Episode 2260 Scott Adams: Coffee With Scott 10/13/2023
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, Climate Change, Bill Gates, Tucker Carlson Quotes, Genocidal Consequences, House Speaker Decision, Salon MAGA Cult Fears, Brainwashing, Deprogramming, Community Notes Corrects NBC, MSNBC Ratings Decline, Hannity vs. Vivek, Vivek Ramaswamy, Illegitimate Debaters, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Israel Hamas War Atrocities, AOC, Wokeness Decline, 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 highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, now shortened to CWSA.
Because that's how cool we are.
We don't need full words anymore.
No, no, no.
If you'd like your experience of CWSA to go to new levels, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of chalicestine, a candied jug or a flask, a vessel of a leaky eye.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
but it happens now.
Sublime.
you Well, we'll talk about all the things happening in the news.
Don't worry.
I like to start with some appetizers.
Mental appetizers, I call them.
Now, I mentioned this before, but I think it's worth restating.
Bill Gates, in a recent interview that's been getting around the internet, said, and I quote, uh, there's a lot of climate exaggeration, said Gates.
The climate is not the end of the planet.
So the planet is going to be fine.
And quote, no temperate country is going to become uninhabitable.
Now, is that a big deal?
Or not a big deal?
Don't you think that's a big deal?
And I feel like when you're watching the world fall apart with the war in Europe and the war in the Middle East, I feel like we're starting to put climate change in context.
I feel like there are some things you can worry about when you don't have other problems.
Let me ask you this.
Have you ever seen less news about the trans situation in America?
I've never seen less trans news.
Now, while I'm fully, you know, sympathetic to the trans situation, Certainly want them to have perfectly good lives, whatever makes them happy.
But.
I'm not sure it was ever the most important issue in the world.
It was closer to the bottom.
Certainly critical issue to people directly involved, but I think we're seeing a real adjustment of our priorities in real time.
When you start to think about.
Eating and survival.
You know you're worried a lot less about people's.
Sexual orientations and genders and stuff like that, but climate change I think is in that category That people are going to understand That maybe there was a little hyperbole involved.
I like the fact that Bill Gates said it Because Bill Gates is the one person That everybody kind of thinks he's You know sort of the voice of climate change in a way.
I mean I think of him that way I don't really think of a Greta You know, or Carrie.
You know, they're all deeply involved.
But I feel like Bill Gates was the one person who understood all the technology.
You know, he knows nuclear.
He knows coal.
I mean, he's got a sense of the whole field.
And if he says it's exaggerated, how are they going to ignore him?
I feel like this is the, like a real changing.
To me, this feels like a real inflection point in how the world thinks about climate change.
We'll see.
Well, Tucker's making news, being provocative, Tucker Carlson.
And one of the things he said, he came up with a bunch of provocative quotes, but this one, this one's pretty, pretty provocative.
He says, what's happening on the Southern border isn't just an invasion, but a crime.
The politicians and NGOs responsible for it are criminals who should be punished accordingly.
Do you think that our politicians should be in jail for their current policies?
Because that would be Biden?
Well, just Biden, really.
It would just be one person.
Because in America, there's only one person who makes the decision.
So, does he really think that Biden should be in jail for a policy that isn't working out?
Really?
Jail?
Wouldn't that be just Kind of repeating January 6 is mistake.
Then imagining that people who are politicians and maybe they're doing their job.
Maybe they would make mistakes.
But are they criminal just because people died from their mistakes?
Pretty severe.
So I'm going to disagree with Tucker that these actions are criminal.
They are absolutely not criminal.
They are genocidal.
They're genocidal.
They guarantee that there will be genocide in this country.
If not reversed, almost immediately.
So no, Tucker, you were completely wrong.
They should not be punished as criminals, but we should take seriously the fact that they've allowed genocide consciously.
It's a conscious decision, because there's no way they don't understand what they're bringing into the country.
Now, to be clear, The vast majority of immigrants just looking for a better life, and I welcome them.
Even the illegal ones.
I'm happy to have illegal ones here too, if it turns out they're here for the right reason.
It's not my first choice, let's be clear.
First choice is full control of our borders.
But I'm not super concerned about hardworking Christian families coming across the border and trying to fit in.
That's just not where I'm going to put all my worry.
But I do think we need a secure border.
However, the fact that they can come in also highlights the fact that anybody else can come in, and there's no way we're not being invaded by terrorists.
You know that, right?
There's no way the terrorists are staying home.
They're definitely coming in.
And we're going to see something not too unlike what happened in Israel probably in the next five years.
Five years, I guess.
You're going to see something like that.
