Episode 2257 Scott Adams: Coffee With Scott 10/10/23
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, President Trump, Rob Reiner, RFK Jr., Colonizer Slur, Harvard Hamas Support, Cultural Brainwashing, Iran Hamas Connection, Fungibility, Israel Hamas War, Saudi-Israel Relations, MBS, American Open Border, Low Testosterone Democrats, Hostage Execution Threats, Gaza Siege, War Drug Captagon, 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
Good morning everybody and welcome to the upgraded, technologically improved version of Coffee with Scott Adams, the best thing you've ever seen in your entire life.
I'd like to take it up to another level.
Wouldn't you?
I know, you would.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or sty and a canteen jug or flask or a vessel of any kind.
Yes, at the moment we're being held together by duct tape.
Literally.
But enough about that.
It's time now for the simultaneous sip.
Please join me.
It happens.
Now.
Go.
Oh, that's a nice mug you got there.
That's good.
VHS quality?
Are you kidding me?
This is the highest quality the show has ever been.
Got a new camera over here.
I can center myself a little bit better.
No, I can't because it's duct-taped down.
All right, let's talk about all the things.
Yes, we will talk about Israel.
But maybe not right first.
Let me warm you up a little bit before we get into the heavy stuff, okay?
Well, I don't know if you saw Trump give a speech yesterday or the day before, and I just gotta tell you that I was worried that he was losing a step, and maybe he is, but he gave the best speech I've ever seen.
Actually, not just the best for Trump, but maybe just the best thing I've ever seen a politician do for an extended speech.
Now, there are lots of speeches where somebody has, like, a good line.
You know, Martin Luther King, JFK.
They had a lot of memorable lines.
But I happened to turn on Trump at a rally.
Was it Foxborough or someplace?
I forget where it was.
Maybe something to remind me.
It's where he was the other day.
And it was the most relaxed.
It was in New Hampshire, yes.
It was the most relaxed, capable speech I've ever seen anybody give in public.
He was funny from start to finish.
He failed every fact check.
The fact checkers would go crazy.
But I was especially paying attention.
To see if, when he failed the fact-checking, that, you know, even I could tell, if it was ever directionally untrue.
And it wasn't.
It wasn't.
It was hilariously... I'm sorry, somebody said it wasn't streaming on Rumble.
Oh, that's interesting.
We've got some kind of a message going on there.
I'm live.
I'm live on Rumble.
Don't worry about it.
Rumble's live.
Anyway, I thought the contrast was striking because Biden is decomposing to the point where you wonder if Biden can even stay, you know, upright through a speech.
So at the same time, Biden has reached his lowest lifetime capability in public speaking.
Would you agree that that's true?
That Biden today Is that the lowest capability that he's probably ever been as an adult?
By contrast, and I didn't think this was going to be true, so we'll see if this is a trend.
Trump's speech was the best he's ever given.
He is peaking while Joe Biden is close to death.
How in the world is this going to be a close election?
Except for.
I know what your answer is going to be.
I know what your answer is going to be.
Shut up.
We all know what your answer is going to be.
Yes, you didn't have to put it in all capital letters.
All capital letters were not required.
All right.
So you should actually watch that.
I actually watched the whole speech for entertainment.
I had other things to do.
But I couldn't think of anything more entertaining than watching the rest of his speech.
It had nothing to do with work or anything else.
It was just flat-out entertaining.
Nobody can do that.
He's the only one who can do that.
The other thing I noticed is that Trump seems to, smartly, this would be the smartest thing he could do, it seems like he's dialed down the dangerous part a little bit.
You know, when you're first trying to make a name for yourself, You can be, you know, much more dangerous sounding, because you don't have to necessarily execute on any things you say.
But I think now as an ex-president, he can run on what he did compared to what's happening now.
It's a pretty big contrast.
And he doesn't need to make you afraid or excite you.
So he's talking more matter-of-factly, sort of like a dad who's figured it out.
Oh, that's what it is.
That's his vibe.
His vibe is a dad who has it figured out, and he's not wondering what to do.
Like, he knows what to do, and he's making jokes with you about why would you be dumb enough not to let him do it.
He knows how to solve all the problems.
So it's a really good vibe.
The relaxed dad is coming vibe, rather than the scary I'm going to go kill all the people and drain the swamp.
That stuff's a little alarming to his non-followers.
So I think he's made a good adjustment there, but I don't know if it was temporary.
RFK Jr.
announces independent run.
Can we agree that he has the worst luck with timing of any politician in the history of politicians with timing?
He timed his announcement in the middle of the Israeli war.
I don't think there was any other news yesterday, was there?
Was there any other news?
He was the only other news and he still couldn't get much coverage.
Well, I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking, RFK Jr.
is going to pull more votes away from Trump voters and make Trump not win.
Is that what you're thinking?
You might be right.
I'm waiting to see the poll results.
So I've decided to hold my opinion of who he would draw more from until you actually see.
I think we're going to read on this pretty soon.
You know, I would imagine the polling companies are coming up with questions to suss out what it will look like.
