?
And I have a hypothesis, which maybe somebody has some data to validate.
Why would anybody book a trip...
Between now and the time that the masks are non-mandated?
If you're planning a trip, why in the world would you book a flight in the month before the mask mandate drops?
If you have a choice. You're going to wait until the mask mandates drop, are you not?
Now, business people may have less choice, but even they have a lot of flexibility.
I mean, most people, yeah, most people can move their vacation a week or so, you know, a few weeks.
So my guess is that the airlines are getting crushed in the current period because everybody's saying, you know, if I just wait three weeks, I don't need a mask or whatever it is.
Yeah, and I'm seeing in the comments people say they're intentionally waiting for the mask mandate.
So I think finance, follow the money, guarantees where things are going.
The airlines will get their mask thing dropped.
I believe now all 50 states have dropped mask mandates.
I saw that, but I don't believe that's true.
Is it true that all state mandates are dropped and all that's left is...
Federal? Because I thought that mass transportation was always masked no matter who owns it.
Is that right? Hawaii hasn't?
Hawaii hasn't? Has Hawaii announced when they will?
Yeah. Well, I don't believe that all 50 states have dropped all mask mandates.
I don't think that's true. But they will.
All right. Let me check in with you.
I think you know that since the beginning, I've been saying that you don't have to worry about the mandates being permanent.
Now, some of you said, Scott, you don't know.
When the government gets some power, they never release it.
Well, that's true, but this wasn't like any other situation, right?
And the United States is not like other countries.
We are a little bit more rebellious, often in a productive way.
And it didn't seem to me that the United States could keep mandates.
I don't know if anybody can, but I don't think it's going to happen here.
So if you...
It did take them too long.
Yeah, you could argue that for sure.
But, you know, the government takes too long for everything.
So check your thinking.
If you believe that this was going to be masked forever, and it was part of a larger global conspiracy, maybe that won't happen.
We hope. Dental office tools create particles that easily penetrate N95. Well, that's a weird, specific comment, but I'll bet you're right.
All right. I have a proposal, and I was reading about that Congress has a plan.
They're thinking about mailing stimulus checks to people to help them pay for gasoline because gas prices are so high.
And I thought, you know...
That's not going to work, because if you send out stimulus checks in the short term, that might help them buy gas.
But in the long term, it's going to increase inflation, right?
Because the stimulus checks will not be paid for, so it has to be borrowing.
And so therefore, I don't think that's a good plan.
But sometimes a bad plan...
We'll suggest a good plan.
You'll hear somebody's bad plan, you go, that won't work, but you know, if you just made one tweak to it.
So the problem with their plan is that it's not funded.
So I propose a new federal tax on gasoline.
We'll put a new federal tax on top of whatever taxes there are, and the new federal tax will fund the stimulus payments that will go to the public to help them buy the gas That was funded by the tax on the gas.
Now, then you have a closed system.
Now, I don't...
Please, please...
On locals, people are calling me brilliant, and I don't think I deserve it.
I don't. I can see objectively, this does seem kind of genius.
I can see how you'd think that.
But please, you're embarrassing me.
You're embarrassing me.
Anybody could have come up with this idea, I think.
I mean, sure, it was me.
This time it was me, but I like to think it's not about me, it's we.
It's we. There's no I in team.
But as Kobe Bryant once said to Shaq O'Neal, yeah, there is no I in team, but there isn't me in that motherfucker.
All right. So that's my idea.
I did a tweet yesterday to cause some trouble, a little provocation.
I did a little bit too well.
Sometimes when I try to provoke, I overshoot the mark a little bit, and I did it again, creating yet again another rumor about my opinions that will haunt me to the end of days.
And here's my mistake slash funny tweet.
Are you all aware...
That the word decimated is almost always misused in popular use.
Does everybody know that? Most people use the word decimated to mean almost completely destroyed something.
Oh, you decimated that city?
Oh, it's 90% destroyed.
The actual definition, historically, of decimated...
