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, AI Speech Realism, China's Quantum Computer, House Speaker Battle, Rep. Steve Scalise, Global Jihad, Border Wall Approval, Washington Post, Free Speech Loss, President Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel Hamas War, Beheaded Babies, 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
I believe I am now established enough that I can change the name of Coffee with Scott Adams to CWSA, and some of you will say, oh, I don't know what that is.
So, if you'd like your CWSA experience to go to levels that nobody even imagined were possible, well, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or a Chelsea Stein, 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.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now.
Go.
Well, should I start with some non-horrible news and kind of work our way into it?
Sorry, I'm laughing at a meme I see going by.
Yes, we shall.
All right.
On news number one, researchers have suggested that caffeine, as in coffee, can also make your orgasms more intense and ramp up sex drive.
Everybody, back to your coffee.
Science has now confirmed your orgasms will be stronger and your sex drive more intense if you have some more caffeine.
Who's with me?
Yay!
Oh, oh, oh, oh wait.
They didn't say the coffee could finish you, right?
It was more of a preparation thing.
I was really hoping it would finish me.
No happy ending, just caffeine, but that's okay, too.
Maybe science can find a way I can get the job done.
Well, in the most important news of the whole day, we find out today that Will Smith and Jada Pinkett had been separated since 2016.
Oh, no.
They had been separated since 2016.
Not legally, but I guess they'd agreed to be separated.
Lived different lives, and that would mean that when Will Smith slapped Chris Rock, it was over his ex-wife.
At least, not legally, but technically.
And then we find out, oh, Jada Pinkett Smith, you're telling all now.
She's got a book out, I guess.
And she says that at one point in the past, well before the slapping, Uh, Chris Rock had called Jada Pinkett and asked her on a date, believing that she was single, but she said she was not or something, and then he apologized.
And that was it.
He just asked her out, thinking she was available, but she was not.
Now, may I make a suggestion?
Chris Rock, you took the punch, and you didn't fight back.
That's okay.
That's not a problem.
I think that given the circumstances of where you were, not fighting back was probably the right play.
However, I think you should reconsider dating Jada Pinkett Smith.
Because now that you know she is available.
I mean, why not?
I'd like to see Chris Rock.
Have a little coffee.
Yeah, a little coffee date.
You see where I'm heading with this?
Drink a little coffee and get your ultimate revenge on Will Smith.
Because I can't imagine better sex than being Chris Rock, drinking a little coffee, getting busy with the ex-wife of the guy who slapped me.
I don't know.
That's just me.
That's just me.
But I think I might take another run at it.
All right.
According to an AI expert, Now has an IQ equivalent of 155 155 How does that compare?
Well Einstein had an IQ of only 160 160 My IQ 185 so it's still 30 points away from my IQ, but it's closing in on Einstein.
It's very close to Einstein Now I would like to make a huge advance in In the AI industry?
Do you think I can do that?
I'm going to make a suggestion right now that will change AI.
And really, by the way, this is serious.
In the next 60 seconds, I'm going to change all of your experiences with AI.
You ready?
Hey, AI researchers!
Do you think you could stop making your AI talk in a monotone like this?
Hello, my name is AI.
I am talking to you in a completely patterned way, which is easily recognized as an AI.
How about you just have it talk like people do?
Do you know what people do?
Sometimes they talk fast like this, because they know what they're going to say.
Sometimes they take a little time to think, to think what the next word would be.
Now I know AI does not need time to think because it already knows what it's going to say.
But if you're gonna try to act like a person, try to act like a person.
How hard would it be to write the code that adds variety to the way they talk?
Five fucking minutes.
Five minutes to make it talk like a human.
I could do it.
I'm not a programmer at the moment.
I was a programmer in my early days.
But it's a five-minute task.
Just tell it to randomly punch a word.
We learned that.
That's what newscasters do.
They randomly punch words.
Watch.
So I'll read this same thing.
The headline is, I'll read it like an AI.
Let's see.
AI has an IQ of 155 now, very much like Einstein.
You could just Hit any word in there.
AI now has an IQ almost like Einstein.
Right?
Just randomly hit a few words.
It doesn't even matter which ones.
That's what we learned.
Newscasters do.
So there it is.
I've changed the entire understanding of AI talking.
Am I wrong?
That would completely change your experience of talking to AI if it's simply talked in a more less patterned way.
It wouldn't be hard.
At the same time and related in ways which you have not quite understood.
Okay, I take that back.
I have the smartest audience in the entire world.
Many of you are engineers and you do know exactly the importance of this next story.
Allegedly, and I guess I got to put the allegedly on there, Chinese scientists have built a quantum computer that solved a, they gave this really complicated math problem, and it solved it within a millionth of a second.