But notably, Rob Reiner, who you would imagine is Uh, as left and Democrat as you could possibly be.
He actually, well, he tweeted this.
We don't know what he believes.
I'm not going to act like I know what's in his head.
I'll just tell you what he tweeted.
Uh, so Rob Reiner tweeted this.
Bobby Kennedy Jr.' 's announcement to run as an independent is a dangerous and cynical move by wealthy Republicans to put Trump back in the White House.
Huh?
Huh.
I talked with Bobby.
And told him that what he was doing could destroy American democracy.
He didn't care.
He didn't care.
I read it like that.
He didn't care.
He's a director, so I feel like he would approve of me reading it with, you know, bringing my own skill to it.
He didn't care.
All right, here's what I want to tell you about Rob Reiner.
Number one, I don't think anybody knows less about the world or politics, or at least the way he demonstrated.
But I used to think that he just had something wrong with him, or that he was politically brainwashed.
I don't know if any of those things are true, but I'll tell you what made me feel a lot better about his tweets.
Now, you cannot say Meathead.
I will not allow it.
Only the NPCs will say Meathead.
If you say Meathead, I'm going to stop every single time and say, swimming is the best form of exercise.
Because it adds nothing also.
Yeah.
Anybody else?
Do we want to yell Meathead?
because swimming is really the best form of exercise.
I know it's fun.
You like to yell his TV name because it's It's so amusing.
Here's all I want to tell you.
When you look at Rob Reiner, if you think of him as performance art, which I do, it's actually quite entertaining.
Because I don't think a serious person would write any of this.
Let me ask you, what serious person would say in public that he doesn't think Bobby Kennedy Jr.
Wait.
Believes in American democracy or cares about it.
All right.
That's not really an opinion of a normal person, but it's also not the opinion of a insane person or a hypnotized or program person.
The only person who would say this is somebody who was performing.
Now, maybe, maybe I'm wrong.
All I'm saying is, if you read it with the frame of mind that it's performance art, it works perfectly.
Who in the world would say that Bobby Kennedy Jr.
doesn't care about ruining democracy?
No troll would say that.
It's just not like even a thing.
You would have to say that if you did it for effect.
That's something you would have to say for the effect it would have on the listener.
Not because you believe that.
Nobody would believe that.
So the effect he's trying to get in his performance is for us to say, my God, my God, how could anybody say that?
That a Kennedy who's done nothing but work that seems directly for the benefit of the public, and has this long legacy of benefit to the country and working for the benefit of the country, that really that person, that person doesn't believe in democracy.
So once you see it as a performance that doesn't bother you at all, you go.
Oh, that was pretty clever how you said that to get people worked up.
So try it, you'll like it.
Uhm, question we all have or you should have is what we're seeing happening in Israel.
Could some version of that happen in America?
Could the you know the attitudes Temperaments against each other turn into violence.
Well, I would say yes, because we're human beings and we're still part of history.
So history suggests that this stuff can happen pretty quickly and come out of almost nothing.
And I would suggest that we're seeing the first signs that I didn't realize that colleges are teaching students that there that some of the people in the United States are colonizers.
And that when they use the word decolonization, which apparently is now becoming popular in college curriculums, here's what I see when somebody calls me a colonizer.
To me, that's the N-word for white people.
If somebody calls you a colonizer, let's say you're a white person, to me that's just the N-word.
And it's a call to violence.
I don't recommend violence.
But just as if you were black, And somebody used the n-word in front of you in a, let's say, non-ironic way, your first impression would be violence.
And you know what?
I get that.
I don't recommend it.
Do not recommend violence.
But I get it.
Right?
If somebody uses the most insulting, just the most insulting word, we all have an immediate reaction to that.
If I hear somebody call me a colonizer, I want to punch their fucking head off.
Because it's a call to violence against me.
And so my reaction to violence against me is violence.
I mean immediately.
I don't recommend it and I'm not going to punch anybody's head off and you shouldn't either.
But I'm only describing the emotional reaction to it.
So you could use the word colonizer if you want to, but you're going to get the effect Of if you'd called me the n-word and I were black.
That will be the outcome.
Can't guarantee what will happen.
I can make no promises about the outcome of that interaction.
But calling anybody a colonizer or calling for decolonization to me is a call to kill white people.
Let me say it as directly as possible.
It's a call to kill white people.
Not right away.
Is this moving from sort of academic into the rest of the world?
But it's a clear indication that the direction is to murder white people.
So I do think that will.
I don't think that colleges will self correct, so we are creating a bunch of students who are primed to murder white people.
So it'd be amazing if it doesn't happen.
I think it will happen.
I think there will be waves of murderous decolonizers in our future.
Maybe five to ten years from now.
Hamas has killed over a thousand people in Israel.
And of course there are lots of casualties on the other side as well in Gaza.
Huge number of casualties.
But less reported is that Hamas also murdered Harvard.
Do you remember Harvard?
When you were young, didn't you think, oh my God, if somebody went to Harvard, there's somebody you can respect.
Like there's somebody who's got a, you know, a really good mind.