So yes, whoever is bringing in genocide to our country, maybe we should consider different leadership.
Let's talk about the Speaker of the House.
Now, I'm not sure I know all the, you know, the back room dealings and personalities and all that, but I did see one thing that I liked a lot.
So when it looked like it was going to be Jim Jordan or Steve Scalise, Jim Jordan endorsed The other guy, he endorsed Scalise.
Now I'm trying to figure out how clever this was.
Cause it could turn out just to be fricking genius.
Cause what happened was Scalise found out he couldn't get the support he needed for the job and he took himself out.
Now, Jim Jordan seems to be the likely person to take the job after endorsing his competitor.
Oh, you can't win harder than that.
Just think of anything that's a bigger win than endorsing your opponent and then winning.
That's the perfect situation.
The whole job of the speaker is to figure out how to make people get along.
You know, and Jim Jordan is sort of a fire thrower, but, you know, he throws his fire at the Democrats.
So, the fact that he would play it this way, which shows, you know, real skill, I think.
It looked like real skill.
Now this assumes, I'm making a lot of assumptions here, I can't read his mind, but I'm assuming he knew that Scalise either would get the job, then it would be easy to work with him, which would be not a bad outcome.
Or he would not get the job and Jordan would look like the cross the aisle.
Well, it's just not across the aisle, but you would look like a peacemaker.
It's kind of perfect.
Yeah, I don't have a strong opinion about Jim Jordan one way or the other.
But if the Republicans think that's their guy.
Yeah, I don't have a special problem with it, or I don't really have a prediction about it either.
I would say he's very capable.
Seems very, seems well-liked in general on the Republican side.
So we'll see.
It could work out.
I saw Matt Gaetz saying that, you know, somebody questioned how this could be an improvement.
You know, wouldn't it have been better, some say, to just let McCarthy stay there because he was good at his job and we, you know, we'd have somebody in charge during these critical times.
To which Matt Gaetz said he lied repeatedly.
So if we get somebody in the job who doesn't lie to us repeatedly, that's an upgrade.
I agree, totally.
You can't have a Speaker of the House who's lying to you repeatedly.
His whole job is to be trusted.
I mean, that's so baked into the whole core process.
If somebody is making promises to people, you know, in order to pull a little coalition together for some specific thing, you can't lie to those people.
There will never be another coalition.
So, you know, I can't fact check how much lying went on and if it's, you know, more than the usual politician or anything like that.
I don't have a sense of that.
But I love that as a standard.
I love the standard that you'll fire your own boss for lying to you repeatedly.
I don't think I could love that more, honestly.
Now, again, McCarthy would probably say he didn't do any lying, so let's be honest.
I don't know exactly who's doing what.
But if it's true that the boss got fired for lying to the staff, you know, effectively, I love that.
That's a move ahead.
So, Matt Gaetz, I think you get the win on this, in my opinion.
Now, all those smart people, you know the smart people, right?
The smart people, the pundits, the people we've elected to lead us, you know the smart people.
They are unified in one thing.
They're saying that not having a Speaker of the House is causing immense harm to America.
And I couldn't agree with it more.
Let me just list all the immense harms.
I mean, just so far.
I mean, it's early, but just so far from not having a Speaker of the House.
Let's see, some of the immense harms were... Well, never mind.
Never mind.
Next story.
Salon has a big article about The Trump lovers being a cult.
Now it appears that that's going to be a main line of attack this time.
That it's a cult.
Oh, don't join the cult.
They don't know what they're doing because they're in a cult.
So Salon talks to some psychologists who I would recommend you never, ever go to a psychologist.
Every time I see a psychologist making any kind of comment about the news, you know, something that's related to the news, I just shake my head and say, okay, that's the experience I had.
Yeah.
The one time I went to a, like a marriage counselor, I thought I might be with the dumbest person who ever lived.
That's what I thought.
So, but apparently the ones they talk to will say things in the news and be on record.
Uh, not exactly.
Painting their profession in glory.
But one of the psychologists they talked to said that the Trumpers, the MAGA people are a cult because, and this is important for the definition of a cult, because people would be afraid to leave the cult.
What?
What?
They heard of DeSantis?
He's making a lot of news.
He's like a governor.
He's running for president.
Do you know that Dave Rubin backs DeSantis?
And I still talk to him.
I know, I know.
Like, if he texts me, I'll actually return his text.
He left the cult.
And yet, amazingly, I don't hate his fucking guts.
He's still the great guy that he was before.
Who knew?
Who knew?
You could actually be a reasonable person and leave the MAGA cult.
You know, I'm the perfect example.
You know, I was obviously well associated with supporting Trump.
At the moment, I'm endorsing Vivek.