And that's why the DES part, the DEC part comes from, which means 10.
Decimated means you defeated or you destroyed 10% of something.
10%. Now, I did look up the definition before I talked about this, because I wanted to see if popular use had shifted the definition.
And it has, actually. It has.
So now it's a substantial or significant destruction.
Of an army or something else.
So it's not limited to 10%, but it's any substantial.
So I would say 15% would be substantial.
That would be decimated according to the modern thing.
So there was a report from U.S. officials, I don't know who it was, Pentagon or somebody, and nothing you could trust.
So when I say this information came from the government, And I don't specify which part of the government.
It doesn't matter what part of the government said it because it's not something you should believe anyway.
It wouldn't matter who said it. It's not believable in a time of war, which is how many people have died on the other side.
We don't know how many Russians have died.
We don't really know that.
So you shouldn't believe it, but the report was that as much as 10% of the military, let's say full capacity, not just people, but the capacity of the Russian military has been degraded by 10%.
So I tweeted, oh, they've literally been decimated, which caused many people to say, Scott, how could you fall for that Ukrainian propaganda?
To which I said, uh-oh, I've done it again.
Now there's a permanent record on the Internet, since I keep the tweet up, that seems to indicate to some people that I believe the Ukrainian propaganda.
Now, is there anything I believe less than Ukrainian propaganda?
I don't know. If you were to make a list of all the things I believe, I'm pretty sure that near the bottom of it would be Ukrainian war propaganda.
That might be just about the least likely thing I'm going to believe.
But I did make a tweet that led people to believe that.
So forever I will be hounded by the belief that I believe the opposite of what I believed.
And now you know, decimated is about 10%.
Now, I think I saw a tweet by Jeff Pilkington.
Suggesting that the matchup for a president that would make the most sense for both parties would be Gavin Newsom against Ron DeSantis.
The theory being that they are two people who, let's say, proved themselves during the pandemic.
Now, Democrats would say that Newsom did a good job.
Maybe you wouldn't.
Maybe you wouldn't, but that's not the point.
Right? They only have to get enough votes to be elected.
They don't need your vote, per se.
And Democrats, of course, would say that Ron DeSantis did everything wrong.
Republicans would say he did everything right.
So forget about whether you like him or not.
Do you buy the concept that...
Let's just talk about the Democrat side.
Do you buy the concept that Newsom is their best shot...
Let me see. Now, forget about whether you think he'd win, and forget about whether you think he's good in an absolute sense.
In a competitive sense, since they have a pretty weak bench, do you think he'd have the best chance of winning, even if he couldn't win?
Yeah, I see a lot of people saying yes.
Yeah. I mean, it's split like everything.
But there are more people saying yes than no, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that he's got the act.
He's got the look. He's got the mannerisms.
Now he's got serious credentials for his background.
He's got the hair.
He's got the look. He's got sort of the surface package.
But here's something that I read about him today.
I assume this will pass the fact check.
The L.A. robberies that involve firearms are So in Los Angeles, robberies that involve firearms have increased 44% this year, according to the city's top cop.
How do you get elected president when crime in one of your biggest areas of your state increased 44%?
Do you know how easy it would be to beat him?
Every time somebody asks you a question, let's say it's either Trump or DeSantis running for president on the Republican side.
Every time they're asking a question about the other side, just say, I want you to fact check this.
Did armed robbery really go up 44% under Newsom?
And then they'll say, but Mr.
Trump, we're asking you about Ukraine.
And then if I were Trump, I'd say, I understand what you're asking me.
But do you understand that you're asking me to comment on somebody whose leadership rose armed robbery by 44% in a year?
Why would I even talk about any of his other opinions?
How could it possibly matter what he thinks about world events?
Because if you elect him, you're going to get exactly what the package told you you were getting.
If you get Newsom, read the ingredients.
Part of the ingredients are increased armed robbery 44% in one year.
That's what you're buying.
So, you know, no politician would ever do what I recommended, which is only talk about one thing about the competitor the whole time.