Somebody who's paying attention to their work, really trying to make a difference in the world, probably.
That's something.
Well, as of today, a notable Harvard alum are actually disavowing Harvard.
For being pro Hamas.
No, I might be.
That might be hyperbole to say they're pro Hamas, but I've read the statements from some of the student groups.
And it looks pro Hamas to me.
I mean, I don't think that's too far, but it might be a little too far.
So I say this without exaggeration.
If a young person, and this would not apply to anybody above, I don't know, 40 or something, if you're above 40 and you've got a Harvard degree, I have a lot of respect for you.
Actually, if you're above 35, something like that, I'm going to say, wow, you know, you really accomplished something.
You got into a tough place and made something of yourself.
But today I wouldn't hire a young Harvard graduate, would you?
How many of you would hire somebody who graduated from Harvard this year?
I mean, I suppose you would treat them individually and you'd still interview them.
But if I got even like a taste that they had bought into this cultural brainwashing, not a chance.
You would not want to bring that into your company.
So the weird thing that happened is that Harvard decided to be really, really open to be as diverse as they could, which is a good impulse.
I don't mind the diversity part.
I do think our institutions should have some representation that looks a little bit like the country.
So I don't disagree with that.
But the ironic thing is that they opened, they had this huge valuable asset called Harvard, and they opened it up to far more people who would not have had a chance to be there otherwise.
At the same time, they ruined its reputation.
so there'll be all these people it was like yay I got into Harvard And then when they go for a job, somebody's gonna say, really?
Harvard?
What year did you graduate?
2024?
Oh, that's a problem.
Yeah, now maybe what will happen is that there will be like a band of 10 years where people will say, you know what, I graduated Harvard and people say, what year?
And it's gonna make all the difference.
All right.
All right.
The big question in the news is, was Iran directly or indirectly involved in the Hamas attack on Israel?
There's nobody who thinks they weren't, right?
Don't we all just assume?
Is that even a question?
Because at the very least, Iran has been funding them and organizing them and encouraging them.
So whether they had a meeting about this specific event is a little less important, but for galvanizing public opinion, wouldn't it be nice if there was a specific meeting that you could point to?
Right?
It's one thing to say, oh, Iran backs them.
But that's not really even close to saying they had a specific meeting in which the Iranian officials green-lighted the operation.
Those really feel different.
Now remember, in the fog of war, you should assume that all the news is fake.
Some of it won't be, but if you want to be right 90% of the time, just assume everything's fake.
So we heard from one news outlet That they have some secret source that apparently the government of the United States does not have.
Because the government of the United States is not confirming that there was any meeting that they know of.
But it's been reported in the press.
Does that sound like a legitimate story to you?
Do you think that our intelligence people dropped the ball and they didn't realize that they need to make a more direct connection to Iran?
No, the story is obviously fake.
To me, it's obviously fake.
Now, here's what I'm saying and what I'm not saying.
I'm not saying Iran was uninvolved.
I'm sure they were.
And I'm not saying there was no meeting.
Let's see.
I'll say that without a double negative.
There might have been a meeting in which it was greenlighted.
But do you believe that there's a news organization Who had knowledge about a specific meeting in a specific time in a specific place?
I'm gonna say bullshit.
That's the sort of story you want the public to think is true because it's actually closer to the truth than whatever you had in your head.
Whether or not there was a specific meeting at a specific time in a specific place doesn't really matter.
It doesn't matter at all.
But how would you feel about it if you thought it were true?
The way you'd feel about it is you'd say, oh, we've got to directly do something against Iran.
But if it was more just background, well, they always support them and always have.
Their money is going there.
You'd say to yourself, ah, I really hate that they're funding them, but I guess we'll just keep going on the way we are.
What are you going to do?
What are you going to do?
So, to me that looks like an op.
I don't believe that that's true, but it's also entirely true that the United States government would intentionally be lying of it so that there were not greater calls for war.
It could suggest that the military-industrial complex and the intelligence services are not on the same page as Biden, which would not be too surprising, would it?
Would you be surprised if you found out the intelligence people disagreed with the administration?
I wouldn't be too surprised.
Because the intelligence people tend to stay there, while the governments change from Republican to Democrat.
At some point, you'd imagine that there would be disagreement between intelligence and the government.
So that's what it looks like.
But none of that should matter.
The least important question should be, was Iran involved?
Of course they were.
Like, why are we even talking about it?
Of course they were.
But I don't know about that specific meeting.
All right, what about fungibility?
Are you sick of hearing the word fungible?
By the way, I've never heard the word fungible so much.
I feel like I caused it.
I know I didn't, but it's like just an illusion.
Because I'm always one of the first people to say fungible.
Because if you're an economics major, it's just one of those words you like to show off with.
Oh, did you know?
I don't know if the zeitgeist has picked this up yet, but in my eponymous book, I do talk about the fungibility of oil and cash.
Yeah, so it's one of those douchebag words people like to pull out.
But since I'm usually one of the first douchebags, I thought, God, there's a lot of people saying fungible that didn't used to say that because the public doesn't know what it means.