I've had no problems with that.
Was I supposed to be ostracized from the cult?
Where did that happen?
I registered as Democrat this year just so I'd, you know, slime the Democrats with my own bad reputation.
Nobody cared.
Nobody cared.
What is it that the Democrats are seeing that would suggest mega people couldn't change their mind and live a happy life?
It's like ridiculously easy to do.
I didn't even know there was a risk.
Nobody told me there was some risk involved to that.
I had no idea.
Well.
Speaking of cults, I remind you that on Monday, I have a volunteer, a Democrat and a mega-hater, has volunteered.
I finally found somebody who would do this in public.
So on Spaces, the audio feature on the X platform, on this Monday, 10-16, At 6.30 p.m.
Eastern Time, I'll be talking to, if all goes well, I hope he shows up.
I think he will.
And I'll be deprogramming a Democrat in public.
Now, I want to be clear.
It's not a debate.
It's not a debate.
A debate is useless.
I'm actually going to deprogram him.
Or that's the attempt.
Now, before you get all, you know, cocky, And you think, ah, we're going to deprogram those Democrats.
I could do the same thing with a Republican.
It would be different topics.
But I could do the same thing.
So don't get too cocky.
If this works out, I might do a Republican next.
Because there's nobody who's not in their own bubble.
There's nobody who's not in the bubble.
In fact, As I tweeted today, the world is in what I call phase one of waking up.
In phase one of waking up, which would be another way of saying, you know, learning to understand your actual reality better.
That would be the waking up part.
In phase one, we, we realized that our adversaries are not always, uh, you know, stupid and evil and under-informed.
That they're literally brainwashed.
Would you say that that's an accurate statement?
of the people you disagree with.
Would you say that Hamas is brainwashed?
You would.
Yeah, of course you would.
Would you say, since most of my audience leans right, would you say that the people on the left are brainwashed?
Is that word too strong?
Or would you agree with that characterization?
Yes.
Yes.
Now, and you know, of course, as I just mentioned, you know the people you're calling brainwashed, you know that they're calling you brainwashed.
You all know that, right?
So we're in phase one, where we're sure we're not, but the other people are.
And the fact that they're calling us brainwashed, well, it's just another symbol of how brainwashed they are.
That's phase one.
That's where we are.
Phase two, should we survive as a species to get to it, is understanding that we're all in our own bubbles.
There's no such thing as the other person is brainwashed.
They are, but it's really not about the other person being brainwashed.
It's about everybody.
Everybody has the opinion assigned to them by their choice of media.
Now they start with a preference.
It might even be baked into your genes a little bit.
There's something about that I think that's true.
But beyond that, your specifics of your belief are just from the media.
It's just brainwashing.
And it applies to both sides.
Now, I want to be clear.
That doesn't mean that both sides are wrong.
You get that, right?
When I say wrong, I mean in terms of any policies that come out of it.
One side is going to have policies that work better than the other side.
And, you know, not necessarily always the same side.
So, so policies are different from the fact that one side might be brainwashed.
Well, actually both sides.
All right, so if you'd like to see the first part of this, the Phase 1 deprogramming, Monday at 6.30 Eastern Time.
I hope that actually happens.
It'll be live, so anything could happen, including the guests not showing up, but I think you will.
All right, yeah, NBC News.
Has embarrassed itself?
I missed this story, but apparently yesterday or so, they had claimed on NBC News that they had, quote, gained access to the community notes function on X. And once they had gained access, they determined that instead of fighting false and misleading information, there were false things on that had been totally unattended.
And so therefore, this Community Notes thing, mmm, not so good.
That's what they said.
And then the fact check came in from Community Notes.
That's right.
Community Notes fact checked NBC's story about Community Notes.
And here's what they said.
I will paraphrase.
You did not gain access to any special Twitter system.
They merely talked to somebody who does community notes.
And there's just somebody who is a community notes person who just showed them their screens.
And do you know about those things that they were that they were ignoring?
They're just things that they had not yet added a note to.
That was NBC's big story.
They looked over somebody's shoulder and didn't understand what they were seeing.
That's it.
That was their investigative report.
So, just so you don't think Salon is ridiculous bullshit, NBC News, also some ridiculous bullshit.
And have I mentioned MSNBC?
Let's talk about them.
Apparently they experienced a 33% decline in primetime ratings because of how they covered the Hamas war with Israel.
33% decline.
Now, how do you get declining ratings in a hot war?
Is that the only time that's ever happened in the history of the United States?
You know, since we've had media?
I've never even heard of that.
Have you?
Do you think during the Gulf Wars, do you think that there was any news network that lost viewers during a war?
