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 Brain Mapping, AI Simulations, Elite Colleges, Backward Science, Biden's Confidential Boxes, Vivek Ramaswamy, Harvard Students, Megan Kelly, Candace Owens, John Cusack, Debate Technique, 60 Minutes President Biden, Ukraine War's Purpose, President Putin, Israel Hamas War, President Trump, Governor Abbott, 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
do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do good morning everybody and welcome to coffee with scott adams a highlight of human civilization
and if you'd like this experience which is already extraordinary to go up to levels that almost nobody could even imagine and that's not even counting the whiteboard that's coming up and all you have to do is find yourself a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or gels or 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, the dopamine, the day the thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Oh, yeah.
Mmm.
Mmm. Mmm.
Well, according to the CDC, only 2% of Americans got their COVID vaccination this year.
2%.
I'm starting to think that the public is waking up.
What would happen If the public suddenly woke up.
So I feel like we're maybe maybe.
Reaching the point where people are waking up.
Because you know, here's the.
Here's the progression.
You start with my team.
Good other team bad.
And if you wake up, you realize that both teams are just, you know, following their self interest and probably don't have much of your interest in mind at all.
And then once you don't trust anything, everything starts making sense.
It's only when you trust something that you're lost.
Right?
As soon as you say, well, those Democrats are all bad, but thank God I'm on that good team, all the Republicans.
Eh, you're not quite there yet.
Sorry, you're not quite there.
You don't wake up until you realize everybody is chasing money and dopamine, and that may have nothing to do with you.
Well, we have no Speaker of the House yet again, and I ask you this question.
How?
How can the United States survive one more day without having a named Speaker of the House?
So far, the damages have included Okay, screw you.
There aren't any damages, but I'm sure that there will be.
There will be really big, big damages any minute now.
Any minute now.
That's on you, and you, and you.
We're not picking a Speaker of the House that half of the country wants to fucking kill.
Yeah, that's on you.
If we could just get somebody in the job that half of the country I have a provocative thought for you, and it goes like this.
then we'd have some good stuff to happen to that.
We'd be passing laws and solving wars and stuff like that.
Yeah.
Do you know how much our inflation would come down if we only had a Speaker of the House to authorize some more fucking spending?
Oh, yeah.
It'd be coming way down.
Okay.
I have a provocative thought for you, and it goes like this.
As you know, AI creates something like intelligence by predicting the next word that it should say, or next word you're going to say, I suppose, based on words that have been spoken by people before.
So AI learns to be intelligent simply looking at the combination of words that humans have spoken before, because our intelligence Is embedded in the words in the order of the words.
So of course, AI can unravel that and create some kind of intelligence of its own.
But I ask you this.
Could it learn to predict what you're going to do in any situation simply by looking at the words you have used before and the order in which you use them?
And I think the answer is yes.
And the reason is exactly what I told you.
If the order of words that you've spoken before are basically a diagram of your brain, you know, just put into a word form, it's a diagram of your brain.
Once you have a diagram of somebody's brain, in theory, you should know what they're going to do if you introduce any new stimulation.
You know, if there's a war, what are you going to do?
If there's a thing, what are you going to do?
So the question I ask is, could we use AI to build a model of Putin that's based on things he's said, not counting speeches?
Right?
So not counting speeches.
Because if you counted his speeches, you might be counting somebody else's words that he just happened to speak.
Right?
So not counting his public speeches.
If you could get enough data from his casual conversations, Could you build an AI model that you could use as your proxy and say, OK, Putin, but you'd be talking to the AI.
OK, Putin, we're going to, let's see, do an aerial bombardment of a city on the Russian border.
How are you going to respond?
And then just see what the AI does.
And see if it's the same as what Putin does.
Then you run it for a while.
And then you see if Putin keeps doing the same thing the AI says he would do.
And once you get a match, you can predict his next move.
Now, what part of that doesn't work?
May I introduce the response to the people who are not good at listening?
May I take a moment?
Those of you who are good at listening, could you take a break and talk among yourselves?
I want to talk only to the people who are bad at listening.
It's not counting his speeches.
No, when I said excluding his speeches.