But does that matter?
Does it matter if Iran used the six billion that was allegedly released?
It doesn't matter at all.
Do you think they wouldn't have done this except for that money that they have spent zero of?
Now, the Democrat argument is just so stupid.
They try to ignore fungibility as like a concept and just say that specific money, the specific six billion dollars, is still in the accounts and can only be used for specific things, and none of that money has actually been spent.
So therefore, it had nothing to do with it.
And then the Republicans say, If they knew that money was coming, were things they were going to spend their money on otherwise?
Didn't that free up the same amount of money conceptually, that at least budget-wise, they would say to themselves, well, we don't need to save money for humanitarian things because that's being taken care of.
And then do you know how the Democrats respond to that criticism?
I've seen it a million times.
If you watch the news, you'll see it over and over again.
How did the Democrats respond?
When you tell them that money is fungible.
I'll tell you how.
And let's see, moving on to the next question.
That's how.
I've never seen a Democrat have to answer the question.
Why do you think money can only be spent for one thing?
You know, you don't think people could adjust even mentally their budget.
I just want to see, you know, Jessica Tarloff on the five.
Just answer that question.
Jessica, do you understand how money works?
Like, you know, the dollar bills in my pocket?
You understand they're just as good as the dollar bills in your pocket, right?
Same thing.
Money.
Spongeable.
Anyway, I don't think the six billion dollar argument has any bearing on anything.
Completely irrelevant.
So the two things we'll talk about the most are the two least important things to know the answer to.
Yeah.
Did the six billion dollars make it make a difference?
It didn't.
Yeah, maybe it gave them more money.
But no, if they were going to do this, they were going to do this.
It's possible they waited until they got the six billion or thought they, but they don't even have it yet.
We can still pull it back.
They still don't have control over it.
I guess the US or somebody still has control over it.
Anyway, so don't think that the, is Iran involved?
Of course they are.
And is money fungible?
Of course it is.
Those are not real arguments.
Those are just TV arguments because they don't have enough footage of the actual damage happening right now.
Now here's the other thing you're not hearing on the news.
Why are we still talking about the Israeli army going door to door and having heavy losses when Israel calls it a siege?
Why don't we just listen to what they called it?
They called it a siege.
And they're letting people out who are non-combatants.
So, now I don't know if those people feel free to leave, but that really wouldn't be Israel's problem.
They have their own problems to deal with.
If Hamas wants to start killing its own people to prevent them from leaving so they can use them as human shields, that's just the way it has to go.
But I would imagine that Israel will now starve out the population to force them to move toward food and water.
Now, I was corrected on social media when I suggested that encouraging people to move toward the food and the water is the same as killing them all.
That it's all genocide.
I'm not sure that's the same.
I feel like moving people toward food and water and safety is a little bit better than murdering them.
Neither one are good.
So for the NPCs watching, yes, I know it would be an amazing hardship that I can't even imagine on the Gaza residents who are non-combatants.
I think the tragedy will be incredible.
It's also true that they had a non-viable society that was supported only by donations.
If you live in a non-viable society that's supported only by donations, something's going to happen.
And it's not going to be good.
So, in no special order, here's another argument that's pissing me off.
I support Israel and their right to defend themselves.
I've always been pro-Israel.
But there's some arguments that just piss me off because they're just too stupid.
And one of them is that Israel's the good guy because they allowed 18,000 workers from Gaza on a daily basis to come in and work in Israel.
18,000 out of a million adults when they have a 70% unemployment rate.
70% unemployment rate.
If you thought 18,000 was a big number, it's not really a big number when the only jobs that they have are on the other side of their own border.
So So that's a small number, but I will say that it's not nothing, right?
Letting 18,000 people a day, not knowing exactly if any of them could be dangerous is probably a little risky, but I imagine they go through some heavy vetting before they do it.
But 18,000 people, it's not nothing, but it's not a lot.
So don't imagine that that's like any big gift.
Because it's not.
Now, what about the question about the hardship that the Israelis have imposed on Gaza?
Because that would be the argument on the other side.
Well, here's the thing.
As long as Hamas wants to hide among them.
And has their support apparently to do it.
Israel doesn't owe them anything.
Because it's not their job to sort out the bad guys from the good guys in their population.
It's sort of the population's job.
And unfortunately, nobody can help.
Especially if they're hypnotized into thinking that they should be on their side.
Or if they're threatened, I suppose.
But Israel can't do anything about that.
Israel just has to protect itself.
As everyone does.
Alright.
I saw a report that you should not believe.
Because it was on a non-credible source, but people are tweeting it around.
They're reporting that Israel is using some kind of phosphorus bombs in residential neighborhoods.
No, I'm sorry.
That is just so on the nose.
Like, it's exactly what you were expecting to see.
A report of Israel using illegal munitions.
Why the fuck would Israel use illegal munitions in this fight?
It's, I mean, it's so, it's so impossible to believe.
Now, if Israel had an unorganized military where they couldn't guarantee that, you know, there was control of all the units, well, maybe anything could happen.