Now how does that compare to the best supercomputers we had that are not quantum?
Well the best, so it solved this problem in a millionth of a second.
The best supercomputers Would have taken, uh, almost 20 minutes.
No, not 20 minutes.
It would have taken almost, uh, 20 days, not 20 days.
Uh, it would take 20,000 years.
It would have taken a 20.
No, it wasn't 20,000 years, 20 million years.
It would have taken our best supercomputer 20 mil.
Sorry.
It wasn't million billion.
It would have taken our best existing supercomputers 20 fucking billion years.
To solve the problem.
20 billion years.
And this quantum computer did it in a millionth of a second.
So now we're probably not really close to being able to build a practical quantum computer, but this is really lighting the way.
I mean, you can see where it's going.
Now I ask you, smartest audience in the world, What do you get if you combine AI with robots, like the Tesla robot, that have fully articulated everything, and quantum computing?
Let's say the AI is driven by a quantum computer.
What do you get then?
Well, you get some kind of super creature that will eliminate all of us.
So there's that.
Because it will be a superior species.
And when I say superior, I don't mean just a little bit.
I don't mean comparing, say, a human to a porpoise.
No, no.
I don't mean comparing a human to a cat.
Or a beaver.
Or a squirrel.
Or an insect.
Or a fish.
It'd be more like comparing a human to, I don't know, a rock or something.
So no, we're not going to do well with quantum computer-driven AI robots.
They might have a little bit of an advantage to us.
There is one thing you can do, though, to get back your advantage before the robots take over.
Do I have to tell you or is it obvious?
Drink a lot of coffee so that your sex drive goes crazy, so you can reproduce faster than they can.
Well, faster than they can hunt you down and kill you.
That's your only hope, coffee.
Well, there's still the search for the Speaker of the House, Representative Nancy Mace, who's kind of awesome and follows me, so I like her better because she follows me on X. She says she plans to vote for Jim Jordan on the floor, but why does she not want Steve Scalise, who's the other person who's being nominated?
Why doesn't she like him?
Well, one thing she says is that she personally cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone who attended a white supremacist conference and compared himself to David Duke.
That's what she says of Steve Scalise, that he attended a white supremacist conference where he spoke and compared himself to David Duke.
Now, have I taught you enough about the news That you know this is not true.
You all know that, right?
Do I need to give you the research?
Do I need to bother debunking it with the very next, you know, message on X?
No, of course that never happened.
Was there something that did happen that somebody misinterpreted as being that thing?
Yes.
Yes, there was once something.
He once gave a speech at a different group.
That used the same conference room, but it was an event prior to this white supremacist group.
So he had no idea that there was any white supremacist even going to be in the room.
Now, so that's the part debunking the, you know, attended a white supremacist conference.
But what about the accusation that he compared himself to David Duke?
Let me give you another fake news tip.
Here's the word, compared.
Whenever you see an accusation that somebody compared two things, that's never true.
Let me just say it completely, it's never true.
Usually what happens is, somebody has made some reference that in some very narrow way, there's some kind of comparison.
I don't know what this one was, but as soon as you see the word compared, it's very much like seeing anonymous source.
If you see anonymous source, just walk away.
It's not real.
If you see somebody compared somebody to something bad, almost certainly didn't happen.
You don't even have to research it.
Do you know how many times that I've been the subject of scandal because somebody said I compared two things?
A few times.
Yeah, this is why I know that word is a total tell for bullshit.
So now, Steve Scalise never compared himself to David Duke in a way that you would care about.
Did he ever say, now I'm just making this part up, but imagine if he once said, I'm getting more hate than David Duke.
Now, I'm not saying he said that.
I'm just telling you how this word, compared, is used.
Suppose he said, I'm getting more hate than David Duke.
Would he not be comparing himself to David Duke?
But the context is, David Duke is a bad person.
If you leave that part out, that changes everything.
I have no idea what he ever said, and I'm not going to research it.
Because this is the tip.
Doesn't matter who it is.
You know, your side, the other side, doesn't matter who.
If somebody says they compared something, that is never, ever true.
Just know that, and then you'll be fine.
I love Nancy Mace, but she seems to have a preference here for Speaker of the House.
All right, tomorrow has been Friday, Friday the 13th.
Hamas has called for a global day of jihad, in which All the jihadists in every country, everywhere, would march in the streets.
And who knows what else?
Because when you say jihad, you don't know exactly how everybody's going to be interpreting that.
I do think that there's a non-violent interpretation, but there's of course a violent interpretation.
And depending who you're talking to and what they want you to think, they might tell you which of those interpretations they're using.