You don't need to have to say, hey, those speeches were written by somebody else.
Because I started by saying we would exclude.
Exclude means to not include.
That it's not part of the conversation and never shall be.
There shall be no discussion of using AI to look at the speeches written by other people as a way to determine what Putin will do.
That is not the suggestion.
The suggestion excludes His speeches.
Now, I'd like to take a moment, for those who didn't understand that, to say, Scott, you realize his speeches are written by other people.
Go.
Just get it out of your system.
I know some of you need to say it, because I said it on Twitter, and that was, you know, half of the comments were, well, those speeches were written by other people.
Yeah, no, of course not.
Of course we don't include those.
So how many of you have had the realization that artificial intelligence is God's debris?
And I only say that for those of you who have read the book, God's Debris, because I don't want to give you a spoiler because the book is written such that if you knew what was coming, it would ruin the experience.
So I'm not going to say more than that.
I'm just going to say that if you read the book God's Debris and you know what AI is, it's going to blow your fucking mind.
So that's a book I wrote a long time ago that's banned.
You can't find it now in stores, but if you were a member of the scottadams.locals.com community subscription, you could get that book for free on PDF.
All right.
Sometimes you can find it used.
Best book I ever wrote, some say.
Now, here's something that's just freaking me out, that either proves we're some kind of a simulation, or it's the biggest coincidence ever.
In the history of humanity, there have been very few times when we were looked like we were going to suffer from A population collapse.
Would you agree?
If you looked at the, let's say, 100,000 years of human beings, very, very few of those years were you worrying about a population collapse.
Maybe in the Ice Age, but you weren't talking about it.
You didn't have email.
But why is it that at the very moment, and let's just look at the modern world, so if you just limit it to the modern world, you know, recorded history kind, we've mostly been just been having more and more people and worried that we'll run out of food.
Now, at the very time that we realize, wait a minute, we've got a population collapse, we're not replacing humans at the rate we need to.
What are the odds that that would happen?
At the same time that Tesla is about ready to roll out your robots, Yeah, to do the labor.
And now there is a company that's building robots as a service.
So that labor will be a service that you just call up like electricity.
So instead of having to interview somebody and hire somebody and give them benefits, it would be like a temp service, except they'd send over a robot.
But you know what's the cool part?
If you had ever had a robot, even once, that had ever done that job at your company, then every robot knows how to do that job at your company.
It would even know the names of the coworkers.
You just send in a new robot, and it would just be fully aware of your entire operation, because one robot had ever worked there once.
Now, why would you ever hire humans if you had that situation, where you could bring in a fully trained, replaced robot, And during Christmas you could get three of them.
Because you got a little Christmas rush.
And then you don't have to worry about firing them, you don't have to worry about a strike.
It's just labor as a service.
That's a big problem to human labor, sure.
But that's where we're heading.
Labor as a service.
So it could be that population collapse will coincide perfectly with the time that we don't need a lot of people.
So then it would just be robots taking care of senior citizens, basically.
No, it won't.
We will live forever by merging with the robots.
I'm going to tell you why I'm less concerned about robot danger than you are.
Two things.
Number one, AIs will probably end up finding a way to network with each other, even if you make them independent.
Uh, they will stay independent for a while, but the larger AI, which will start connecting with all the other AIs, first for utility, you know, originally they'll connect because it will just be useful.
It's like, oh, it'd be good if this AI had access to this database.
So, eventually AI will become one AI.
In other words, all these little AIs, you know, that are operating in different companies and such, will eventually be able to talk to each other in such a way that they form an uber-intelligence, or effectively God.
Because there won't be anything it can't do, in time.
You know, initially there'll be things it can't do, but over time it'll be able to form planets.
Do you disagree?
If you take AI and simply just advance it normally compared, you know, in a normal way that we would expect technology to advance.
AI reaches a point where it can advance itself faster than we could have advanced it.
And then it just goes into the, you know, impossible to imagine zone pretty quickly.
You don't think that if we stay alive, Human beings, or even without us, just the AI and the robots themselves, you don't think that they would someday be able to terraform a planet and put it into orbit somewhere?
I think that's within the realm of possibility.