But it'd probably work.
It would probably work.
You know, nobody's ever going to do that because it would be boring, but it'd work.
All right. Here's your daily propaganda warning.
This one comes from Glenn Greenwald.
Now, I feel like it's actually useful to repeat this every day or two, which is to remind you that your side is lying to you, too.
That's really hard to kind of really incorporate into your thinking.
Because we're just sort of biased toward thinking our side is maybe not right all the time, but it's more right than the other side, isn't it?
How do we know? We have no way to know that.
And Glenn reminds us, he tweets, if you're in the U.S. or NATO country, you're in a radically closed propaganda system.
Much dissent has been banned or demonized to the point of invisibility.
It may be you're still 100% right, but at least recognize that everyone in war is propagandized, warranting skepticism.
In other words, don't trust your own side.
Good advice. Don't trust your own side.
And in fact, don't trust the pundits.
In a time of war, I don't think you can trust anybody.
Because everybody's got an agenda.
And that includes me, but at least I've told you what my bias is.
The best you can do, I think, is tell people what your bias is.
You know, you can't...
You can't do much better than that.
Um... So here's a story.
And this is a narrative diversion story.
So why is it that Ukraine is doing such a good job of defending?
We've heard several reasons, have we not?
Here are some of the reasons we've heard.
We've heard that the Russians have low morale and the Ukrainians have high morale.
Did I just tell you that everything from your own side is propaganda, as well as the other side?
So when your side, your own side, tells you, here's one of the reasons, it's because the Ukrainians have high morale and the Russians have low morale.
Now, it could be true, because it certainly feels like it might be true, doesn't it?
It kind of feels like it might be.
But I don't know that it's true.
I don't know. And I don't know that it makes a difference.
It might not make a difference, but it could also be true.
Here's another thing that we're hearing is that the Russians are using bad tactics and bad equipment.
You know, bad maintenance, bad tactics.
Now, is that true?
Is that true? Is it a coincidence that the enemy, let's say Russia is sort of the enemy for propaganda purposes, is it true that the enemy is always incompetent and You know, they can't maintain their equipment.
It might be. I mean, it might be a little bit true.
But how would you know?
You wouldn't know. You wouldn't know that at all.
You have no way of knowing that.
Somebody told you that.
Now, here's my question, and it's sort of, it's not quite the dog not barking, but maybe you can figure out how to label this.
What's left out?
Is there not something that's a little left out?
Well, this narrative was boosted again by a story that says the Green Beret, the American Green Beret forces, have been training the Ukrainians quite seriously since Russia took Crimea.
Now, if your Green Beret are training you to create an armed resistance, which is what they do, apparently they're really good at it.
According to our own government, who you can't really believe.
But I feel as if people who have been involved in the Green Beret could confirm this.
And maybe some of you have.
Is there anybody here who's been involved in the Green Beret?
Because I do think...
Even though you can't believe you're a government, I do think it's likely that the Green Beret do a solid job.
Can anybody confirm that?
Has there anybody been in the Green Beret who's watching this who would say, yeah, yeah, this is real.
Yeah, their primary mission is training other forces, right?
The Green Beret mostly goes in and trains the locals to be a force multiplier.
I'm seeing some people confirm that it's real, but let's say it is real.
So now we have these three reasons so far why Ukraine is doing better than most expected.
High morale, bad Russian tactics and equipment, I guess.
And then the Green Beret trained the Ukrainians to be effective fighters, especially in their local terrain.
There's still something missing.
Now, of course, there have been lots of stories about the high-tech equipment that we've given them.
But here's what I think.
I think the high-tech weapons are the actual main story.
This other stuff is important.
The green gray probably made a big difference.
But I think that the narrative is trying to shift us away from the equipment aspect.
It's trying to shift us onto the human aspect.
So the human aspect is, do you have high morale?
Are you well-trained?
Do you know how to maintain things?
Do you have good tactics?