But that's not Israel.
They do have good, you know, command and control.
If you have command and control, And you're fighting not only for your survival, but for the hearts and minds.
You're not going to use even one illegal munition if you have any.
I mean, I'm guessing every military has some bad stuff they don't use.
But it's the least believable thing you're going to see today.
And they show a neighborhood that shows no people and could have been anywhere.
And it shows something like white powder drifting up or something.
Don't believe that one.
All right, if you had to bet on that one, you should bet against that one being real like 99 to 1.
All right.
So as I'm trying to get a feel for how people are thinking about the war in Israel.
I look to see how many things get retweeted and how much so if I Tweet something that gets a lot of retweets.
I say to myself, oh, I must have said something that other people were thinking too, but I guess I said it well.
So along those lines, when I did my thread on what it looks like is happening or why Hamas is doing it, it's already over 8 million views.
Now, if you don't use the X profile or the X platform, I will tell you that 8 million views on one of my tweets I only have a million viewers, but typically I would get 20,000.
A really good post of mine might get a quarter million, like that's really if I'm killing it.
Getting a million is pretty rare, a million views, but 8 million and growing is crazy.
So that means people didn't just agree, they like really agreed.
One of the things I have to correct, I have a correction.
Correction!
I gave you some incorrect news, some fake news yesterday.
I told you that Saudi Arabia had already broken off discussions of normalizing relationships, relations with Israel, which was reported, not reported, it was on social media, but not true.
Not true.
They might be suspended.
Right, but suspended means, you know, delayed, anything could happen.
However, so I'm acknowledging my fake news there.
However, it does put Saudi Arabia in the narrative saddle.
Here's what I mean.
If Saudi Arabia waits a little while, and then they say, you know what?
Israel, you bastards, we can never do business with you.
It's cancelled forever.
That changes the narrative to maybe Hamas had a point.
Right?
That's a big, big problem to the hearts and minds.
But suppose the opposite, and this might be the only time the opposite is actually a possibility.
Suppose the Crown Prince Who has so far shown himself to be the ultimate practical leader, meaning he'll do some bad stuff if he thinks he needs to.
He'll do some good stuff if he thinks he needs to.
And he seems like a dealmaker.
I said that before the Abraham Accords, that there was this weird situation where Trump, Netanyahu, and MBS, the Crown Prince, they were all dealmakers.
By their nature, their personalities, they like to make deals.
And so I wasn't surprised when the Abraham Accords happened, because it was dealmakers.
But he's still a dealmaker.
Netanyahu, still a dealmaker.
Biden's in charge, so that takes away, you know, the strongest dealmaker of the three potential.
However, imagine if you're MBS, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and imagine what it would do to the hearts and minds of everybody.
If after the waiting a few weeks to see what atrocities pop up, because there will be reports of atrocities.
There will be reports, true or not true, of Israeli atrocities.
You know that, right?
You can guarantee there will be reports of atrocities.
Oh, I just told you one.
I mean, the alleged, but almost certainly not true, use of illegal munitions.
That's a report of an atrocity.
Almost guaranteed to not be true.
But you're guaranteed to hear them.
So I guarantee that some of them, if not most, would not be true.
But I always want to say that in war, there's nobody who's completely good.
Right?
Once the soldiers have guns and the bullets start flying, people can do anything.
So I don't know.
Maybe there would be an atrocity.
Anything could happen from individuals.
Obviously, the government's not going to sanction it.
But anything could happen.
But just assume that any reports you see are 99% unlikely to be true.
Anyway, so imagine if the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia said, you know what?
I've watched how events have played out over the last month or so, because this is going to last a long time.
I've watched how events have played out, and I've decided I'm not going to pick a winner or a loser.
And I'm just going to go ahead with this deal.
That would change everything.
It would just kneecap Hamas because it would kind of say they've gone too far.
Basically, it would just be saying, I can't support them.
They've gone too far.
And that would probably be a huge positive in the region.
It would isolate Iran.
All right.
Do you think that terrorists are coming through our borders right now?
And that it's inevitable we'll have some kind of mass event like this, where multiple gunmen in multiple places attack at the same time.
Well, Elon Musk said, and I quote, only a matter of time.
Because apparently dozens of known terrorists have gone through the border.
How do we know that?
How do we know that known terrorists went through the border?
Doesn't that mean there was some point where we were looking at their paperwork?
Like, what are the mechanics of that?
What's that look like?
It's like, alright, your name, alright, says known terrorist.
Known terrorist, why are you here?
Are you here for business?
No, no, I'm not going to do any terrorism.
I'm here to apply for asylum.
Because I think people are after me.
Yeah, yeah, they might be after you.
Because you're on the terrorist watch list.
I'm here for asylum.
I don't have any specific charges against you, but I do have this law that says I have to let you in.
Approved.
Walk right in, sir.
Is that what happened?
No, I don't think that happened.
But what actually did happen?
How in the world could we know that there are two dozen terrorists here?
How do we know it?