But the fact that it can be interpreted both ways is sort of a scary thing.
So I would advise you not to go to a city and you might want to get the fuck away from them.
So if you see a gigantic rally in support of Hamas, my recommendation is get as far away as you can.
Now, I want to be very clear.
I'm not making any kind of comment about the genetic nature of the supporters of Hamas.
That has nothing to do with anything.
I'm not making any comment about culture.
Because there are, you know, zillions of Islamic people who would disagree with Hamas.
So it's not culture.
It's not genes.
Because the Islamic world is all over the place.
But what it is, is there's a Let's say a mental virus, a psychological virus.
So this group of people have been propagandized to hate other groups of people.
Not because they have bad genes and not because they have bad culture, but this specific training is very damaging and risky.
So whenever you have a situation, Where you can identify that a group of people has been trained by society or their leaders or propagandized in some way to think that you're the enemy and that you're the oppressor, you should get the fuck away from them.
Like actually stay away from that group.
They would be dangerous to you because they've been trained to be dangerous.
Now, if you were the Washington Post, you would cancel me for what I just said.
Of course, I said it a little more carefully this time.
But let's talk about that border wall.
Rasmussen did a poll.
Now, in the context of watching Hamas having recently attacked Israel and now the reverse happening, how many people do you think would now favor a border wall?
No, favor a border wall.
73% of likely U.S.
voters approve of the decision to allow more border wall construction.
73%.
So that's about 73%.
That's about three quarters.
Yeah.
And how many... So that would leave around about one quarter.
About one quarter who don't think a border wall is a good idea.
About one quarter.
Very consistent.
That's right.
Israel, Israelis were being slaughtered because they didn't have the border security that they needed.
And the same kinds of people are coming over, you know, mixed in with the good people are coming over.
But a quarter of our citizens say, I don't see the problem here.
And then, then Rasmussen's asked if they agreed.
That the Biden administration's decision about the wall, to build more of it, proves Trump was right.
Oh, oh my God.
How many people would think that it doesn't?
I mean, how could you possibly see?
How could you possibly see Biden adopting, you know, a key part of Trump's proposal?
Not the whole wall.
It's just a portion of the wall.
But still, it's a wall.
It turns out that the number of people who strongly disagree that Biden doing what Trump recommended is some kind of a support for what Trump recommended.
How many people would think that consciously doing what Trump recommended was not an endorsement of what Trump recommended?
About 25%.
Yeah, about a quarter.
Thought that doing what Trump recommended is not an endorsement of what Trump recommended.
At least it's consistent.
Well, here's some tragic news before we talk about Israel, which is more tragic.
But amazingly, the Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, they had What is reported to be significant drops in their readership and subscription base recently.
Wow.
So much so that they had to lay off 10% of their staff.
And it looks like they're on track to lose, according to the New York Times, they said in July, The Washington Post was on track to lose $100 million per year.
They're gonna lose $100 million per year.
I mean, they've been losing money for... Why would Jeff Bezos Agreed to lose a hundred million dollars per year when he could just close it.
Well, it's not for economics, is it?
Do you think that Jeff Bezos thought, you know what, it would be a good idea to own a newspaper?
Do you think Jeff Bezos at any point said to himself, a newspaper would be a good idea?
I'd like to own one of those.
That could be a good investment.
It's going to make me look like a genius of business, I'll tell you that.
Well, of course, as you know, the Washington Post is often, allegedly, an outlet that our CIA uses for their own propaganda.
And coincidentally, or maybe not coincidentally, the CIA He did a major deal putting billions of dollars of their work onto Amazon's servers, AWS.
So everything in the world is connected and so Jeff Bezos is making a fortune from the government, the U.S.
government.
At the same time he is subsidizing, very expensively, subsidizing a newspaper which some say the government requires to propagandize.
So I don't know what the real story is, but those are the allegations and the connections, and people say it's all that.
But when I look at how much money the Washington Post has lost, probably especially since the beginning of this year, I say, what has changed?
I mean, has anything changed?
Well, they did lose their best cartoonist.
That probably didn't help them at all.
And Phil Bump did go on a podcast.
One of the most famous writers.
He's an opinion guy, I think.
It's hard to tell.
And he proved to the world that he's not even attempting to write real news.
Now, that's my opinion, of course.
To me, it appears that he as good as admitted that their writing is bullshit and the newspaper is not real.
That was my interpretation.
Totally subjective.
All right.
So, I'm pretty glad I'm not part of a dying industry anymore.
I'll tell you, getting kicked out of the newspaper club, the people who think I felt bad about that, oh my god, do I feel free.
You know, not only that I have, you know, my full freedom back, But that I'm not part of something that's just embarrassing at this point.
