My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Phil Bump, AOC Oyster Reef, President Trump, Nuclear Sub Secrets, Whistleblower Protection Office, Healthcare Crisis, Presidential Immunity, Hamas Invades Israel, Dastardly, Governor DeSantis, Christopher Rufo, Daily Beast, Mehdi Hasan, Elon Musk, Chaya Raichik, Mike Benz, Brandy Zadrozny, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, there might be a delay on that, ladies and gentlemen, so I don't know how much they're going to see until their technology kicks in.
But I do know this.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to a technological upgrade that will apply to some of you.
So at the moment I'm streaming to you, in theory, on four different platforms.
You might be seeing me on the subscription site, Locals, scottadams.locals, where they get extra.
And you might be seeing me on YouTube, and you might be seeing me on Rumble, and you might be seeing me streaming live to the X platform.
I've got both of my microphones on, so the sound should be similar in all places.
So if anybody has a favorite, let me know later.
If you'd like to take this experience, Up to levels that I can't even imagine anymore.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tanker, gel, or cysteine, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Yes.
Well, yes, we'll be talking about the events in Israel, so that you can call me names.
I know you will.
Doesn't matter what I say.
I want to alert you to the Dilbert to Reborn comic that has been published for today, but you can only see it normally if you're subscribing either on the X platform, you can see the button in my profile, or if you're subscribing on the Locals platform.
But here's what you had missed.
Now that I'm off the leash and I can do anything I want, I'm using my comic to get revenge on all the people I don't like.
So if you ever get a chance to have a comic strip, the best part is the revenge.
The revenge is like just the best.
So you might know that I have a nemesis called Phil Bump from the From the Washington Poop.
So, Ratbert, the character in the Dilbert comic, now Dilbert Reborn.
Ratbert got a job as a reporter for the Washington Poop and he is meeting his co-worker.
It's an opinion writer named Phil Thumb.
I have to show it to you separately.
Phil Thumb.
He looks like a big thumb.
I'll read you the comic.
You just have to look at the image.
And Ratbird's editor boss says, Ratbird, have you met our opinion writer, Phil Thumb?
We use him to launder our propaganda.
He makes it look like his opinion.
And Ratbird says, is he sentient?
And the editor says, barely, but that's how we like it.
So, Phil Thumb.
Ladies and gentlemen, Phil Thumb.
Phil Nick would have been better, like Andy Nick.
Maybe.
All right.
I give you yet another example to prove my prediction that AI will be way more lame than you hoped it would be.
You know, did you think AI would look just like people?
It would act like people?
Well, here's an example of why that won't be exactly what you should expect.
So Meta, the Zuckerberg's company, is paying celebrities to use images of them within Meta, the virtual reality world.
So you can walk around and you can see Tom Brady or Snoop Dogg or Paris Hilton or Charli D'Amelio, who I've never heard of, but I would guess is famous.
And you can use their likenesses as AI chatbots.
So Brendan Mariotta was tweeting that someone asked the Snoop Dogg chatbot what weed it liked.
And it said it had no idea and gave a disclaimer against using drugs.
So they've got a Snoop Dogg avatar.
That they can't make you act like Snoop Dogg because that would be totally inappropriate.
You're never going to have a problem telling AI from humans if it's a corporate AI.
You know, if it's some rogue AI, it might actually act like a human.
But the corporate ones?
Or could it be so lame?
Well, I can't answer that question.
Because it turns out that the one and only thing I want to ask a chatbot What's the one and only thing you want to ask a chatbot?
Something inappropriate.
It's actually the only thing I'm interested in.
Right?
Because I don't need a chatbot to ask the weather.
I don't need a chatbot to do a Google search.
I need a chatbot so I can ask it an obscene question and see how it handles it.
Otherwise, not much entertainment value there, frankly.
All right, here's a fun story that I've been tracking but was hesitant to talk about.
But it's just gotten to the point where it's so much fun that I'm willing to take a risk of getting cancelled just for mentioning it.
Now, there's a topic I'm going to talk about, which first you must bow to the platforms.
So if you don't mind, I'd like to stay monetized.
By bowing to the platforms before I tell you what I'm going to tell you, okay?
Dear platforms, it is a fact that cannot be disputed that the 2020 election was completely free and fair.
There were no signs of any impropriety, despite the fact that 100% of our other enterprises and groups in the United States are in fact corrupt.
We are so lucky.
That all of our elections were run straight and fair and clean with no problems whatsoever.
Nothing I say after this should take away from the fact that those elections were so good and so clean that nothing, nothing can change that fact.
Alright.
Having said that.
I've been following the Rasmussen account on X. And one of the things that one of the claims.
Now, I'm only going to tell you this like I tell you a UFO story, right?
If I tell you a UFO story, it's not because I believe the UFO is true.
It's because the story is so good.
You got that?
All right.
There's a claim, by one individual at least, that there were a bunch of fake ballots in the Georgia election in 2020.
But here's the fun part.
The alleged fake ballots, of which there could be up to 150,000 of them, are locked in the storeroom.
The ones that are alleged to be wrong, alleged, right?
Because let me tell you, there was nothing wrong with that election.