I'm not even sure this is true.
I feel like maybe the news isn't true.
I mean, could they really have dropped 33%?
Now I understand what the problem was.
They were a little bit maybe trying to be balanced about something that their viewers thought should not be balanced.
Right.
It's probably what it was.
But man, they just got creamed.
Well, Fox News numbers shot up 42%.
Even CNN went up 17%.
MSNBC down 33%.
Now here's what I think is happening.
I think they lost their Jewish audience and their Jewish supporting audience.
You know, anybody who was Like-minded.
That's probably the whole story.
So MSNBC was not... Were they too woke?
Does that apply?
Because I'm not sure where wokeness overlaps with what anybody would think about the Middle East.
The Middle East is kind of separate from wokeness, isn't it?
Not completely.
Well, there you go.
So MSNBC learned a valuable lesson today.
I think it's interesting that when I got up this morning and checked the X platform, one of the words that was trending was brainwashing.
Brainwashing.
Was trending and it wasn't because somebody had been captured in the military sense and brainwashed.
It's now being used as a headline word.
To describe the things we're seeing, which we used to describe other ways.
Why do we describe it as brainwashing now, when we used to describe it as just people disagreeing?
What's different?
What changed to make people see it as brainwashing?
to make people see it as brainwashing?
Probably me.
Just one of the things, it's just one of the impacts was me.
I've been reframing this as two movies on one screen for a long time.
If you hear two movies on one screen long enough, and then you see an example of action, like a war was a good example, then you see it so clearly that at the very least, you know the other people are brainwashed.
At the very least.
We used to think that the news was real.
When we believed that the news was real, it kind of didn't make sense.
I've got a little error here.
Oh, it looks like StreamYard is just totally stopped.
We got a complete stop.
The rumble killed it.
Can't restart it.
Got no comments.
Let's see if I end it and restart it.
See what happens.
Oh, it's completely dead.
Give me a minute.
I'm going to reboot this.
Oh, I can't move this.
Let's see if I can even close the window.
Streamyard itself is dead. Streamyard
itself is dead. Streamyard
itself is dead.
Streamyard itself
is dead. Streamyard
itself is dead.
Hello, people.
Is anybody still there?
Oh look at that.
Looks like we're back.
Alright, sorry my screen froze up there, but we're back.
Alright, as I was saying, brainwashing is trending.
And.
I got the I got this comment Today, on the X platform, from a user called Paisano, who said, among other things, he said, I'm thoroughly enjoying your new book, Reframe Your Brain.
Reframe Your Brain?
My new book that's changing lives all over the place.
If you don't have it, you really should.
Probably the most important book I've ever written.
Probably.
Because it's changing people's lives the fastest and the most.
But here's the question that Paesano has.
He says, as a trained hypnotist master of persuasion, why are you and others like Robert Cialdini trying to launch widespread reframes to make the world a better place?
So Paesano is asking, with my skills, why don't I fix, you know, world peace?
World peace.
Now, I don't like to complain, but most authors get asked for autographs.
Sometimes people say, oh, could you add more than the autograph?
Could you say, you know, to my brother, you know, John, and put a little message there?
Almost never does somebody ask an author to use his powers to force world peace.
But to you, Paisano, I say, challenge accepted.
Challenge accepted.
All right.
Vivek Ramaswamy is making news at the very hardest time that anybody could make news, which is when there's something more interesting going on.
And he's getting a lot of heat.
Hannity, he went at it with Hannity.
Hannity just sort of went off on him.
And how many of you saw Vivek talk to Hannity?
Give me your one sentence impression.
Did one of them come off better than the other?
Because I had a view about it, but I'm biased.
It looked to me like Hannity had some kind of a weird meltdown.
Is that what you saw?
It looked like Hannity was trying to take Vivek out of the race and failed completely.
But he basically just made himself look like a partisan in not the best way.
So that was my impression.
But you know, I'm pro-Vivek, so I might be too biased about that.
I was wondering if you saw it the same way.
All right.
Well, so after that, others piled on.
One of them is Matt Whitlock.
And he tweeted this.
He said, this is the 300th time Vivek has said something inflammatory, been presented with his own words verbatim, and feigned moral outrage that he was being somehow mischaracterized.
This is embarrassing and he should drop out.
All right, here's what you need to know.
First of all, I don't think Matt meant 300 times literally.
That's a little thing we call hyperbole.
Do I criticize him for using hyperbole?
No, because I know what he means.
What he means is too much.
300 is just hyperbole.
And those who don't understand hyperbole end up debating the wrong things.
It's not about the count.
It's just directionally, he's saying this guy does this too much.
But here's a little media watching trick for you.