Isn't it interesting that all of the propaganda that we're being subjected to is telling us that it has, really, don't look at the drones.
No, no. Yeah, we are sending drones.
We're definitely sending them shoulder-mounted rockets.
But, you know, that's not the reason.
That's not the reason the Ukrainians are winning.
No, it's not that they have thousands and thousands of easy-to-operate, deadly weapons that are designed exactly to destroy the things that are destroying.
No, it's not the weaponry.
It's all about the human part.
Correct me if I've gone too far, but here's my hypothesis.
If Russia said, who trained these guys, and we found out it was the Green Bray, let's say the Americans had trained the Ukrainians, would you say that America's in the war?
No, because the training is something that happened, but may not be happening at the moment.
So we're not in the war.
We simply did some things that Ukraine found useful to be in the war.
So if you're talking about the human part, it's really easy to make the argument that the United States is not in the war.
We're not in the war. We're not in that war.
But suppose I said to you this.
The reason that Ukraine is winning is that they have American weapons.
And that we didn't even sell them to them.
We gave them to them.
We gave them the weapons.
I think, right? Don't we give them the weapons?
That sounds like you're in the war.
Because when a Russian gets shot, or when a Russian gets killed, it's being killed by a weapon that's right there right now.
That's current. That's not, you used to train us and now we're good on our own.
That was the past.
But the weapon that killed you, that's sort of today.
And I have a feeling that Because giving any country high-tech weaponry can change the course of the war, more so than almost anything, right?
Erica, you're too nice.
Thank you. So I have a feeling that the propaganda we're seeing is diverting us from the hardware part of the story, and I'm going to reaffirm my...
Prediction that when this is all over, we're going to learn that the Ukrainian fighters had more than just the weapons we know about.
That they had what I'm calling the good stuff.
There might be some new weapons you have not heard of that might be getting a little test.
That's what I think. Now, I don't know if those weapons will be the majority of the reason, but certainly the high-tech weapons is the story, in my opinion.
I think the high-tech weapons are the story.
All right. CNN may have assassinated a Russian general.
We always tease CNN about being deep state-owned and CIA-controlled and stuff like that.
We don't know. It's hard to validate any of that stuff.
But CNN is running a story that goes roughly like this.
So there was a rare face-to-face meeting between Russian and U.S. military.
Now, apparently, that hasn't happened in a while, and it's sort of rare.
And doing it during the Ukraine war was doubly rare.
And the way CNN reports this is that the Russian general, doesn't matter who he is, you all remember his name anyway, who is normally stoic, doesn't show much emotion, was asked about his Ukrainian ties, because I guess he was born in Ukraine.
So there's a Russian general fighting a war against his own home country.
And the report is that he sort of lost his composure, which is uncharacteristic, and that they saw a break in his, let's say, morale, or his...
This seemed to indicate that he was not totally on board with the war.
They just killed him.
Think about it.
CNN is reporting a direct anecdote of Putin's general...
Being not so up for the war.
And then that became a new story, and there's a risk that the soldiers and the Russian army could actually hear that story.
I mean, it's hard, because they're kind of sheltered.
But do you think Putin wants a story about one of his generals, one of his generals saying he's not so hot about the war and he was born in Ukraine?
Looked like he... Right?
Now, tell me I'm wrong.
Did CNN just assassinate a Russian general?
Am I wrong? I'm not wrong.
They just took out a general.
Do you think that CNN did this story without prompting?
Do you think the CIA, or somebody in the military or the government, said to CNN, I've got a story for you.
And I've got some inside information.
We don't usually provide the notes of a meeting like this.
But we're going to provide you the notes this time If you write this narrative, because we're going to kill a general with news.
I think CNN took him out.
Now, he may not die-die, but he's going to be off the job, is he not?
Won't he be locked up by today?
And if he's not, it only means Putin hasn't heard about it.
Does anybody disagree with me that CNN just took out a general and almost certainly was a war-related move, almost certainly guided by whoever fed them the information?
I'm not wrong.
I don't think I'm wrong.