These allegations, my God, I can barely hold them in my head.
They're so disgusting that anybody would even think the election was in any way not perfect.
That's my view.
But these Rasmussen people, these rascals, probably some kind of traitors or something, keep saying that there's a specific locked room in which these questionable, questionable, but perfect, the ballots are perfect, but they are being questioned.
So don't confuse that they're being questioned with the fact that they're perfect and could never have been wrong.
But I guess the people questioning the ballots didn't have access to the room, so they couldn't actually just look at them and see if they're in fact fake.
But the Georgia Supreme Court has now said that they can open it and take a look.
So.
What do you want to predict about that?
Do you think that when they open that door and they look at those ballots?
Number one, do you believe the ballots will be there?
Or will it be an empty room?
Or a room with, let's say, other ballots?
Maybe not always the same ballots.
How would you know?
Is anybody guarding that room 24 hours a day?
I don't think there's anything you can know by opening up the room, frankly.
Not really.
So if I had to bet, I would bet they'll open the room and it'll either be empty, Or filled with ballots that are not suspicious.
Maybe not the ones that were always there, but we wouldn't know one way or another.
Yeah, ashes.
Or or there was a water leak and they all got wet so you really can't tell.
Something like that.
But the other possibility is that they open that door and they find what somebody alleged they would find.
How fun would that be?
And can you imagine?
The simulation becoming more entertaining than that.
That would be the ultimate entertaining outcome.
It wouldn't mean the election was wrong, right?
Because it would just be one room and you'd really have to count them up and whatever.
But although I would bet a large sum against there being anything in that room that changes our minds, I would bet against it a very large sum.
It's a fun story.
So, are we all on board that as long as it's fun to talk about, it's okay?
It doesn't matter if it's true.
Most of the news isn't true, so that shouldn't put you off.
All right, here's another example of why we hate Congress.
It wasn't too hard to find an example of why we hate Congress, but here's one.
AOC, she's got a little pork in the upcoming budget they're trying to get approved and the pork is for a half million dollars for her district to build an anti-racist oyster reef.
An oyster reef that's anti-racist.
Now it would be anti-racist because most of the people who do oyster work apparently are not people of color.
So they want to get a people of color oyster reef going.
So let's see if you were going to build a anti-racist oyster reef.
How would you do that?
Would you make that available to everybody?
So that everybody could apply to the anti-racist oyster reef and do some oyster growing and gathering.
Or do you suppose that the anti-racist Oyster Reef explicitly excludes white people?
What would be your guess?
Is your guess that it's genuinely anti-racist, meaning all people have equal opportunity, or is it specifically to prevent white people from participating?
Which do you think it will be?
Yes, this is why we hate Congress.
This is exactly why we hate them, because they don't do anything that isn't fucked up.
I feel like they couldn't take the simplest thing and not ruin it.
Now, I don't know if that's what AOC has in mind, but would you agree that in our current atmosphere, it would be ridiculous to assume that she wanted white people to apply?
It would be ridiculous to assume that.
So, I mean, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it would be ridiculous to assume it.
I've got a question for you that I don't know if there's an answer to it, but it's the biggest problem in the world.
How do we remove mentally unstable people from discussing politics?
Because I feel that 90% of all our effort is talking to crazy people.
And that's on both sides.
Right?
It's not just on the left.
It's, you know, crazy people on both sides.
But I feel like the crazy people take up all the room and Yeah, they sort of crowd out the good arguments if there are any.
So I just wonder, is there any way to distinguish people with good mental health before you accidentally get into an argument?
Because it's a little easier in person, right?
In person, you could spot a crazy person in two seconds, and you're just like, all right, yeah, nice to see you, I'm out.
But online, you fool yourself.
Well, I do.
Maybe it's just a Scott problem.
But I'll see people and I'll say, there's a person I should argue with.
And it's really not, it's not somebody that's worth arguing with.
They're either paid trolls or they're, you know, or they're crazy or they're drunk, but there's, there needs to be some way to weed out the drunks and the crazy people before you waste your time.
Don't wrestle with the pig.
That's correct.
All right.
And now that something like half of all people will be diagnosed with a mental problem before 75, that was some data we got recently, half of adults in the United States, anyway, will have some identifiable mental problem in their life.
Half.
So if we think we're discussing politics, lots of times we're not.
Now, the best thing I came up with is the hoax quiz.
You know, my list of hoaxes that people on the left are generally not aware are hoaxes.
And I find that that's one way to deprogram people, or at least identify people who are not realistic.
Because there are a number of people who look at all 20 of the hoaxes and say, every one of those was true.
They're not real people.
Why would you have a conversation with one of those?
They're so lost, nothing could kick up from that.
All right, here's some fake news on fake news, but possibly fake news about the fake news.
So this is sort of an inception, fake news embedded in the Russian egg of fake news is within the fake news, something like that.
So the original news was the news that allegedly ABC News, I think is the only one reporting this, that some Australian billionaire Talked to Trump, and Trump told him some nuclear submarine secrets.
And then that billionaire went and talked to a bunch of people, and that's an example of why Trump can never be trusted.
Can never be trusted with secrets.
And then Catherine Herridge from CBS, a competing network, looked into it.