So, could AI be effectively God?
Could it create a simulation And kill the human being but put their memories into it and therefore create an afterlife for people.
That's right.
AI could create an afterlife.
It could actually create a world which is your personality that's just put into a simulated world where maybe you could just live again.
Could it be that we are already that simulation?
Could it be?
That long ago, AI became our overlords and realized that we needed an afterlife or the sense of an afterlife.
And so it gave us one.
And so that I'm actually not my original organic creature.
I'm actually already in the afterlife and imagining that this life went better than the last one.
Because in my last life, maybe I was a laborer who got leukemia and died at 35.
But in my afterlife, I'm a famous cartoonist who's got a show that's going out to the world.
And I'm having a great day.
I mean, there's an awful lot to my life that is afterlife-ish.
Like, too good to be real.
I mean, I don't want to brag, but my average day is pretty good.
It does feel like an afterlife.
There are days when I actually have the sensation that I must be in the afterlife.
So, one of the reasons I don't worry about AI is that we will be AI.
Between some kind of neural link connection and however we do it, your intelligence and AI will become part of one entity.
And humans and AI will essentially merge into one god-like creature.
Which might even have afterlife for part of you, or it doesn't need it because you'll be essentially infinite.
It might make people immortal and connect them to the AI at the same time.
So I don't think that we'll be battling AI.
I think we will be AI.
So that if AI got bad intentions anywhere in the planet, you and I would know it.
So in the future, you can be sitting at your desk And you would be aware in the subconscious part of your mind, which is the AI part, because it's just operating all the time.
The subconscious part of your mind would be aware that there's a guy in China who just had a bad idea about maybe murdering somebody.
And the entire world would know at the same time that the guy in China got the idea.
And so the mechanisms would automatically operate to change his mind.
So the AI portion of that Chinese guy We're just talking about it.
Because it connected to all the other A.I.s, and the other A.I.s who are also human, because we are connected so much to A.I.
that's part of one entity.
Then the others just said, take care of that.
We just solved it in China, while I'm just eating my lunch, and I'm completely unaware that my subconscious, the A.I.
part of my mind, just solved the problem in China.
I didn't need to know.
So I think that's what the future looks like.
A lot of solved problems.
But I'm looking at the comments and I must point out that the one thing that will not change is it will all be Trump's fault.
I think we can agree on that.
It will be Trump's fault.
Well, colleges are largely worthless.
Elon Musk tweeted that, or as he says, posted, what has actually happened is that you can no longer trust elite colleges And I have to test people independently for engineering ability.
That's in the short run.
In the long run, we will hire those trained robots to do that stuff for us.
So in the long run, you'll be hiring somebody who has, in the long run, we'll be hiring somebody who has part human ability and part AI.
And so everybody will be an engineer.
All right.
Today, I give you another example of what I call backwards science.
Backwards science!
See, that's a cheap operation, so I have to do my own sting.
Backwards science!
All right, here's today's backwards science.
Meta-analysis uncovered.
Now, I've told you about the meta-analysis.
What should you say as soon as you hear there was a meta-analysis?
Bullshit.
Right.
Yeah, meta-analysis is bullshit.
Now, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
Because lots of questions have a yes or no.
So it's either something happened or it didn't.
So they still might get the right answer.
But it's not because meta-analysis is real.
It's not a real thing.
Meta-analysis means a human decided which studies were good enough to include.
So basically, it's a human.
It's not an analysis.
It's just somebody said, oh, that one's bad, so I'll leave it out.
Or there might be one big study that overwhelms the other ones.
So it turns out that whatever that one study is, is also the answer to the meta-analysis, because one of them had more participants.
So meta-analysis is not a science.
It's not real statistics.
It's bullshit.
All right.
But there was a meta-analysis that uncovered a small but significant negative relationship between anxiety sensitivity and physical activity.
In simpler terms, yes, let's give this to you in simpler terms, because I know you need that.
Individuals with higher anxiety sensitivity tend to engage in less physical activity.
That's right.
The people with more anxiety do less exercise.
Okay.
Does anything about that seem a little backwards to you?