Newspapers are just embarrassing.
It's bad enough to be part of the... Let me put it this way.
If you see the entire news industry as fake, which it mostly is, let's say 90% fake, and the political stuff, the newspapers are the lowest rank of a disreputable group.
So you're already part of a disreputable, disgraced industry.
But they're the lowest level of the disgraced industry.
And people ask me if I feel bad that they fired me.
Not really.
Because since I left, my private subscribers on Locals have more than doubled.
By the way, it's scottadams.locals.com.
For some reason, the numbers are zooming this week.
I don't know if it's because of what I'm talking about or not.
Something's happening.
But suddenly all my locals numbers went through the roof.
And also you can get the Dilbert comic on the X platform.
Just hit my subscribe button in the profile.
So, so Dilbert continues, but it's a spicier uncensored version.
Using some naughty, naughty words occasionally.
All right.
Here's a news report about the news reporting the news.
So, I'm sort of a person who talks about the news.
So I'm a news person talking about a news person that's going to talk about another news person in the way they talked about the other news person.
That's what the news industry is in 2023.
It's mostly people complaining about the other news.
That's mostly it.
That's what I do.
And here's the actual story.
The New York Post editorial board, they went after MSNBC.
For what they call their shameful, shameful, shameful Israel-Hamas coverage.
And they picked out specifically Andrea Mitchell and Ayman Moyeldin and Ali Velshi and Mehdi Hassan.
They were singled out.
My guess is that they were not pro-Israel enough.
I assume that's what the criticism was.
And I'm not too interested in the The brother and sister fight among news organizations, but I do like the fact that MSNBC has found themselves in the worst of bad positions, which is a left-leaning entity that has to choose between Israel and the Palestinians.
You could say between Israel and Hamas, but the Palestinians are in the middle of it.
I'm guessing there'll be more people dying who don't support Hamas than there are people who support them.
But there's no way to know yet.
So be careful who you back or don't back because you'll be the target of destruction.
Would you like to be shocked about something?
I would like to shock you now.
I'm going to tell you two or three stories In which people who had bad opinions, let's say, according to other people, about the Israel situation, in which they're going to lose jobs or be publicly shamed.
We really don't have free speech.
Can we just be clear about that?
Watching people get destroyed because of their opinions Even though their opinions are heinous.
Are the opinions that are being attacked heinous?
Seems like that to me.
Sure.
But isn't that the whole point of free speech?
So if you want to know has America lost to free speech, the answer is yes.
We've lost it because we tied it to your economic outcomes in a way that was never as much the case.
Probably because social media can tell everybody about everything right away.
In the old days, you could disgrace yourself in one town, but you could always go to another town.
They hadn't heard about it.
But today, free speech is no longer even slightly practical.
And I think we should call it.
We don't have free speech.
The government maybe won't Perhaps the government won't attack you.
But all the NPCs who are saying now, Scott!
I'm yelling through my screen!
Can you hear me?
That when you say free speech, don't you understand?
The Constitution says that only applies to the government!
It only applies to the government, Scott!
Yes, I hear your dumbass, stupid fucking point.
In the real world, in the practical world in which your body has to operate, Free speech doesn't mean a fucking thing if you lose your job for it.
If you lose your job for free speech, you don't have fucking free speech.
And you can blab blab blab blab about what the founders meant, blab blab blab about what the Constitution meant.
I hear it.
You're stupid.
You're fucking stupid.
That is a stupid fucking argument.
We do know what the law says.
We do know what they meant.
Everybody gets that.
Nobody has to explain it to us again.
I'm just saying, in a practical sense, if you're going to lose your job for an opinion, you don't have free speech.
Not even close.
So, keep that in mind when you see the New York Post attacking MSNBC for opinions that I don't appreciate.
I mean, I didn't like MSNBC's opinions either.
Um, you know, if anything happened to them economically for it, it would be too far.
All right.
Uh, Blinken, Secretary Blinken went to, uh, uh, met with, uh, Netanyahu in Israel and, uh, making friends, of course.
And, uh, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu is called for sanctions against any country that harbors the terrorist group Hamas.
Now, he's really talking about Qatar.
Now, Qatar is what all the people who are trying to act smart call that place that you call Qatar or Qatar.
That's how I pretend to be, like, a little bit smarter than my audience.
Like, you probably still pronounce it Qatar, don't you?
But let me show you how it's done.
Now, I don't even think I'm saying it right, by the way.
Yeah, I don't think I'm saying it right, but just be aware there's a pronunciation thing going on there.
Now, do you think that Qatar, which also is home to a big U.S.
military base, do you think that the leader of Hamas, who by the way called for this National Day of Jihad, do you think that he'll still be alive in a month?