And the problem is that the tweet or the post Did not match the story.
And I got fooled by this, but Dennis Herring noticed this and kept me honest.
All right, so here's the situation.
Sources tell CBS News there is no indication former President Trump shared sensitive records with an Australian billionaire.
Shared sensitive records.
Now, if you said shared sensitive records to somebody, Does that necessarily mean there was a physical document?
How would you, how do you interpret shared sensitive records?
Would you assume that it was on paper or on digital form?
Well, the actual story is more about there wasn't a document.
So when you say shared records, that's a little ambiguous.
So I first interpreted it to mean that they were debunking the ABC story, or at least that they could find no evidence of it, which would be different than debunking.
But it looks like they're just confirming there's no physical document.
Now, and Dennis Herring noticed that.
Well done, Dennis.
I feel like people are paying attention to me a little bit.
When I tell them to make sure that the story matches the headline, and especially you have to read to the end of the story, because that's where they debunk themselves.
Usually they'll debunk themselves in the last paragraph.
So I probably got caught on this one.
It looks like it.
And, but did you notice anything missing from this story?
So the story says that there's no indication that there were documents and they just sort of retell the ABC story.
But what did CBS and Catherine Herridge not report on?
I don't believe that they confirmed that the billionaire actually heard any secrets.
Wouldn't that be the most obvious thing to confirm?
And wouldn't that billionaire have some kind of an office that you could contact and at least get a no comment?
But wouldn't it be more likely that he would have a comment, given that he's the center of all news in the United States at the moment?
Seems like he'd have a comment.
Don't you think you would include in this report?
Well, there's no documents involved, but we did talk to the billionaire involved and he confirms, or he does not confirm, the ABC report.
Isn't that, like, obviously missing from this?
Right?
Now, maybe it was there and I missed it, but to me it looked like all they did is talk about ABC's reporting.
That's a little odd.
So, here's my next question.
Do you think that Russians didn't know the number of warheads that our missiles carry?
How many think they didn't know that?
Now, I've been told by somebody who actually has been on nuclear submarines, that at least during, I think it was the START Treaty or something, The Russians would actually be on our submarines counting the number of warheads because it was part of the treaty.
Are you aware of that?
That, you know, in some time in our not too distant past, we let the Russians on the nuclear submarines so they can see the missiles themselves.
Now, I don't know if that treaty is being observed anymore.
I think it's not, right?
Not being observed.
But do you think our technology has changed that much?
Don't you think most of our submarines are pretty much the same submarines we had whenever we were doing that?
Like we don't really change out our submarines that often.
So maybe we've got a new submarine that's like better, got a few extra warheads or something, but I feel like it wouldn't make any difference.
If both sides have so many nukes that you can guarantee the other side would be wiped out.
Would it really matter if a nuclear submarine had 30 warheads versus 50?
Would that make any difference to anything?
It doesn't feel like it would.
So again, I believe I'm the only person you'll ever hear question whether this is really secret stuff that would make any difference.
And the whole thing about how close you could be to the submarine before detecting it.
I'm just going to give you my real world feeling about that.
And you tell me if anybody has mentioned this in the news yet.
All right.
So in the news.
They said Trump said that one of the secrets was that how close we could get to a Russian submarine with their own submarine without being detected.
Now that's the news.
May I move you into the real world for just a moment?
Here's what the real world looks like.
Hey, Scott, how close can our nuclear submarines get to a Russian submarine without detection?
What does Scott say?
Let's say Scott's the expert.
What does Scott say?
If I'm going to give you the real answer.
Do I say, well, it's exactly 100 yards.
Do I say that?
In the real world, ever?
Ever.
Nope.
Here's what I say.
You know.
You know what I say, right?
Thank you.
At least we have at least one engineer in the group.
It depends.
Here's what I say.
Well, under some conditions, if the submarine were doing this or that, they could probably spot us three miles away.
But if we were running silent, We might be able to get within a hundred yards, but it's very uncertain because there are lots of variables.
Now, it would also depend which sensor we were close to.
If we were close to one of their, you know, this or that class submarine, probably they couldn't get us within five miles.
But if we were close to one of their good submarines and we're not entirely sure how much technology they have, so we'd be guessing about what they have, but we think it might be somewhere between a hundred yards and three miles.
All right.
That's what the real world looks like.
Do you think that if, if Trump gave anybody, even if he told Putin himself one number, like how close we can get to a sub, would that be useful?
Do you think the Russians would say, finally, we got that number.
We thought it was going to be highly variable.
You know, depending on lots of different things, but no, it turns out it's 153 yards.
So if we just, you know, if we could just get within 153 yards of them, we got them.
We got them.
Now watch what happens in the next weeks or months that this story is still live.
And by the way, does it seem to you that this story died already because the other networks are not buying it?
Does it feel to you like ABC was a little bit out there alone?
Because even CBS just reported what ABC said that I don't think they added anything to it, except they talked to somebody who said there was no document involved.
But I think we knew that.
OK, so so see if anybody else or any network has a conversation about whether the alleged secrets would have any military value in the real world.
Watch.
That conversation won't happen.
Now, I agree that you shouldn't be giving away any secrets.