I think they just assassinated a Russian general with the media.
I think. I think that just happened.
How many of you noticed...
That's the weird part.
If I hadn't mentioned it, you wouldn't have noticed CNN assassinating a top general.
It just happened.
In effect. Alright, the Supreme Court nominee had at least one interesting moment in which she was asked to define a woman and then she said, well, I'm not a biologist.
And then everybody pounced.
They said, wait a minute, wait a minute.
If you have to be a biologist, wouldn't that suggest there's a biological basis for male and female?
And that's, of course, counter to the left's hypothesis, or maybe philosophy, that people can choose their gender or that, let me say it better, that your genitalia or your reproductive ability does not define if you're male or female.
That would be their point of view.
Now, the weirdest thing about this is...
I was watching, I thought I made a note about it.
Dershowitz? Did anybody see Dershowitz talk about his old student, Cruz?
Oh, there it is. So Ted Cruz asked what Dershowitz called an absurd question.
So it was Ted Cruz who was asking, if somebody who was born with, let's say, male or female genitalia could change their gender, why couldn't he, as a, what do you say, Latino, could he change his identity to black?
Now, forget about what...
The Supreme Court nominee Jackson said, this is what Alan Dershowitz said about this.
He acted like he was a little embarrassed because Ted Cruz had been his student at Harvard.
And Dershowitz, I've been watching for a long time, and I've been quite a supporter of his logic.
You can make your own opinions about his personal life and what he has or has not done.
I'm not talking about that.
You're all welcome to that opinion.
I won't even try to influence you.
Just have your own opinion about his own life.
But this is the first time I've seen him be outrageously illogical in public.
It's the first time. So even when I would disagree with him on a topic, which would happen now and then, when I'd hear his logic, I'd say, ah, damn it, that's good logic.
Here he has no logic.
Let me walk through you. So he claimed that he agreed with the notion that you can choose your gender.
Regardless of your genitalia.
So Dershowitz says that's a fact, but it's ridiculous to say that you could choose your race.
Do you know why? Do you know why it makes sense that you could choose your gender, but it doesn't make sense that you could choose your ethnicity?
Here's the reason he gave you.
I'm going to paraphrase.
This is not exactly what he said.
But it's something like this.
Well, of course you can change your gender...
Because people do it.
And of course it's absurd that you could change your race.
That was his argument.
That's not an argument. That's nothing.
He couldn't even wave his arm at him.
He was absolutely stumped.
And this is Alan fucking Dershowitz.
Dershowitz is not somebody who doesn't have an argument...
And he didn't have an argument. He didn't have anything.
He basically wanted to mock it away.
Let me do the argument in more of my own style.
So I'll try his argument again, but more my presentation of it.
Of course you can change your gender.
Look at all the people who have done it.
And he actually argued that the people who have done gender reassignment surgery, he says he knows two of them very well, And that they're unambiguously happier because they made the change.
And so he argues that because they were happier unambiguously, he knows them well.
I mean, he has no question that they're happier.
They're happier having made the change, and therefore, that's evidence that you can change your gender.
Because the people who did it are happier.
Do you see a problem with the logic of Do you see that he effortlessly changed from, is it a fact that you can change your gender?
He changed it to, people who do it are happier.
That's not the argument.
Have you heard anybody say, there's no example of somebody who did gender surgery and came out happier?
Is there anybody on any side of the argument who has ever made that argument?
I don't believe so.
I believe he was pretending there's an argument that people who do a gender assignment are somehow always unhappy about it.
Nobody makes that argument.
I think it's observably true that some people make the change and are quite happy about it.
I don't know what percentage. But it's...
I mean, do you doubt it?
Is there anybody here who thinks that nobody's ever been happy with a gender reassignment?
Does anybody think that?
Or do you think, like...
In the back of their mind, they wish they hadn't done it.
Yeah, some of them have to be happy about it.
So this is a complete breakdown in the Dershowitz logic fortress, if you will.