I feel like Israel could just take him out in Qatar.
Because if Qatar doesn't hand him over, I think they have a free pass absolutely everywhere.
I don't think they would use it in Qatar, so that seems unlikely.
But I don't think there are any rules now.
I think the rules are all gone.
All right.
Trump took the opportunity to insult Netanyahu.
I'm not sure that was the best choice under the circumstances.
But remember, Trump has an uncanny, sort of an uncanny sense of his base.
And I've got a feeling that the base, like real people, have a far more nuanced opinion about Israel than any one of us can say in public.
Says what nobody could say?
Well, maybe Netanyahu's, you know, not perfect either.
You're not supposed to say that.
No.
No, whether it's true or untrue, irrelevant.
In the context of, you know, our closest ally, you could argue, one of our best allies anyway, in the context of them having an existential battle, probably you should restrain.
But I don't hate the fact that he said it anyway.
You know what I mean?
I just got done telling you that if you can lose your job because of something you said, your opinion, then that's not free speech.
You know who has free speech?
People running for president.
Apparently, the only people who have free speech, because the platforms will ban you for your bad opinions otherwise, is if you're actually running for president.
So Trump actually has free speech.
So he can say something like, okay, Hamas is terrible and should be destroyed, but I've also got a beef with Netanyahu.
He's the only one who can say that because he's running for president.
He has free speech.
Now, of course, he's criticized for it, but will that affect the base?
Not even a little.
Do you think the base cares?
If he had some bad things to say about Netanyahu.
But he's clearly, you know, against Hamas.
There's no question about that.
Not really.
I think we're used to that.
Why was he mad at him?
Oh, I think Netanyahu was not in favor of taking out Soleimani when Trump wanted to whack him.
So Israel was not part of that.
Which was Probably a brilliant play by Netanyahu.
Can you think of a smarter thing for Netanyahu to do than to say we don't want to be part of it in the context that he knew Trump was going to do it anyway?
What would be smarter than that?
Nothing.
No, it's not cowardly.
You're playing chess wrong.
It wasn't cowardly because it was going to happen anyway.
Remember, the assumption was The assumption was that Netanyahu knew Trump would do it anyway, right?
So the thing was going to happen.
But he could at least say, hey, I'm going to put down a record where we weren't in favor of it.
That's brilliant.
And the only thing that would be better than that is having Trump out him in public.
The best case scenario is during the context of this war.
Think about it.
The best thing that could happen to Netanyahu Is for a story to come out, and it came out through Trump, that Netanyahu was not in favor of a decapitation strike in Iran.
Is this a coincidence that we learn about it at the exact best time for Netanyahu?
That doesn't feel like a coincidence, but it's Trump, so, I mean, maybe he was just telling, he could have been just telling you what he feels.
So you can't be sure that this is any kind of clever plan.
But it does look to me like both Trump and Netanyahu, if this is intentional, and I don't know that it is, it was kind of brilliant.
Because it made Trump look like he had a little nuance to him, which is actually kind of a good look.
You can call balls and strikes on both sides.
That's a good look.
I don't hate that.
The timing is suspicious, right?
Maybe you shouldn't do it now.
But the fact that he outed just a really critical political piece of information, that Israel was opposed to a decapitation strike in Iran.
Perfect.
Kind of perfect.
There are reports that Syria is under attack, presumably by Israel.
The Damascus Airport and the Aleppo Airport were taken out of service.
I assume that's because there were thoughts that maybe somebody from those airports would be taking off, I don't know, with drones or helicopters or something.
So, but I'm surprised, I'm surprised that Israel would have thought that Syria would get involved in a kinetic way, you know, with actual assets.
In the air.
I don't know.
There's something about that story that doesn't add up.
It's obviously related to the actions in Gaza, but I don't know exactly how that helps.
Maybe we'll find out more.
But it wouldn't have anything to do with rocket attacks, would it?
Unless they had some kind of rocket artillery or something there.
All right.
Well, we don't know what that is, but we'll keep an eye on it.
There were rumors the other day that Putin was almost dead, or was dead, but he seemed to have appeared on TV.
He's 71 years old, and he appeared on TV and did not look like he was dying.
What he did say was interesting.
He said he might be, well, he's going to offer to help mediate the Israel and Hamas situation.
And he's told in international media, quote, well, this is translated, Well, why not?
We have had very stable business relations with Israel.
We've had friendly relations with Palestine for decades.
And I thought to myself, you know what?
Yes.
Why not?
Why not?
I believe Israel tried to stay out of the Ukraine situation.
I'm sure that Russia appreciated that.
So, why not?