I'm just saying that you have to put it in context.
I mean, if he is the president, he does get to... Well, he wasn't the president then, so I take that back.
Allegedly, he wasn't the president when he was talking about it.
All right.
So here's the next category.
The story is what I call things are exactly what you suspected.
Have you observed that the Democrats have one key strategy?
I'll call it a system.
That's freaking awesome.
And the system works like this.
They make sure that whatever entities or groups anywhere, whether it's locally or international, Has somebody that's one of their loyalists in charge.
So they just make sure that there's, you know, one of their loyalists is trying hard for one of those jobs.
And there are a lot of people in the Democrat Party toward the top who have Ivy League educations and great resumes.
So it's a whole bunch of people who can get top jobs in a lot of different places.
So they make sure that their people are in top jobs in the most critical places, such as local prosecutors, DAs.
Right.
So they've, they figured out these little choke points where if they have Democrats in those offices, they can rule the world.
And here's another example of that.
So Joe Biden has nominated, uh, one of Hunter Biden's old work colleagues to lead the office that protects whistleblowers.
Right.
Is there anything else to say about that?
Right.
Somebody who worked with Hunter Biden is going to be in charge of making sure that the whistleblowers are all treated well.
It's almost, it's beyond ridiculous.
Now, I do understand that Washington is a small enough place that Hunter Biden probably knew a lot of people.
I mean, he said, had dinner with Tucker Carlson, Tucker says.
So he knows a lot of people, but still.
I feel like the entire system is just this times a million.
It's just putting your friends in places where they can protect your other friends.
That seems to be the entire play and it works.
It's fricking brilliant.
And I don't think the Republicans have anything like it, do they?
I'm not aware.
I just saw the most NPC comment I've ever seen in my life.
I have to read this.
Scott has bought her about Hunter Biden.
Yeah, that sums up my entire philosophy of life.
I'm butthurt about Hunter Biden.
That's like the least intellectual comment anybody ever made in the history of the internet.
So good job there.
All right.
More on the topic of everything is exactly the way you think it is.
Boston University loaned $600,000 to a mysterious trust run by Ibram Kendi's brother-in-law to buy a house, I guess.
So, didn't you imagine that Ibram Kendi and his anti-racist thing that raised, I don't know, tens of millions of dollars, didn't you imagine that was all grifty?
And all the evidence coming out is highly suggestive That it was no more honest than Black Lives Matter, which turned out to be just a money grift.
There were good intentions among the people, but the organizers were seem to have been money grifters.
Alright, well, there's a story about Morning Joe.
Joe Scarborough on his show showed some polls, Gallup polls, that are pretty devastating if you're a Democrat.
So all of the top You know, the issues that seem pretty important, at least for the economy.
Republicans are just destroying Democrats in terms of who is trusted to handle things such as inflation and the economy in particular.
But the Democrats still have a lead in abortion.
So they dominate the opinions on that.
And they have a lead in climate change.
So the public thinks that Republicans would be worse on climate change and worse on abortion.
Now, I'm old enough to remember when the biggest issue for Democrats was health care.
When was the last time we talked about health care?
Did that get solved?
Did we solve health care?
And if we didn't solve it, why did it, why is it no longer the biggest problem?
Was it ever the biggest problem?
Or is this another obvious proof that we are assigned our opinions of what's important?
So now they're telling us that abortion and climate change are important, but what do those two things have in common?
They're both Democrat issues.
Now that Biden is in charge of, you know, things, Uh, now that healthcare doesn't seem like a big issue to them.
So suddenly all the things that were huge issues when the Republicans were in charge, now it doesn't matter a bit.
It doesn't matter a bit.
Now, I don't think that Obamacare solved healthcare.
Did it?
Although to its credit, it did get more people covered.
I'm going to tell you again, something that Obama did that was smart.
That I still, I just, I'm in awe of it because he called his shot before he did it.
That's the important part.
When Obama got, you know, his first Obamacare stuff passed, he said directly, it's not good, but it's going to be hard to get rid of it.
And it will improve over time.
He actually said it's not in his own words, but, but his strategy was to get it wedged in there where you couldn't get rid of it.
And then you would have to improve it over time.
And I think that's actually what happens.
Now, I'm not saying it's a good system, but I believe it has improved over time.
And instead of, you know, disintegrating, which some people imagined, more people are signed up.
So that would suggest that the market likes it if more people are signing up compared to the alternative of not being covered, I guess.
Yeah, I'm not saying it's good.
Yeah, I'm not going to support the cost of it or the complexity or any of that.
I'm just saying it looks like it's succeeding in the marketplace compared to whatever the alternative is, which is not much.
Yeah.
Theory of large numbers.
Yeah.
There's always going to be somebody who likes it.
But more about these polls.
Are you surprised that the polls are massively toward the Republicans now, especially in law and order and economy?
If you think things have gone too far, I would argue that things are going to have to go farther.
Because every day that goes by of the Biden administration and the cities being destroyed and the border being opened and leftists being gunned down on the streets and video of carnage, etc.
Every bit of that is making it less likely there will be Democrat leadership in the future.
At the moment, if we simply had an election immediately, we'd probably have something like a split government.