When you see the word verbatim used this way, this is not somebody you should pay attention to.
And I'll tell you why.
But listen to how it's used.
Just look for the word verbatim in the sentence.
This is the 300th time Vivek has been presented with something.
In his own words, verbatim, Then feigned moral outrage that he was being somehow mischaracterized.
To which I tweeted back, almost all of the major political hoaxes are based on verbatims.
A verbatim is a signal of a hoax.
He's using it as a signal of truth.
No, you got this backwards, Matt.
Where have you been?
Anytime, anytime, you see somebody, oh, but it's verbatim.
Watch!
Here's this video clip of the President of the United States calling neo-Nazis fine people.
Look!
It's verbatim!
It's verbatim!
Yes, it is verbatim.
And it's also so out of context that it literally reversed his meaning from condemning them to praising them.
That's as reversed as you can get.
He condemned people But then they said, it's verbatim, the part we're going to selectively cut out.
It's called a rupar when you selectively edit and take the verbatim.
And then what do people say when you complain that it's not true?
I saw it myself on video.
So when you hear the word verbatim or the words, I heard it or saw it myself, that's like a 90% likely signal for fake news.
It's really reliable.
People don't use those words about real things.
There's some words that people consistently use for things that aren't real, and once you learn those words, you spot them right away.
As soon as you see that word verbatim.
So yes, it's probably the right words, but the wrong context.
Then Dan Crenshaw, who is not too happy with Vivek.
I guess there's a difference in how much military response the two of them think is appropriate.
Vivek would be more, let's not get involved in any military unless it's directly for America's benefit.
You know, not this indirect stuff like, oh, maybe China will attack Taiwan unless we attack Ukraine.
You know, not this indirect stuff.
If it's directly involving us, such as the cartels, then yes, military.
That would be Vivek's view.
Characterizing that correctly.
But Dan Crenshaw says of Vivek, enough of the Hamas apologists.
Vivek Ramaswamy is dangerously ignorant when it comes to issues of national security and foreign affairs.
It's apparent from his little list below.
I don't know what the list was.
He has zero understanding of the region or existing American policy in the region.
Zero.
So if I can summarize, Dan Crenshaw says that Vivek is a Hamas apologist and too inexperienced to be making decisions at this level.
Well, I've got a couple of observations about that.
Number one, anytime you see these words, and I should have added this, apologist, I'm going to add that.
I thought I had added that.
apologist.
Whenever you see these words, and I'll give you a better view here in a second.
Oh.
Oh no, I lost my cap.
Alright, here's three words that will reliably Identify somebody who's not a legitimate debater.
Now, the people I'm going to mention, I kind of like.
So, it's not about the people, but they're not being good people when they do this.
I shouldn't say the people are bad, I should just say that they're doing something bad.
If you say that somebody compared Gaza to the Holocaust.
Do you think that happened in any real way?
There are people who will make that comparison, and they will be cancelled immediately.
But do you think that they meant that?
Do you think that they meant that they're the same in all the ways?
Never.
So if you see somebody say, hey, you compared this bad thing to that bad thing, and man, let me tell you, this other bad thing's way worse, and you compared them, you're cancelled.
Anybody who uses this word compared, they're fucked up.
Because you never did that.
People just aren't comparing all the things.
They're usually comparing one thing.
For example, I mentioned for context, That although there were 27 Americans who died or so in the Hamas attack, and that's horrible and just almost monstrously hard to even hold in your head.
And of course that was a small subset of the larger, you know, tragedy.
But for context, I tweeted that about 200 people, Americans a day, die from fentanyl overdoses.
About 200 a day.
A day.
Now, somebody's gonna say, because you know they will, Scott, did you just compare overdoses, which are optional because people don't have to do drugs, did you compare that to somebody coming in and, like, decapitating babies?
Like, how did you compare that?
And the answer is, no, asshole, I didn't compare them.
You did.
That's your word.
I said it's good context.
Wouldn't you like to know, is 27 a lot of people to die in one day?
Turns out it's not.
And of course the circumstances are completely different.
But if you're talking about death, do you know those 200 people that died today?
They don't give a fuck about how other people died.
They're just dead.
So dead is dead.
So here's what I'll compare.
The feelings of the dead 27 people with the feelings of the dead 200.
None of them are happy about it, however they got there.
But of course, the circumstances were completely different.
The moral equivalence argument.
I saw Ben Shapiro with this one.
Now, I'm going to give a semi-free pass to anyone with Jewish heritage this week.
Would you agree that's appropriate?
If you're just talking, you know, even in public, I'm going to give you a free pass.
You're going to say things that go too far, in my opinion.