Let me say something that I think many of you are thinking, but didn't want to say out loud.
In the long, long run, we're going to have to be allies with Russia, whether that's during Putin or after.
It's not optional.
You all know that, right?
That allying with Russia in the long term is not optional.
Because the Hamas, let's say, effect is going to grow, it's not going to shrink.
There will be more and more border-like things.
Now, let me also say, Europe is lost.
You know that, right?
Europe's already gone.
So, Europe will not be an ally to the United States in the future.
It is at the moment.
But there isn't any way to put the toothpaste back at the tube.
Their open immigration essentially guarantees that at some point they'll have a majority that doesn't like America.
So Europe is kind of demographically already done.
We're just watching the details of that doneness.
But Russia, being more of a dictatorship kind of situation, Has kept their borders, you know, a little more stable, and therefore they would potentially have energy and an economy and a military, which we're definitely not going to want to be on the other side from wherever we are.
So in the long, long run, you know, the world will form by, you know, largely religious, religious groups, and you're going to want to rush on your side.
Maybe you don't want Putin, but you're definitely going to want Russia.
All right.
You know, I've been trying to avoid this story, but you just can't avoid it.
It's babies with their heads.
Let's start by agreeing you've never heard anything worse.
Now, I tell you that persuasion is a visual thing, and I tell you that the two most important, the two most powerful persuasive, let's say, themes are fear, number one.
Fear beats all persuasion.
If you think you're in immediate danger, you're not thinking about anything else.
It focuses the mind and makes you have to act on that fear.
But after fear, the most The most persuasive element is a visual.
But it doesn't have to be you looking at a picture at the moment.
The visual could be something you saw once and just remember, or something that was described to you in a way that you created the picture in your head and you can't get that in your head.
Now, this is the case of the latter.
It is impossible to not think of the thing that people are talking about.
If I tell you to don't think of an elephant, you know, this is the famous example.
If I say, don't think of an elephant, you see an elephant.
I didn't have to show you a picture of an elephant.
That elephant's right in your head and it's not going anywhere.
Right?
So when people talk about this story, the most horrible thing I've ever heard of in my life, actually, literally, I can't think of anything I've ever heard of that was more horrible than this.
The idea that there might be multiple, Beheaded babies.
So.
Here's an update on that.
An Israeli official told CNN quote, we cannot confirm the claim that Hamas attackers beheaded children during Saturday's attack.
And this comes after Biden said something like he, you know, he was aware of this report.
But he was just saying he heard it from somebody in Israel.
He hadn't seen any pictures.
But he said something unclear that made people think, well, maybe he saw a picture.
Maybe he's confirming it.
But one Israeli official said they can't confirm it.
I told you the other day, it may have come from primarily one source.
I don't want to debunk this.
And I can't anyway, right?
Because I don't know what's happening.
My guess is that it started with something real.
At the base of it, there probably was something horrible, but we don't know how much of it there was, or even the circumstances that might have caused somebody to see something that horrible.
But I will say that Israel is using it in an insanely ingenious way, which is to put that picture in your head and you'll never get it out.
Because it's got fear, And it's got a visual and that visual that will never leave your head for the rest of your life.
You will have a mental image of something that you never saw a picture of.
So in terms of persuasion, Israel has the absolute advantage with that narrative.
Now, In the context of the horribleness that happened and we know did happen, you know, the part that's confirmed, the number of dead and the way it happened, etc.
It's a 10 out of 10 in horribleness.
Can we all agree?
It's a 10 out of 10.
You can't get worse than the stuff we know actually happened.
So whether or not something especially terrible happened to any particular group, it's still a 10 out of 10, right?
You can't get worse than pure evil.
You know, there's no such thing as two times pure evil.
That's just pure evil.
It's more pure evil.
So whether it's true or not, it is directionally true.
Have you ever heard me say that before?
The, the decapitated babies is directionally true in the sense that other stuff was that bad.
So, you know, I don't mind that this narrative is the dominant narrative, Because directionally, it's in the ballpark.
I accept it.
Here's what you should expect.
Public opinion is going to start dramatically swinging toward, not Hamas, but the Palestinians for sure.
And the reason is that humans are, again, we're persuaded by visual images.
So you're going to have a, let's say, a reduction in the visual images of carnage in Israel.
There'll still be some, but there will be an increase in the horrible images coming out of Gaza.
So there's nothing you can do about that, because that's where the war is.
So you're just going to see more and more of that stuff, which should have the predictable effect Well, let me say a few things about that.
Number one, I'm trying to understand these two things.
There are two things which I understand to be different things.
what's going to happen is pretty bad and is happening is super bad.
Well, let me say a few things about that.