Unless we talked to them, interviewed them, took their picture, looked at their paperwork, had them sign something.
Are you a terrorist?
Yes, I am, sir.
Applying for asylum?
Yes, I am.
Go right in.
Well, here's my second question.
If there are two dozen known terrorists in the country, can't we find them in one day just by publishing their photos?
You just have to tell the public who they are.
If you think they're terrorists and they're here illegally, I'd like to know who they are.
I'd like to see a picture of their face, because if they live next to me, I might have to plan accordingly.
You know, at least move.
At the very least, let me move, right?
I don't have to take matters into my own hands, but I'd like to defend myself from the, you know, presumed terrorists.
All right.
I would agree that mass terrorist attacks in the United States are guaranteed at this point.
Guaranteed.
I agree with Elon on that.
The current system guarantees it.
You know, I often tell you that design is destiny.
We're designed to attract attacks because the borders open.
That's the design.
So if you're predicting that it won't happen, You're not really looking at the design.
It's designed to happen.
It's guaranteed.
It's built right into the engineering of our country right now.
All right.
Here's a question.
What if men were in charge of the country?
Do you think the border would be open if men were in charge?
Now, I'm not suggesting this.
It's not a practical idea.
But what if women just couldn't vote?
The border would be closed, wouldn't it?
Do you know why?
In my entire life, I've never met a man who would put up with an open border and lawlessness pouring in.
I've never met a man.
Now you're saying, but Scott, Scott, Scott, there are plenty of Democrats who identify as male and do say we should keep it the way it is.
Well, there's clearly a testosterone effect here.
Like, I don't mean to be insulting, but when you see somebody who identifies as a man saying that it's okay to keep the borders porous, they're low-T.
I hate to tell you, there's nobody with a high testosterone who thinks the borders should be open.
And can we say that out loud?
Will I get canceled for that?
It's obvious.
It's obvious.
So let's just call it like this.
We're acting like it's the Democrats who want the border open.
It's kind of women.
Now, not Republican women, but it's women.
The open border is a woman problem and a low-T problem, and our political parties have divided pretty much along those lines.
The high-T men And the women who like men with testosterone are on one side and the low T men and the women who don't want strong men anywhere around them are on the other side.
So I see this as almost a chemistry problem as opposed to a political problem.
If our chemistry were right and our testosterone had not dropped for the last 40 years, the border would be closed.
And by the way, this is one of the few opinions in which I have 100% confidence.
Most of what I say, and I try to say it this way, I talk in terms of the odds.
Well, you know, there's a 50% more chance this will happen or 99.
I just just use the odds.
99% chance these stories are false.
I like to talk that way.
But not in this case.
Because this is just direct.
If if the Democrats had The same amount of testosterone as the Republicans, we wouldn't have this problem.
If you back this up to the root cause, it's not politics, and it's not Trump.
It's low tea.
This is just a low testosterone problem.
I mean, let's call it what it is.
It is a low testosterone problem.
No man leaves his family unprotected.
If it's easy to do this.
If it's easy to solve it as in close the border, we know how to do that stuff.
No man with the normal amount of testosterone agrees to that situation.
No man.
So we should call it what it is.
It's a, it's a chemical imbalance, which has had a ripple effect on our border, which will get a lot of us killed for sure.
It'll get a lot of us killed.
So low T is deadly.
Um, Actually, low testosterone will kill more people, probably, than coronavirus.
You know, if you have any mandatory shots, it should be testosterone boosters for Democrats.
Am I right?
If the point of giving somebody a mandatory shot is to make the country safer, right?
It's not for the individual.
Do we agree with that?
The fact that shots are ever mandatory is for the benefit of the whole.
It's not about the individual.
I mean, we want them to do well, too, but that's not the point of a mandate.
If it were only about the one person, it'd be like cigarettes.
Well, we recommend against cigarettes, but you're only killing yourself, so free country, go ahead.
But we don't do that with shots, because it's about the whole.
If you want to protect the whole, give Democrat men Testosterone boosters because it's the only chance we'll be able to defend the country.
I've got a feeling that's going to be a viral clip.
We'll see.
All right, well, I have an idea for fixing the situation with Hamas and America too.
And this is this is a recommendation for just Democrats.
Republicans can set this one out because you guys don't know how to solve anything.
But Democrats have a solution for the open borders as well as Hamas, which is to open their doors and allow the Hamas people and also all the people streaming across the border to have sanctuary in their homes.
Because we'd like them to be consistent with their opinions, and I think that we should help them.
Because they've got this problem where they want to be helpful to this group of people that they think are victims.
And rather than arguing with them, why don't we help them get what they want?
Which is them personally being as close as possible to the people who they say are safe and beautiful, but others who are bastards say that they could be dangerous in some way.
So I don't think Republicans should participate in this.
But I think the Hamas people would do really well with the low testosterone men in the Democrat Party.
And they're women.
They'd have a lot of fun with their women.
So that would be an excellent solution for both the cartel members who are streaming across the border and Hamas, who will need some place to go.
And that's something I call problem solved.
Portland.