And I'm going to let that ride.
Because this is not, this is not exactly a logic contest.
Right?
This is not a logic contest.
This is about insanely deep emotions.
And The response is going to be based on emotion plus power.
There will never be a logical element to what's going on.
We'll make the arguments, but we're in the situation in which you don't want to get too logical.
It's just not what's happening here.
So when Ben Shapiro said, hey, you stop making a moral equivalence between what is and will happen in Gaza.
Compared to what happened in Israel, because one is a defensive act, largely, and the other is an offensive act.
To which I say, I don't think that's what people were doing.
I think literally zero people thought there was a moral equivalence.
Now, the only way there's a moral equivalence is in the real Let's say, you know, angels dancing on the head of a pin, philosophical way, in which you would say, which I say, by the way, this is my view.
Once you've achieved pure evil, don't tell me that somebody did two times that.
Two times pure evil is just more pure evil.
Once it's pure evil, what happened in Israel, you know, there's nothing to compare it to.
It's just pure evil.
You can have a higher death count, But is that how we're keeping score?
Not really, we don't keep score that way.
Maybe we should, but we don't.
Alright, and then apologists.
If you see the word apologist, that's just, that's just not a good player.
Right?
Do you think that Vivek is an apologist?
Do you think that he approved of Hamas?
Like, why would you say that about an American when we're kind of, you know, we're kind of under pressure too here.
Why would you say that about an American?
That you know it isn't true.
So anytime you see these words, these are not people you should debate.
You should close them down and run away.
They're just, they're operating on some pure emotional level.
They're not trying to be, They're not trying to be logical and win a debate.
They're trying to demonize you to take you out of the debate.
That's a better way to put it.
They're trying to demonize you so that your words will not be heard because they don't like them.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't, you know, people who are doing exactly these things, but you never see it.
You know, like in the public debate, Vivek is not apologizing for terrorists.
It's just stupid.
It's fucking stupid.
All right.
So here's a few things I would say to that.
Number one, Dan Crenshaw seems to think that experience in national security would be a pretty big advantage.
I would say that experience in government is most correlated with corruption.
The number one correlation with experience is corruption.
That's a reframe you can take to the bank.
Do you know why people liked Trump?
Because he wasn't a career politician.
Do you know what that implied to his supporters?
It implied that he wasn't corrupt.
When Crenshaw says we need the experienced people to do that, you know how I hear it?
The corrupt people need to be in charge.
That's all I hear.
The people who have figured out how to profit from the military-industrial complex?
You can't do that on day one.
That's not day one stuff.
I've been here for a while.
I've got the right positions in Congress.
I've reached the level where I'm important enough that somebody would want to give me a reward.
Experience in government is a signal for corruption.
It doesn't mean every person.
But I sure as hell would not prefer experience over the smartest person who's ever run for office who could learn your fucking job overnight.
Sorry to say it.
See, I keep saying this.
I haven't heard anybody else say it, but we haven't seen enough of a run for office.
We've seen lots of really smart people, a lot of, you know, Ivy League people.
People you wouldn't want to compete against in an IQ contest.
They're really smart people.
They've run for office.
But we haven't seen a fake.
Maybe not since Thomas Jefferson.
Or Monroe or something.
Or Hamilton.
But he is the type who can figure out your whole job like while you're getting coffee.
You haven't seen this before, so people don't know how to evaluate him.
Right?
Even if you don't like his opinion today, and you say, but your opinion is under-informed because there's this thing I know that you don't know.
Give him ten more minutes.
Tell him the thing that you know that he doesn't know.
And we're done here.
And now he knows it.
He's not like other people.
He's not rejecting Opinions that disagree with him.
He's actually Considering them and sometimes even adjusting from them and you're seeing it in real time We've never seen this before so comparing him to other people It's just not fair.
Well fair is the wrong word.
It's not useful.
Oh by the way Arnold Schwarzenegger has a new book Title of the book is be useful Apparently that's his advice.
It's an advice book.
It's called Be Useful.
Let me ask you, where have you heard that before?
Is there any other advice book that had as a key theme, Be Useful?
Yeah, it's like the main theme of my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
I thought to myself, did his ghost writer just read my book?
It's like the title of his book.
As the comments from the people who have read my book are telling you, it's like a main theme of the book.
I've never heard anybody say it before I did.
Because I've been asked in interviews, you know, can you sort of summarize your view of success?
And my view of how to be successful is just those two words.
Be useful.
Because your entire value To a potential mate, to an employer, to your friends, to everybody.
Be useful.
If you're trying to be loved because of who you are, bad strategy.
You should be loved for what you do.
Well, maybe bad.