But the only way you get to the other side of this is if things become so bad and the country becomes so unlivable that both houses go Republican and the presidency does too.
Short of that, there's no point in having an election.
Because it's just going to be, you know, jammed up, locked up government.
With mixed power.
So if things don't get a lot worse, they'll never get better.
Well, America is like an alcoholic.
We have to hit bottom.
We have not hit bottom.
Would you agree?
We've not hit bottom.
There's a lot of bottom to go, but we're getting close.
I mean, you could, you could feel the bottom coming, but we're not there.
Well, when you heard that members of Congress sleep in their offices because it's too dangerous to go home at night.
That's not quite the bottom.
Because it's just that city.
When nobody wants to go outside after 6 PM anywhere in the city, let's say that might look like the bottom.
And I think we're rapidly approaching that.
So I don't know if I'm Honestly, I don't know what's better for the country if we get much worse fast so that there's some chance we'll have a corrective force.
Because if it doesn't get much worse, even the Democrats won't be able to see it.
Because the Democrats are so hypnotized at this point that they honestly, they have no idea what's going on.
I would say 80% of their base has no idea what's going on.
So it's going to have to get much worse and then it'll get better.
Um, Trump is filing some big old motion to dismiss, uh, the charges related to January 6th under some kind of, I was president and presidents have immunity.
So, but I'm not sure how that, I don't even understand it because immunity doesn't last till, till your end of office, or is it only things he did under the, under the Yeah, so I don't understand it, but experts say there's some chance that a lot of the charges could be swept away by the Supreme Court saying that he can't be charged.
But it would take a long time for the Supreme, well, I don't know how long, but it would take a while for the Supreme Court to rule, which would put all of the trials on hold.
That alone might be worth doing.
It's for what he did in his official capacity.
Yeah.
Are you telling me that presidents can't be charged for anything they do in their official capacity?
Nothing?
Could he actually shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue if he's president?
And he wouldn't be charged?
And he wouldn't be charged after?
And he actually wouldn't be charged even after the presidency?
Not federally.
Oh, because there's still a state issue.
Well, if the states can charge him, he doesn't really have much going for him, so that doesn't seem right.
No, he could be charged, says the only person who knows the real answer.
All right, we do think he could be charged.
I don't know the ins and outs of this law, so I won't talk about it.
Now, let's talk about Israel.
Israel is at war.
And I say that as opposed to a mere incursion or a missile attack.
There's actually a physical war where Hamas has invaded Israel.
And they're taking prisoners and slaughtering people in the streets.
They shot 5,000 missiles.
They've got drones.
They're dropping on Israelis.
The Iron Dome is reportedly down.
That's Israel's defensive thing for the air defense.
I don't know if it's down because it was overworked or overrun, or the terrorists got to it somehow, or it just broke.
I don't know the details.
But 5,000 missiles without an Iron Dome is a lot of destruction.
Now, of course, to make this political, we have to say the following.
Hamas never would have done this if President Trump was in the White House.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think Hamas never would have done this if Trump had been in the White House?
I don't believe it.
I think Hamas is on their own timeline.
How about the fact that Biden did this prisoner swap in which it released $6 billion back to Iran.
It was their own money, but he released it back to them.
And the thought is that that $6 billion is what funded Hamas and emboldened them to make this attack.
Do you think that those are directly related?
Directly?
Because, you know, money is fungible.
You know, money can be spent on anything.
It doesn't have to be spent on one thing.
You don't think that the entire budget of Iran has, you know, beaten down as it is?
You don't think they had an extra, you know, billion or so for Hamas?
I don't know what it costs to launch this attack, but it wasn't six billion.
I don't know.
So I would say that the connection to the funding is non-direct, but a good political point.
I mean, if they had less money, they could do less stuff.
That's true.
But I'm not sure they wouldn't have done this.
But certainly you have to ask that question.
The releasing of money probably made a difference.
The hostage taking is the scary part, because it looks like the hostage taking was a big part of their strategy.
Because that's the one thing that they can milk forever, because you don't want to bomb where the hostages are.
I would expect Netanyahu to go stronger than anybody's ever gone against the Gaza territory, where Hamas is coming out of.
And I think Gaza could be in for a really bad week.
Now, Can we get to the fact where I'm a fucking racist?
Scott, Scott, you did not say enough about the plight of the Palestinians.
So I'm racist that way.
Scott, Scott, you did not cry.
You did not cry.
So therefore you don't care about the poor Israelis.
Are we done?
Did everybody get their dumb fuck opinion that I said one word more about one side than the other, so therefore I'm a fucking idiot?
Can all the NPCs, can you just dance around a little bit so I know that you heard me?
Oh, oh!
Two words less, that one side.
He's taken a side.
Thank you, NPCs.
I want you to have full power.
Power up, NPCs.
Tell me that I didn't say enough about, or the thing I should have said, or the thing I said twice is really, really telling you what's in my deep, dark soul.
Come on, cry about it.
Cry!
Cry, you bastards.
All right, that's enough of that.
All right, well, it's a huge tragedy, and it matters, and certainly wishing the best for Israel.
Here's what I think.
I don't think Trump would have had much to do with any of this.