Number one, I'm trying to understand these two things.
There are two things which I understand to be different things.
One is that people are saying that the residents of Gaza, the ones who, whether they support Hamas or not, are just, you know, noncombatants.
Some are saying that Hamas will not let the non-combatants leave, that they would kill them if they tried to leave.
And I'm sure that's true in some ways and pockets for sure.
But we're also told that Hamas is underground, that they're living underground.
Did they take the residents underground?
How big were these caves?
Were the caves big enough that they could take the non-combatants underground?
Because I'm thinking probably not.
And if they did, there wouldn't be enough food and water for the Hamas fighters, because they'd have to share it at that point.
So I'm trying to reconcile these two things.
How is it that the non-combatants Can't get out because theoretically they would have free passage and then they could get food and water and electricity and stuff.
Theoretically.
I hope that's the situation.
But if a mosque is underground, doesn't that create massive opportunities for the residents to just run for it?
Like, I don't think they would be gunned down if you saw a bunch of women and children, you know, running for safety.
I don't think anybody's going to shoot at them.
So I got some questions about how the everybody's underground, if they're Hamas, correlates with the fact that a massive population, which is way bigger than the fighters, they don't have lots of ways to get out of town.
So there's something about the story I don't get yet.
Maybe we'll never get that.
Yeah, Hamas is among the population, but if most Hamas is underground, And most of the population is above ground.
I don't see how they could prevent the population from doing what it needs to do.
So that's just a question.
Next observation is we have assumed something that I think is the wrong assumption about what happens next.
We assume that Israel will go door to door, street to street, and there will be booby traps and massive casualties because you can't clear a city without massive casualties on the attacking side.
However, it is 2023, and I'm trying to understand why anybody would knock on a door in 2023.
Wouldn't you put a big explody thing in the wall, open up the wall, wait for the dust to clear, fly in your little drone, and then actually just go room to room with the drone?
And then when you find somebody, go, ooh, run away, you know, in case you want to save your drone, blow up the building, then move to the next building.
Wouldn't you go, wouldn't you go building to building and clear them with drones?
Because it's 2023, right?
And I think we also have technology now that can see through walls.
In some limited cases.
It's easier if you have Wi-Fi.
If you have Wi-Fi, they can see right through the wall.
But that's turned off now.
Yeah, heat.
Heat, etc.
Movement.
So, here's what I expect.
You're gonna find out about Israel's technical capabilities, and you're gonna be impressed.
I think.
Because I think they've always known they would have to go door to door.
Clearly they have an advanced drone operation.
And clearly they have small ones that could go through a hole in the wall, go through a window.
So I think it's a drone war now.
Yeah, a drone and shotgun range won't last long, but it's worth a drone to find where the shotgun was.
Because you're looking for the shotgun.
So I feel like the drones work as long as you have enough drones.
Why would you send anything else?
So you think about the drones could do.
One thing the drones could do would be helping the.
Helping the civilians get to safety.
Could you imagine you're you're a civilian group and you're like huddling?
Cause you don't know what to do.
You know you're afraid of the attacks coming in, but you don't know how to get out.
Imagine you're sitting there and a drone pops over, and it's got a microphone on it, or a speaker, and the drone says, you know, we will lead you to safety.
Follow me.
We have determined that the following street is cleared, and you have free passage.
You know, you might want to send like a few people just to test it out, but just follow us.
And they literally follow the drone.
You know, the drone just says, just follow me.
And maybe even the drone goes, you know, like a block ahead and looks left and right.
Right?
So you could imagine the scenario where the drones lead people to safety.
Now, more likely they would not trust the drone.
They would think it was a trick, but at least it's an option.
It's going to be a big drone fight.
Bill Ackman, hedge fund guy, Bill Ackman, still going after Harvard for the many, many Harvard groups, which signed some letters saying that Israel was totally to blame for what's happening.
And I guess a number of the people in those organizations said, whoa, whoa, I'm in the organization, but nobody asked me about this letter, or I'm in the organization, but I don't agree with the letter, or I didn't know about it, or I didn't know what I was signing.
And Ackman is giving them a real-life lesson.
Welcome to the adult world.
He's basically saying, you know, here's your options.
If you weren't on board with the letter, publicly disavow them, quit the organization, or get the organization to rescind it.
You know, real world.
Here's what you don't get to do.
Be a graduate of an elite university with a good reputation who couldn't figure out how to navigate this situation.
Can't do that.
Yeah.
Nobody's going to respect you if you stay in the group that did that.
Now, let me weigh in with my opinion.
What do I think of these many Harvard groups who said it was all Israel's fault?
Well, I don't like them at all.
I don't like them at all.
I'm very angry at them.