It might be different for women.
Women can actually be loved for who they are.
Men and children can be loved for who they are.
Men have to perform.
Maybe he makes that distinction, but I don't know.
Anyway, that was a little aside.
I had a little exchange with an Israeli resident this morning.
And I don't know how to even approach this topic without getting canceled.
But let's see if I can couch it in other people's opinions.
Because it's not my opinion.
Would you agree with the following statement that the radical Islamists will use whatever happens in Gaza as a propaganda tool forever?
Forever.
They will use it to recruit, they will use it to get world sympathy, they will use it to get money, they'll use it to get power.
What does that sound like?
I'm going to get cancelled right now.
I know I am.
All right.
Here's what I'm not doing.
The next things I say are not comparing.
I'm not going to do that.
There will be no comparing.
There's no moral equivalence.
Nope.
I'm not going to make a moral equivalence.
There's no apologist.
I'm not being an apologist for anything.
I'm going to tell you what other people are going to do and think.
This is not me.
I'm just predicting what other people are going to do and think.
Israel is handing Hamas their own Holocaust.
And they have no idea what it's going to cost them in the long run.
Now, I want to be as clear as possible.
There isn't really any alternative to what they're doing.
I can't think of one.
And they have a complete right to self-defense.
Complete right.
That is unquestioned.
And I can see nothing else they can do except exactly what they're doing.
If it were my country, 100% on board.
Now, I don't have to take a moral or ethical stand about something that is only going to happen one way.
It would be like taking a moral and ethical stand against the rain.
The rain is just going to rain.
It's just cause and effect.
I don't take moral stands against cause and effect.
When Hamas came into Israel and did what they did, they destroyed Gaza.
But I think they probably knew it.
And I think maybe the bigger plan is to destroy Gaza, kill their own people, martyr them, martyr as many of their citizens as they can.
To try to get something that would be the equivalent of the Israeli superpower, which is the Holocaust narrative.
Now.
I'm not comparing him.
This is not me comparing them.
I'm telling you what other people are going to compare.
Because if you're Palestinian, it's going to feel like a Holocaust to you.
Right?
It's not a fair comparison, but it's sure going to feel like one.
So.
I asked my smart friend from Israel, you realize that you're giving them their own Holocaust, right?
And he said that he hadn't talked to anybody who had that concept in their mind.
Did you?
You could all see it, right?
Is it a blind spot for the Israeli citizens?
Because they just know they have to do what they have to do.
And, you know, there's no way you could convince them That anybody would see this like the Holocaust, but I feel like they might be a little bubble there.
Because I think outside of their bubble.
Uhm, the Islamists are going to make a lot of hay with that.
You think they get it?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Now let me close this by saying I'm not comparing it to the Holocaust.
I'm not being an apologist for Hamas.
I want them all destroyed.
And I'm also not making moral equivalence.
I'm not doing that.
I'm just making sort of a military observation.
So in theory, when Israel is done, if done is even a word here, with whatever happens in Gaza, It should make their security situation much, much worse in the long run.
Do you think so?
Am I wrong about that?
Because it's an interesting trap that Hamas set for them.
And the trap is that they have to do what they have to do.
And I agree with it completely.
But it's going to cost them more than they can imagine.
How can it get worse?
How can it get worse?
Have you seen the crowds in Jordan trying to cross the border to join the fight?
It can get worse by bringing more people in who are willing to run toward Tel Aviv, shouting death to everybody.
The thing that can get worse is more people on the side of the bad guys, that's all.
I mean, that's the whole game here.
Well, if you are spending any time online, you know that the situation in the Middle East has turned into... I hate to say this, and I don't mean this to make light of it, but if you look at the news coming out of Gaza, from the people who are supporting Gaza, it's turned into a dead baby contest.
They are literally competing to see who can show the most horrific images of actual dead babies.
It literally became a dead baby persuasion contest.
Man, if there was ever a time to take a time off from social media.
It's the worst thing I've ever seen.
By far.
Would you agree?
I've never seen anything even close to how bad this is.
And I'm talking about the way it's being reported and how social media is handling it.
But the images that I wish I could never see.
I can never unsee.
My brain is actually scarred.
The initial stories about the 40 beheaded babies, which we're still trying to figure out what is and is not true, but obviously it was a horror of unspeakable magnitude, no matter what the details were.
Even no matter how much of that was exactly true and how much of it was directionally true, I have a whole movie in my head of the thing that may or may not have happened the way it was described.
Do you have the same problem?
I mean, I can't get that out of my head, no matter how exactly true or generally true it was.
So, I mean, that just lives in there.
And now I'm seeing the images coming out of Gaza.