I think it would have been largely the same as this.
I do suspect that Iran is emboldened by both being closer to a nuclear breakout, presumably, but also that Biden is not functional.
Do you think Iran has not noticed that Biden is non-functional?
Of course they have.
Of course they have.
Now, I'm not sure that China would be this dumb and move on Taiwan, because that would guarantee some kind of reaction.
But I think Iran knew that it was a good time to attack because Israel wouldn't have the kind of support it might ordinarily have.
All right.
Our government is not functioning at full capacity.
That is correct.
That's what it looks like.
It looks like we're not functioning at full capacity.
Tehran would be afraid Trump would nuke them.
No, they wouldn't.
Trump would not.
Trump would not threaten a nuclear first strike on Iran.
He would never do that.
Well, here's another example of why DeSantis is losing badly.
He did a response about the Hamas attack on Israel, and this was his wording.
The dastardly terrorist attack.
Okay, I'm done.
He said dastardly.
You can't become president if you use the word dastardly.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, Ron DeSantis.
Yeah, you need to get a little bit, a little bit more punch.
You know, I want those words to be You know, wet and powerful.
Dastardly.
Dastardly is a dried up piece of wood, you know, that's in a forest somewhere.
It's like, it's the deadest word you'll ever say.
Dastardly!
He sounds like a cartoon villain.
We're being attacked by the dastardly Hamas.
Yeah, that's why he's not going to be president.
He says things like dastardly.
Well, let's do an update on right-leaning people who are being attacked and being taken out with hip pieces.
So the Daily Beast took a run at Christopher Ruffo, who is one of the big advocates against the woke stuff happening everywhere, and wrote a horrible piece in which they slandered him for Alleged association with bad people.
However, Christopher Ruffo and his attorney, I think, went hard at the Daily Beast and actually got them to change their, change the language in their headline.
And I think they changed one other thing.
So he did actually get them to back down and thoroughly embarrass themselves.
But the thing you need to know.
Is this, um, the Daily Beast is a hit piece publication.
They've come after me maybe three to five times.
So the Daily Beast tries to eliminate me from public life like every once a year.
I think they come after me on a regular basis.
They are not a legitimate publication.
They are just a Democrat attack dog.
And so they went after Christopher Ruffo, but apparently he did well and attacked back.
Then let's see, over at MSNBC, a fellow named Mehdi Hassan, he said that Elon Musk claimed that hate speech isn't a problem on Twitter because a reporter was once unable to cite a single example.
Do you think that's a good framing of what happened?
This is something he actually says in public, Mehdi Hassan does.
Elon Musk has claimed that hate speech isn't a problem on Twitter because And the word because is where he is an asshole.
Because a reporter was once unable to cite a single example.
Now, here's what's true.
It is true that there was once a time that one reporter couldn't come up with an example.
Is it true that therefore, because of that one reporter, that Elon Musk believes there's no problem because that one reporter, that one time?
That's what idiot Mehdi Hassan is telling you.
He's telling you that the smartest person on the planet Thinks that one person saying one thing and not knowing something tells him everything he needs to know about the communications on the platform he owns.
Nobody would think that.
Not even the dumbest person in the world would have that opinion.
But now Medius put that in his mouth so that he can now debunk the thing that was never true.
So now he's going to give, he's assigned Elon a dumb opinion, like the opinion that you'd have to have an IQ of 50 to have, and now he's going to debunk it.
And how does he debunk it?
Well, how would you debunk somebody who's using an anecdote for their opinion?
Now, that's what he says Elon is doing, is using one anecdote of one person, one time, didn't have an example.
So that's just an anecdote, right?
Well, you fight that by showing some other anecdotes, because after having proven that anecdotes are stupid, you make your argument based on them.
That's what he's doing.
First he says, using anecdotes is stupid.
And then he says, watch my anecdotes.
And you're watching this and you're thinking, is this the dumbest fucking guy in the entire world?
Or does he think we are?
How does that even make sense?
All right.
So we found, uh, he and his researchers easily found over two dozen examples of some kind of hate speech.
Now, Do you believe that there's hate speech on the X platform?
Anybody?
Of course.
Because it's a platform with the public speaking on it.
So we all know that.
Do you believe that the hate speech on X is exclusively white people talking about other people?
Would that be what now?
I thought that's what hate speech is.
I thought hate speech is white people saying bad shit about everybody else.
Because his examples were all white people saying bad shit about other people.
Well, now I'm confused.
Now he did throw in yay.
He put Kanye in there because he was associated with somebody else, but I've got a feeling that the yay part was just so they weren't all white.
You know what I mean?
So, Maddy Hassan, who apparently is a gigantic racist, as are his researchers, they could only find hate examples from white people.
Isn't that weird?
You got this big old platform with every kind of person using it, and we know that whenever there's a big population of people, some of the people from every demographic group are just terrible people.
Every group.
But yet, when they looked, they could only find these hate examples From white people, plus the one person that Republicans liked who wasn't white, according to him, I guess, which would be Ye.
I'm joking.
Republicans like people in general.
So.
I don't know, this is the most racist thing I've seen today.
Singling out white people for, well, no, it's the second most racist thing I've seen today.