Do they have free speech?
Do the students who put out those statements have free speech?
Oh, yes, they do, Scott!
Because in a technical way, the government is not saying anything about it.
And free speech is only about the government.
It's not about private institutions, Scott.
Okay, you can shut up now.
Just shut up.
Everybody gets that, NPCs.
But do these students have free speech?
Well, the free market is certainly responding.
I would say no.
I would say, in a practical sense, they don't have free speech.
Now, do I think that they should be left unmolested because their opinion is, well, it is a war, you know, we're fighting for our lives and, you know, I don't have any objection to anybody going hard at them.
I have myself.
I don't have an objection to them never getting jobs, because they have revealed their character, as Bill Ackman says.
It's not so much what they said.
You know, Ackman's giving them a real-life lesson.
It's not what you said.
It's that now we know who you are.
That's different.
Alright?
It's very different.
It's not really your speech that's the problem.
It's the fact that your speech revealed who you are, and nobody would want that in their business.
Same with the pronouns.
All right.
So how bad a day is Harvard having?
Well, I was looking at the trending list on Twitter, and at one point trending at the same time were Harvard, David Duke, and Day of Jihad.
So from a public relations perspective, not ideal.
Not ideal.
Here's another similar story.
A NYU law school bar association president had her job offer rescinded because she also publicly blamed Israel.
Does this law school bar association president have a free speech?
No.
Not in a practical sense.
Because she's punished hard and probably is going to have trouble forever because of it.
Do I agree with her statement?
No, I don't agree with her.
But she doesn't have free speech.
Alright, in a practical sense, but of course she does in a constitutional sense.
Well, for a long time I've been offering that I would try to deprogram somebody who is associated with the left.
A Democrat.
I got a volunteer.
So we're scheduled.
So on Spaces, the audio feature on the X platform, on Monday, I'll be talking to a gentleman named Cesar, who's a dad of five, and in his profile he says, F-U-K mega.
And he interacted with me on a few tweets.
So let me tell you when that's scheduled so you don't miss it.
And I'll say a little bit more about it.
So on Monday, So it'll be 3.30 my time.
That means 6.30 eastern time.
So 6.30 eastern time on the spaces.
I'll talk to Caesar.
Now here's what you need to know about it.
It's not a debate.
It's not a debate.
And I'll have to explain that to Caesar in case there's any clarifications needed.
P.M.
6.30 P.M.
on Monday.
P.M.
Eastern Time.
That's Eastern Time.
But what I'm going to do is try to deprogram him.
So I'm not going to try to change his mind or I'm not going to impose my preferences or opinions on him.
I'm simply going to deprogram him.
I'm going to remove the parts That are not based on facts.
I just see what happens.
Sort of an experiment.
All right.
But, uh, props to Caesar because he's going into the lion's den and he's willing to do it.
And I respect that.
I appreciate it.
All right.
Um, I did a tweet that did not get me double, triple canceled, but it's only because people figured out what I was up to.
I thought this one could be misinterpreted, but I feel like taking a chance.
So here's what I tweeted.
I said, there could be peace in the Middle East tomorrow if Israel negotiated in good faith with Hamas and agreed to accept a reasonable level of murder per year, the way America does with the cartels.
So America tells the cartels, and you all know this, America tells the cartels effectively, you can't kill more than 100,000 a year.
That's our limit.
100,000 people murdered in America per year.
You don't go beyond that.
If you go beyond that, well, there might be a price to pay.
But as long as you stay below 100,000 a year, yeah, business as usual.
So I thought, well, why can't Israel just do that and say, We won't go to war with you, but just keep your murder down to 5, 10,000 a year.
I mean, you have to adjust for population, of course.
But, you know, keep it under 5,000 a year.
You're way ahead of me.
As David Boxenhorn said in the comments to my note, that's what Israel has been doing for years.
They just didn't put a number on it.
But basically, Basically, they said we will accept X amount of murder to avoid a war.
But X was exceeded.
So Hamas exceeded X and now Gaza will be pretty much destroyed.
So, but this was should not be interpreted as a comment about Israel.
It was my way of insulting the United States for its handling of fentanyl.
But I think most of you got that.
All right.
I feel like there was a story or two that I missed.
Did I?
Was there a story I missed?
Anything that you want to hear an opinion on before I go?
Netanyahu would have closed our borders.
Well, he didn't close his own border too good, did he?
Dershowitz.
I think it's a very good thing.
I heard Dershowitz had some interesting opinions that I have not heard yet, so I'll go check that out.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, thanks for joining on these various platforms.
Yeah, it looks like Rumble didn't work again.
I'll go look at that.
I think that's a technical problem on my end, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