I'm never going to forget them.
I spent just like a few minutes, just a few minutes, and I got in the wrong place.
You know, I hit a hashtag I shouldn't have hit and boom.
And wow, I don't think I'll ever be the same, honestly.
I think that I feel like I have brain damage.
Actual physical brain damage.
From looking at those pictures, because I'm not the same.
Maybe it turned me into something else.
Anyway, what else is going on?
Here's a weird story that Israel bombed the only Planned Parenthood building in Gaza.
Now, I'm no military expert, but that feels like opposite of their objectives.
AOC had a tweet or a post that somebody said she deleted that she was blaming the.
Blaming Israel's attack of Gaza as well, not the attack, but the turning off the water and the electricity and starving them as collective punishment, which would technically be a war crime.
Oh, before I talk about this.
I need to mention.
That I'm not going to be comparing.
I'm not going to be making a moral equivalence.
I'm not an apologist.
Okay.
You have to say that every time you talk.
But is it?
What is the technical answer to the question?
Is it a war crime to turn off facilities to the public because you're after a small subset of the public?
Now what would not make that a war crime?
It is collective punishment, right?
Yes, yes, Russia.
But maybe war is always collective punishment.
Yeah, Hiroshima.
How was Hiroshima not a war crime?
Because it was mostly citizens, right?
99% of citizens.
How is that not a war crime?
I guess I don't understand what makes something a war crime.
So somebody says that Her post was taken down.
It might be because she learned it wasn't a war crime.
I just don't know where the line is.
Maybe I'll do a little research on where the line is.
Well, today is the so-called Day of Rage, which some media outlets have called the Day of Protest.
Do you think there will be violence in the United States today?
People who are supporting the Palestinians, or maybe even supporting Hamas?
Some say yes.
Well, there'll be protests.
Apparently the White House is putting up gates and security.
I wonder why.
Why would you put up security around the White House for this, but you didn't do much security for January 6th?
Well, that's an interesting question for later.
Bongino says it's fake, the day of rage, and the real one will come later.
Well, I think there might be lots of real ones coming later.
Yeah.
You know, the advantage that the United States has, and it's a big one, is that we're large.
So you can introduce, you know, a thousand people into Israel, and they could bring the country to its knees.
If you introduced a thousand people in America, they would be spread out or they'd be in one place where the military would just zap them.
So the geography doesn't work so well, but obviously there could be unlimited terror attacks.
Yeah, there could be unlimited 9-11s.
Nothing would stop that.
But it's not so much a bunch of people running at you with guns yelling.
That's not so much going to happen here.
All right.
Okay.
Take out one school or sporting event.
Yeah, that's probably what they'll do.
All right.
Do you think anything will happen in America because of this situation?
I feel like, I feel like wokeness won't go away, but it's taken quite a blow.
And I also feel that the anti-woke people are getting a lot braver.
Is that my imagination?
I mean, the things that I'm seeing being said in public are things you couldn't say one year ago.
Would you agree?
Things you could not say in public one year ago, people are saying unreservedly in public.
And that's a big, I think that's a step in the right place.
Might mostly be because the X platform is the last fashion of free speech, but I feel like something's changing.
Yeah.
Feels like something's changing.
Yeah.
There was a French teacher who got stabbed and somebody got stabbed over there, but I don't know.
That could have been just a crazy person.
Yeah.
The stock market has been weird, hasn't it?
Let's check it right now.
Well, it's down.
Looks like it's broadly down.
Except for makeup.
Makeup is up.
Alta.
Alright.
Aren't all terrorists crazy people?
Well, I don't know if they started that way, but they might have been brainwashed into it.
I'm not sure if brainwashing is the same as crazy.
Oh, is it Chachin?
Okay.
Well, here's what won't win you the election in 2024.
I'm going to take away your rifles.
I don't think that wins the election.
I don't understand how Trump isn't up compared to Biden by 20 points.
It's really baffling that this looks like it'll be close.
It's just really baffling.
Well, I would say this unreservedly and without hyperbole.
In 2024, you're going to be voting for your life in ways that I don't think has ever been the case.
Because if we don't get a president who will close the border, we will be dead.
I think that's a given.
And not because of Hispanics coming over.
They're not really the problem.
They'll never let it happen?
I don't think Trump is more than 20.
I don't think that's real.
Yeah, Trump is going to have to have, like, an enormous organic lead on Election Day, or else nobody's going to believe the result if he doesn't win.
The most dangerous thing that could happen in the country is Trump losing in a close race when the polls said it wouldn't be close.
We might be heading for that.
That would be really bad.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to close down the feed over here for YouTube and Twitter.