So AOL's Oyster thing.
Oysters?
Yeah.
AOC is oyster funding for only non-white people.
That's pretty racist.
And now this Mehdi Hassan can only find bad examples from white people, it turns out.
So pretty racist.
So that's the hip piece.
So we've got the hip piece against Christopher Ruffo, the hip piece against Musk, Now there's also pieces against the libs of TikTok.
Oh, this is interesting.
So the libs of TikTok, which basically just re-shows videos that are legal and already on platforms, doesn't make anything up.
Simply shows Democrats, other Democrats, and shows other people as well.
And so Chaya Raychik, who is the name behind libs of TikTok, Showed a screenshot of all the comments that she received recently.
It's just the most hateful thing I've ever seen in my life.
Do you think that Mehdi Hassan, do you think that he included these examples of the people hating the libs of TikTok?
No, no.
This was not the kind of hate speech he's against, apparently.
He's apparently against one kind of hate speech.
Very specific he is, and very racist.
Anyway, then let's see who else has got a hit piece.
Oh, Mike Benz.
Yes, we were all expecting this.
Mike Benz actually forecast it.
He told you there would be hit pieces against him because he was getting too close to the source.
So Mike Benz, B-E-N-Z, I've talked about him a number of times.
He does these great threads and videos in which he explains the gears of the machine.
So you can understand both historically and currently how the intelligence operatives, you know, control the media, control us, and, you know, set up NGOs and all kinds of clever things to manipulate our belief systems.
So, of course, there's a big hit piece on him from somebody named Brandi Zadrosny, who is famous for being wrong, basically, and writing hit pieces.
So, One of the ways you can tell it's a hit piece is who they get to write it.
Respectable people who have good careers are not going to jump into the hit piece business.
It's people who have done them before, or their careers are not in a great place, or they're famous for only doing bullshit.
So the hit piece people are specific people.
They're not just everybody.
But he was accused of being behind some account that was running In 2017, 2018, and said things which they said were anti-Semitic.
Anti-Semitic.
So here's some things you should know about Mike Benton.
His relatives died in the Holocaust or escaped it, I guess.
He went to Hebrew school until he was 17.
And would call himself not just Jewish, but like super Jewish.
And it turns out that the entity, which he was a member of, which were accused of saying anti-Semitic things, was set up to battle anti-Semitism.
And they were doing it in a unique way.
So if you saw it out of context, it could look like it was anti-Semitic.
But if you understood the larger mission, you could see that they were engaging people to try to make progress against anti-Semitism.
So just to hold this in your head, there's somebody who is not just Jewish, but in his own words, sort of extra Jewish, like not just a little bit Jewish, like fully in Jewish.
And he was accused of being anti-Semitic because he was trying to battle against anti-Semitism.
Now that's his view.
Remember?
So I'm giving you his view that the group was an anti-Semitism, anti-anti-Semitism group.
And that it was just taken out of context.
Now, what do you believe?
Do you believe the person who wrote the piece, which I've primed you by telling you it was a piece, or do you believe Mike Benz, who was the subject of it, who of course would be defending himself in this situation, who sounds more believable?
Do you think the guy who went to Hebrew school until he was 17 had an anti-Semitic Not just like one comment or something, but like a whole, a whole operation.
Yeah.
So do you see the, uh, do you see the pattern?
So the left is targeting and removing, uh, the most effective voices almost in the order of how effective they are.
It's almost like they're, they're going down the list.
All right.
We got Tucker Carlson.
Who's next?
We got this guy.
We got this guy.
Who's next?
So that's their game.
And like I said, those of us who are the subjects of the personal attacks, I put myself in that category.
We're going to take, yeah, we're going to take the hit because we can.
We can survive a hit.
But you're going to have to watch this thing get worse.
Watch the cities hit bottom.
Watch the border situation hit bottom.
And by the way, I'm not hearing any more reports about the Sinaloa people getting out of the fentanyl business.
Are you?
I saw one report on that and then some reports about that one report.
But does anybody believe that's happening?
I'm pretty skeptical that that's happening.
Yeah.
Yeah, and the Maui reports.
I don't believe anything about Maui anymore.
Yeah, the cartels getting out of the business was propaganda.
This sounds like it.
Sounds like propaganda.
All right.
San Francisco is closing up their what?
Commercial zones?
They were protecting their monopoly, maybe.
The news forgot about Maui.
Yeah, what happened to the number of children who were missing?
Did we ever get a number on that?
El Chapo speaks for all cartels?
I don't think he does.
Yeah, I don't believe the cartels are getting out of the fentanyl business.
Yes.
And I don't think Maui is a land grab by Oprah lovers.
I mean, certainly there will be opportunists who are making offers.
But still at 97?
What's the death count in Israel today?
Somebody said it's over 100, but I don't know how you could count it that quickly.
Any chance Hezbollah has been coming in from Mexico?
go.
Yes, there's a chance that every kind of terrorist has come in over the border.
I mean, why wouldn't they?
It would be almost ridiculous to assume.
Kind of ridiculous, wouldn't it?
Now, here's the thing I don't understand.
I need some Israel information.