I mean, he's a solid, logical guy, but he just threw it all away on this.
Now, I'm going to backtrack now and give him some credit.
He also told you exactly why he's biased.
If somebody gives an opinion that doesn't make sense, and then they tell you why, okay, here's why it doesn't make sense.
He kind of did that.
And the way he did that was by talking about his personal friends that are happier.
And when he says, it must be true because I have personal friends, and they say they're happier, and I observe that to be true, he's telling you his bias.
Right? That's pretty direct.
He's not saying, I have a bias because...
But if he says, I have these friends and they're happy, and that means something, he's telling you that's his bias.
So I'm going to give him a partial pass for being illogical.
Because he told you why.
And it was a human reason.
It was a human reason.
It wasn't a robot reason.
He was a human being.
He said, you know, these are my friends.
It looks like it works for them.
I'm going to back them. He didn't say that.
But it looks like he's backing his friends and their choice.
And it looked like he had departed the law and logic for a human reason.
I support that.
I support him taking humanity over logic and In any time, really.
But in this case, that's fine.
But he did depart logic entirely, because if you can choose your gender, you can choose anything.
I think most of you would agree with that.
Here's how I think...
Oh, there's a story about the richest oligarch...
That still hasn't been put in prison, I guess.
And that he's not being sanctioned because he might be a way to help negotiate with Putin.
That would be interesting.
But I can't see Putin being influenced by any rich Russian.
It just doesn't sound like that makes a difference.
I wouldn't wait for that to happen.
Here's my persuasion suggestion for Ukraine.
And, you know, everything has to be A-B tested.
You can never be sure something will work.
But here's what I would have been tempted to do.
Ukraine has shown lots of pictures of dead Russian soldiers.
But correct me if I'm wrong, we see usually one, or maybe there would be three spread out in a little area that's in a picture or a video.
If you see videos of individual soldiers dead...
Does that make you worry about, let's say, your son who's a soldier?
Well, yes. But you also tell yourself, well, that's just one.
There are a million soldiers, that's one.
But suppose Ukraine, there's a story of one city that's having a problem with all the corpses.
So it was a city that the Russians attacked unsuccessfully.
As the snow is thawing, there are a whole bunch of bodies they have to deal with.
And here's what I would have done, as horrible as this sounds.
I understand this sounds horrible.
But remember, it's war. I would collect up as many Russian bodies as I could, and I would pile them in a mound.
But I might...
I might fake it a little bit.
I might put something under the pile so it looks like it's all a pile of dead soldiers.
But you can tell clearly it's lots of individual dead Russian soldiers.
And then don't show the military throwing them on the pile.
Show the townspeople collecting them and dragging them up to the pile and throwing them on.
And if you were a Russian mother...
And you watched a video of a pile of Russian dead soldiers, and you saw the locals, not the military, not the military, you saw the locals tossing them on a mound like firewood, that will change your fucking mind.
Now, let me give the Ukrainians some advice.
Apparently they've talked to Israel, but Israel must have kept from them their best technique.
Have you ever seen a Holocaust picture that involved one person?
Are we done here? Have you ever seen a Holocaust picture that involved one person?
Well, okay, you have, right?
Yes, you have. But, so, let me withdraw the question.
Of course you have. But, that's not the main persuasion.
The main persuasion is groups, right?
The stuff that moved you The things that moved you was the group pictures, the group deaths, the group incarceration with multiple starving people, etc.
The Ukrainians have somehow not used that technique.
Now, I suppose there's a risk it could backfire.
Could backfire.
Because it maybe would make the Russians more willing to fight so they don't meet that fate.
I don't know. But it seems to me that the propaganda of visual persuasion Is being completely blown by the Ukrainians.
Because the onesies and twosies are selling a story of rarity.
Let me say it again.
If the visual persuasion that they're sending is, here's a dead soldier, here's one tank, it sends a message of rarity of those things.
If you show piles, it sends a message of volume.
They're missing the persuasion here.