There's the answer.
Just send them all to Portland.
Everybody wins, right?
Because Portland would say, absolutely, bring them here.
I got an extra cot.
I think that's a win-win.
We would have, of course, have to put a siege around Portland, but that's down the road.
Has anybody seen any news of Hamas executing any hostages?
I have not seen that.
I don't know that we would.
No news of that?
So, So they threatened that they would kill a hostage for every, I don't know, day or something, that Israel is attacking Gaza.
But yet there are no reports of it.
There are no reports.
Oh, somebody says they saw a few videos that weren't real.
All right, here's what I think will happen.
Given that Hamas is probably somewhat distributed and they probably don't have a good command and control, I would say there's a guarantee that some hostages will be killed and it will be filled.
Would you agree?
I think that leadership probably would not order it because it would be crazy.
It would be crazy to order it, but they are crazy.
I think individual like cells, you know, who just were through the fighting and their brains are scrambled and they're on drugs and stuff.
I think they might do it and they might try to get out.
Now here's, here's my, Provocative statement.
This won't happen.
But imagine a major news network or even a platform, a social media platform, allowed that content to be transmitted.
Now I'm not talking if some troll puts it on social media because that's just the individual.
But let's say the network or the platform allowed those videos on there.
Would that make that news network a legitimate military target for Israel?
Not that they would attack, you know, NBC News or something, but that wouldn't be helping.
Here's why.
Presumably, showing hostages being murdered would reduce the Israeli will to fight.
Because they'd say, whoa, the weaker people would say, no, no, we've got to do everything we can to save the hostages.
So let's do a ceasefire.
We can't see another one of these videos.
Let's do a ceasefire.
And then we'll do a trade of prisoners.
And then we'll do some kind of a peace deal.
So I would think that the last thing the Israeli leadership wants is for any of those videos to surface.
So it wouldn't be good for Hamas.
But it also wouldn't be good for Israel.
Do you agree with that so far?
Hamas's leadership really doesn't want these to get out.
Because that's the end.
I mean, if there was any any remaining sympathy for them in any way, it would just evaporate.
I don't think there's too much sympathy for Hamas specifically.
But given that neither Hamas's leadership could possibly benefit from it, At the same time, there's no way that Israel's leadership would want you to see him.
I feel like there's a strong impulse that no news entity would show them.
And social media would scrub them as soon as they showed up.
Now it might show up on Telegram or something.
But I feel like you're never going to see one.
Because there's going to be something like a complete news blackout.
Now, as somebody pointed out, but Scott.
That's how war works.
There's a news blackout.
Well, it wasn't true in Vietnam so much.
I mean, the Vietnam War probably went the way it went, in part because there were cameras there.
But I would say that recent wars have definitely been a news blackout.
Yeah.
You can find the videos if you look, but are they videos of hostages or videos of violence that happened during the attack?
Because people were executed.
During the attack, you know execution style.
I don't know if you could tell the difference, could you?
Is there a difference?
Yeah, there's difference because one is an attack and one is a hostage situation in which there's a risk of them dying and being killed.
I'd say that's pretty different.
Anyway, I'm going to predict that you won't see much of these hostages being executed, even if they are.
I suspect that Israel's calculation is that they're already gone.
You're blaming vaccinations on the attack.
Okay.
Why not climate change?
Have we blamed the attack on climate change yet?
All right.
So I don't think you'll see it.
Now, I would say that one of the biggest parts of this story may be suppressed in the news, and it's this drug called Capcom.
Have you ever heard of it?
It's what ISIS uses.
It's sort of a meth that makes you zombie-like.
It makes you go all day, right?
You can run all day, but also you became immune to violence.
So you could just dissect a person while you're on Capticon and you'd be like, okay, just having fun here, dissecting a person.
I disemboweled an enemy.
That was fun.
Yeah.
So the drug turns people into zombie killers.
Now, what do you hear about a terrorist attack of a, let's say a cell of terrorists?
Maybe it'd be like a handful.
They do an attack where they know they're not going to survive.
And what do you say to yourself?
You usually say, thank God this is a rare thing.
There are that many people who would be willing to kill themselves for some political point that's not even going to move the needle.
It's very unusual to get people who'd be willing to do that, even though there's plenty of it.
It's a pretty small part of the population.
But somehow, Hamas got 1,000 people to go on a suicide mission at the same time.
How do you do that?
How do you get 1,000 people to go on a mission where none of them would expect to come home?
Some of them probably did, but they wouldn't expect to.
I feel drugs are the story that's not being told.
I don't think you can get 1,000 people to do this at the same time without drugs.
That's what I think.
And by the way, if you had access to that drug, and Hamas would have access because it's all over the Middle East, if you had access to it, why would you not give it to your soldiers?
It would actually be like a giant military mistake to not give it to them when they're going into a, you know, almost certain death.
So I'd want to know a lot more about that.
Yeah, I think the Nazis used it, ISIS used it, and they got similar outcomes.
You know, they did more attacking than you think people would have attacked.
Somebody says the Japanese did it for the Bonsai attacks.