I would assume that most Israeli households, especially if they're closer to any disputed zones, they would all have heavy weapons in the house.
Heavy as in, you know, rifles and lots of ammo.
Am I wrong about that?
They're not all armed to the teeth, all the settlers?
Do they maybe not have weapons for religious reasons?
Because I saw some videos, and you can't trust anything in the fog of war, but I saw some videos that looked like Israelis, you know, looking out their windows from apartments and the PLO, well, who are they?
Hamas.
And that Hamas, you know, armed Hamas people coming down their street.
And I thought to myself, you couldn't do that in America.
Could you?
But the Americans would just open fire from their windows because so many homes have firepower.
But wouldn't the Israelis have weapons in their homes?
Only the reservists?
Aren't they pretty much all reservists because they've all been in the military?
I guess they might want to rethink that.
So I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm surprised.
I'm surprised that Hamas can walk down the street anywhere that I don't know what's going on there.
I'll tell you the scariest things were the videos of what looked like them taking prisoners.
And that is bad, bad stuff.
If you had to predict where this is going, what would you predict?
You know, I always say the same thing about the Palestinians and about Hamas.
They certainly have an argument to be made about their treatment or their situation.
Everybody's got an argument.
So they've got their argument.
But I can't get past the fact that the way to get what they want is not going to be militarily.
Imagine if they just said, hey, we'll put down our arms, but we want to open this up to international transparency.
We'd like the entire world to see our plight.
With full transparency.
And then we have this set of complaints, and it might be stuff like water rights and traveling, economic stuff.
And then say, we'll get rid of all of our weapons in return for $50 billion.
So if we can get $50 billion to rebuild We'll keep everything transparent, get rid of our weapons and we'll make the best of it.
But we got to, we got to solve these specific problems where we think we're being discriminated against.
Now, if they did that and it didn't work out, then I would have a lot of sympathy for the people who are suffering, whatever they're complaining about.
However, if military force is the way they're trying to get it, Then whatever response they get to their military force, I'm going to have a hard time.
Feeling bad about it because cause and effect is still a real thing, right?
If you do something that you know will cause a certain response, I can't feel bad for you.
That's why you bought, you know, you broke it, you bought it.
So, um, I will watch and hope that nobody dies over there.
Of course.
That would be ridiculous.
Yeah, the religion, the religious beliefs do not allow them to play nice.
As long as that's the case, Israel has a free punch.
So what I think is that this will give Israel the freedom to do some things that they couldn't have done.
It wouldn't have been politically acceptable.
So I think they're going to get savage in a way that we haven't seen before.
Yeah, they've declared war.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but declaring war lets them do basically anything.
You know, they're going to have to do what they can to reduce civilian casualties, but they're not going to stop doing anything because of them if it's a war.
So I've got a feeling they might go all the way into Iran.
What would be the best way for Israel to address this?
Attack Iran or attack Hamas?
They'll definitely attack Hamas.
But I'm wondering if they should just take over Iran.
Because otherwise Iran will just keep funding idiots who want to go attack and risk themselves.
So there's no way you could stop, there's no way you could stop Hamas by just beating them down.
Because they'll just be replaced.
Iran is a sovereign country.
So?
Like, that makes a difference.
That makes no difference.
I would not be surprised to see Israel do a decapitation strike on Iran.
Because I think the country could handle it.
I think the public opinion would actually support it right now.
What do you think?
If Israel literally took out the leadership of Iran, It would be supported not only more than you think within Iran, but, uh, yeah.
So that might happen.
I'm not recommending anything and, uh, I hate it when innocent people are getting killed.
Those are the rules.
There are no rules.
If there's one thing I can tell you over and over again, when it comes to self-defense, there are no rules.
There are problems, as in if you break one of somebody's law, you might have to answer for it, but there are no rules.
You have the moral and ethical right to do anything in self-defense.
That's my personal opinion.
Now, people aren't going to like it, and it might be a bad strategy to do anything, but morally and ethically, in self-defense, you can do anything you want.
So absolutely, if he killed the leadership of Iran, To handle this problem with Hamas?
Absolutely justified.
Completely.
It would be a problem, but it'd be justified.
The Geneva Convention shows Sure.
Fine.
War is war, though.
The Geneva Convention does not limit who you can attack if you're attacked.
I mean, they'd want to go after leadership and Military assets.
Remember that time Israel didn't claim self-defense?
Yeah, they're always going to claim self-defense.
I saw a thing that the birth rate in Canada fell.
So Canada's looks like Canada's lost.
Israel defending itself will change our views.
Yes.
I would expect Israel to get a lot of pushback for whatever comes next.
But I guess here's my bottom line.
You could blame Israel for creating a situation that, you know, causes some group to act up.
But as long as that group only wants to use violence and they're not really considering other means to address their grievances, they lose all moral authority.
And so that gives Israel a free punch.
challenge.
Canada is a pincer attack.
All right.
Well, that's all I got for now.
Let me take a look at the comments over here.
Has everything been working on our multi-platform situation over on StreamYard?
Looks like it did.
Looks like it did.
All right, well, I'll check on these individually later.
And ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say bye on this three platforms, and then we're going to talk to the people on Locals privately.