It's got to be a volume that they've got to sell, not individual anecdotes.
There was a Russian warship.
I guess it was a transport carrier for, I don't know, troops and tanks and stuff.
They got blown up in one of the Ukrainian ports.
To which, again, I ask this question.
How hard is it to blow up a ship when it's on your shore or in port?
I don't know much about war, but wouldn't that be the easiest thing you could do?
I mean, if you had the right equipment.
I assume you'd need a shoulder-mounted rocket of some sort.
I don't understand why there's no such thing as remote-controlled drone torpedoes.
Or are they?
And how big would a missile have to be to put a sinking hole in a ship if it hits below the waterline?
It doesn't have to be that big, does it?
I mean, it'd have to be a special type, I think.
It'd have to stick to the hull and then blow up or something.
So probably needs some science on it.
Somebody says radio control doesn't work underwater.
Does GPS? Does GPS work underwater?
There are drone subs, but we don't have much information on them, somebody said.
So here's the question.
Are you telling me that America does not have a drone sub That you could carry, that you could actually carry, it might take two people or something, but that you could carry and just drop it in the water and sort of aim it in the right direction and it would just blow up something a mile away?
We don't have that? I feel like we do.
Is there anybody here who would know if such a thing exists?
Somebody says torpedoes go about more than a mile?
Okay. Okay. But then you've got the aiming and navigation part if it's too far.
We do, but the Ukrainians don't.
Well, that's the question, isn't it?
We do, but the Ukrainians don't.
Do you think they still don't?
We are giving them Neptune missiles, shore to ship.
Somebody do a Google and tell me what distance a Neptune missile fired from the shore can reach.
Germans have a torpedo with 50-kilometer range, somebody says.
Scott, please change the subject.
No. No.
Because the reason I talk about this stuff is for prediction purposes.
If you want to predict where the war is going, knowing the technology, I think, is the key.
Because we kind of have a handle on the other stuff.
It's clear that the Ukrainians are fighting.
It's clear that they're trained.
It's clear that they're not giving up.
Beyond that, you kind of need to know the weapon.
All right. I will change the subject.
Lindsey Graham is being theatrical and he's going to maybe vote against Jackson because he's mad that, let's say, however long ago it was, Janice Rogers Brown, who was a black woman that George Bush nominated,
so she was turned down to the Dems and now Graham is saying, hey, I'm just going to return the favor because It would have allowed, under Bush, it would have allowed the Republicans to nominate the first black woman for the Supreme Court.
And the Democrats didn't want the Republicans to get that win.
And so that's the reason they stopped the nomination.
Not the qualifications of the judge.
Not the qualifications of the judge.
And so Lindsay is deciding to basically pay them back.
Now here's my decision.
How does that work?
Like, what's his point?
So, Lindsey does the same thing to them that they did to him, and that will make them less likely to do it in the future?
Or would they be more likely to do it because the other team did it?
Now, I understand there's a Republican point of view that I hear a lot, but What time is it?
How did my phone disappear?
That's weird. You're going to have to tell me the time.
Somebody's going to have to tell me how the Lindsey Graham strategy works.
Just explain it to me in words.
So this is what I'm looking for.
So the Lindsey Graham strategy is to pay them back for what they, you know, act the same way.
And so because you did that, probably the judge will still be confirmed, so it probably has nothing to do with this judge.
It won't have any impact.
What is its point?
And I'm not even saying it's a bad idea.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea or a good idea.
I don't connect the dots.
So he does this, and then is his theory, is the theory he's working on, that the Democrats will then see the light and stop acting that way?
Explain it. How does it work?
And do you think that any show that Lindsey Graham goes on, which typically will be like a Fox News show, do you think anybody on Fox News is going to ask him that question?
How does that work?
How does that make the world a better place?
How does it make Republicans look better to voters?
How does it stop a nomination?
How does it do anything? How does it possibly work?
And I'll say to you again that the Republicans had free money here.
Absolutely free money.
All they had to do is unanimously put this woman in.