I would imagine.
Why wouldn't you?
If you had access to it, why wouldn't you?
So, that's part of the question.
Now, what do you think is going to happen with the siege?
The first thing that's going to happen is you're not going to... pretty soon you won't see video.
You'll see distant videos of, you know, things blowing up.
And you'll see, you know, ones and twosies of people being injured and being loaded in ambulances and stuff.
But you're not going to know if it really happened from this war or some other war that they just took the video from.
But how would anybody get a video out of Gaza?
Because at the moment they don't have electricity.
So they won't have phones, they won't have internet.
They won't have cell phones, right?
How would they get any video out?
Well, I doubt with Starlink.
I mean, I don't know.
So they have generators in the short run, but do you think those generators... Well, actually, let me correct myself.
I'll bet they've had poor reliance on their grid, so they probably have more generators than we know about.
But generators operate on gas, right?
How long will gas be available?
I feel like they've got 30 days of generators maximum.
Like there might be some hidden supplies of them or something.
Solar?
I don't know.
I don't feel like they have a lot of solar power over there.
But you're right, solar could be part of it.
They smuggle out VHS?
Yeah, I suppose.
They could smuggle out some stuff.
But I don't think you'll see much.
I think the lid will be pretty tight.
No, these videos were on the internet.
Well, I haven't seen any, so I don't know which internet you're looking at.
Rescue op being planned.
Do you think there will be rescue ops for the For the hostages Not even sure that that will be attempted Honestly, because I think it would be too dangerous to go in And it's not likely anybody to survive if you attacked It looks like a bad play.
Maybe if there's a special case All right.
I'd like to solve this problem with something called economics.
You ready?
What is the most valuable information in the world today?
What is the one piece of information that somebody would pay the most for?
This current information.
I'm not talking about something that's always been true or solving an equation.
Nothing like that.
I mean, something that's happening in the world right now.
What's the most valuable piece of information?
Let's see if you can get this.
Your PayPal account?
Okay.
Your crypto password?
No.
The most valuable information in the whole world.
Not just for you.
There you go.
There you go.
I'm going to give you partial credit because I'm not sure which leader you're talking about.
The most valuable information in the world is where the leadership of Iran is at any moment.
Am I right?
If you're Israel, You should have already the most enormous reward set up by crypto, so it's untraceable, a Bitcoin reward if you can tell me where the leadership is.
Now I'm talking about the top five, you know, top five or so.
And here's another way.
You could also do it as a betting app.
Could you?
No, that wouldn't work.
It would have to be some kind of an app where You would have multiple reports, like you wouldn't rely on one report, and you'd probably have to verify it.
So if somebody said, all right, I've got a $10 million reward, or it could be a $10 billion reward.
What would it be worth to you to know where the leader of Iran was so you could take him out?
$10 billion?
That would be cheap compared to a war.
I mean, that would be nothing.
Yeah.
It'd be worth about $10 billion.
Nobody would pay it, but that's what it would be worth.
So the most valuable information in the world is where the Iranian leadership is, because in my opinion, Israel has a free pass to take them out.
That's what I think.
In a way they never did before.
And it's possible that that time will pass, like they will no longer have that window, where they can take out the leadership, have something like some kind of Explanation or reason for it, and not make things worse.
It might make things worse, but they're likely to rip the band-aid off.
Because here's the problem.
If everybody did a truce today, and Iran still has money and is still in charge, it's just going to happen again later, except bigger and better.
Their entire plan is that we will keep doing this forever until it works.
If your plan is explicitly, we'll keep trying until it works, you've got to get rid of those people.
It's your only, it's your only path to safety.
Now, what would happen if, how would the Iranian public react, the public, if their leadership were taken out because of this?
It would actually be-- OK.
I'm just shaking my head.
Somebody was pointing out that it would be an act of war against Iran.
That's exactly what I'm suggesting.
I'm suggesting it's an act of war.
You don't have to put a word on it.
Total act of war.
They have, and of course, it is a war.
They've literally declared war.
So any military target is fair game at this point.
And the leadership of Iran is just a military target.
So whether or not you call that a war or not, it is what it is, and it doesn't matter what you call it.
Could you say that Ukraine is an act of war against Russia by the US?
I mean, I'm not going to make analogies.
No, you're missing my logic.
You're missing my logic.
I don't give a fuck if it's an act of war.
So if you're arguing, well what, is this an act of war?
Or is this an act of war?
You're missing my point.
I don't care.
And I don't think Israel should care.
Because your label for it doesn't change anything.
Shit's gonna happen the way it happens, no matter what label you put on it.
So, label it a war, compare it to other places if you want.
It doesn't have any real world impact.
That's just you talking online.
Remember when Helen Thomas used to ask Obama often? - Thank you.
That's a weird comment.
By the way, how do you like my camera setup?
Is this better?
Better?
At least a little better.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got for today.
I'm going to talk to the people on the Locals platform because they're special.
But I'm going to say goodbye to Twitter and YouTube and Rumble where we're streaming live at the same time on this camera.