And imagine the news from that point on.
From that point on, and even today I saw the news saying what the votes were.
So I guess Scalia got in in like a 90 to nothing vote.
And I think, what's her name, Ginsburg, I think she got in on like 87 to 3 or something.
Like some crazy number.
And then more recently, yeah, and Thomas was 52 to 48.
But more recently, it's been close.
Somebody says, wow, you're not aware of human Democrat motivation.
And you know what? Somebody just said, I'm not aware of Democrat motivation.
I'm still not, because that comment didn't help me.
But you know what would fit good in that space?
A description of the motivation that you think they have that I'm missing.
So please, if you think you can describe it in a sentence, I think you can.
Tell me the Democrat motivation that I'm missing.
This is on the locals' platform, so you don't see these comments.
Yeah. Okay.
So here's what the Republicans have missed, but not yet.
I mean, they could still grab this.
If the Republicans can find a way to give a 100% support to a female, black, qualified candidate, even when they have some questions...
Because they do have some issues with her.
But if they can find a way to do that, the Republicans win.
Because they'll always have that on their record.
And then the next time the Democrats go against the Republican nominee, do you know what every story has to print?
Well, you know we gave your candidate 100% support.
That's the position they should put the Democrats in.
To explain why they're not giving 100% support.
Because even the news that supports the Democrats would ask that question.
Even CNN would make them answer the question.
Am I wrong? I think even CNN would say, you know, let's take Jake Tapper.
I know, I know, you have your criticisms of Jake Tapper, and that's not the point.
You don't think that Jake Tapper...
Would ask the Democrats why they don't do what the Republicans did and say, okay, we know which way this is going to go, so let's just show our support.
I think he would ask.
I think he would ask. And I think the Democrats would have a tough time wrestling with the question.
So I think the Republicans are making a gigantic strategic mistake to die at the altar of fighting instead of fighting smart.
Let me give you this advice.
Fighting smart, excellent idea.
Excellent idea. Fighting because you think fighting is good, bad idea.
Bad idea. Let me say it again because I know a lot of people are missing this good point.
Fighting when fighting is a good idea and you have a chance to win and you've got a good strategy, good idea.
Good idea. Fighting when you know you can't win and it's only going to make everything worse, this will surprise you.
Bad idea. Thumbs down.
So that's my advice to Republicans.
Fight the fights you can win.
And the ones you can't win, take a win any way you can get it.
All right.
That ladies and gentlemen is bringing us to the conclusion of the best live stream that has ever been broadcast anywhere in the world at any time to anybody.
And I ask you this.
So far, I have been completely able to identify as a black citizen.
Have you been surprised that I've gotten no pushback from that?
Anybody? Because I keep saying it prominently in public.
And by the way, I will say it on national TV if I'm doing a book tour or something, if I get interviewed.
I will say it on national TV. And I will say it completely straight.
I mean, I'll say the reasons.
Because there's nothing hidden.
The reasons are that it's my option.
And I kind of like it.
I don't need to give you a reason.
I just have to prefer it.
And know it's an option. So I prefer it.
I know it's an option.
It gives me very discreet benefits if I should choose to take them.
So for example, if I were to sign up for some government program or something, let's say it favored minority applicants for loans, I would sign up, identify as black, nobody can question it because those are the rules, and I would get those benefits.
Am I wrong? I would.
Now, I wouldn't specifically do that because I'm rich and I wouldn't...
If you're rich, you don't want to use a weasel way to steal money from black people.
That would be like the worst thing you could do.
So I wouldn't actually do that.
But there have to be situations that will come up in my life in which identifying as black might be an advantage.
So I have that option and you don't.
Unless you're black. Yeah.
There's somebody here identifying as a 6'2 stud.
I accept your identification.
What? I think there's somebody Italian-American on here who says, they're just glad I don't identify as Italian.
I can feel that remark.
I see where you're going with that.
I see your point.
Alright, that is about all I have to say to you today, and I would like to leave you with that.