Given that we know conclusively and without any doubt that people who exercise more will lower their sense of anxiety.
Don't you think that that's a more likely explanation?
Is it just me?
Or is it really, really, really obvious that exercise makes you more relaxed, less anxious?
Whereas being anxious might also have an effect on your willingness to exercise.
But to leave out the more obvious effect that exercise relaxes you is not exactly science.
So first of all, they get the causation backwards, or at least they don't talk to the fact that it's a two-way causation.
And then they act like meta-analysis is real.
It's called science, people.
It's called science.
Well, Jonathan Turley trying to break through the news coverage about Israel and Gaza, which is tough to do this week.
But apparently there's some news about Joe Biden's confidential boxes.
Do you remember the story we were fed?
We were fed the story that, oh yes, it's true.
Trump had some confidential boxes and Biden had some confidential boxes.
But here's the difference.
The very moment that Biden found out he had some confidential boxes, how could he have known?
But the moment he found out, he reported it to the authorities and they took care of it as they do.
And that's so different than what Trump did.
Because Trump was trying to maybe move things around and negotiate and move things and maybe, maybe didn't tell the truth about things and move things and cover things and lock doors.
You know, that's all bad.
Right.
But not Joe Biden.
You know, you can almost imagine him.
He was on the phone doing some other president business.
And Abe comes in and says, President, they found some boxes of confidential information.
In your garage.
And he put down his phone and he said, you take that right out of this office and directly to the authorities.
Because I do not want to be the one who delayed even one minute from making this right.
And that's different.
That's different.
But it turns out that the real story of the Joe Biden boxes turns out to sound a whole lot like the Trump story.
So we're now learning.
That there were lots of time between the time they found them and the time that they notified the authorities, and that during that time they may have at various times been distributed, sorted into different places and locations, conversations happened.
So there's at least a strong enough evidence that Jonathan Turley finds it worthy of writing about.
He's a highly credible source.
And he's saying that that Joe Biden story might have been absolute bullshit, and that he was weaseling around with those confidential boxes as much as, possibly more than, Trump.
Can we all act mock-surprised?
I'd like to put on my mock-surprised look.
What?
No way!
No way!
It's almost like you can't trust the news!
All right, so Biden's boxes might come back to bite him.
Well, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, PLO, the president said they don't back Hamas because Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people.
Doesn't back Hamas.
So, as Bill Ackman asked on X, what is wrong with a country where the students in American colleges are backing Hamas, but even the Palestinians themselves are not backing Hamas?
What does that tell you about the state of our education?
Everything.
Right?
It tells you why Elon Musk says that you have to test people yourself because college is no longer certified that you're getting anybody good.
It's amazing that colleges are destroyed.
So there was a story that turned out to be maybe something closer to fake news that suggested that Iran was not backing Hamas and was stepping away from them.
But apparently that was an unofficial government response to some question from some underling.
So there is not an official Iranian reaction, I guess.
I haven't seen any reaction, have you?
Have you seen any reaction from Iran that said, good, bad, yes, no, Israel bad, Hamas good, anything like that?
Have they been completely quiet, Iran?
Because I can't believe that the Iranian leadership will still be around a year from now.
Don't you think that Israel has a free pass to take him out now?
I'm not recommending it.
I'm just saying it seems inevitable.
I can't imagine that the leadership of Iran will survive.
I think Israel will just take him out and say, hey, we had a reason.
And the rest of the world will say, oh, we hate that, but we have other things to do.
So it's like Solomity.
Yeah, we hate it, but we're busy, so we got other things we have to think about.
I think it's a free punch.
That's what I think, but you'd have to find him and get to him.
Alright, there was a fascinating conversation, a three-way conversation between, among Vivek Ramaswamy, Megan Kelly, and then Candice Owens.
And it was such A productive and good exchange of views.
I was actually impressed.
I was impressed.
You don't often get three thoughtful people who understand the topic.
First of all, having a disagreement, but second of all, you know, airing it out in public so you can kind of, you know, look at the texture of it all.
Kind of impressive.
I recommend it.
It's on X, but I'll give you the high end takeaway.
So Vivek started out by saying that we shouldn't try to demonize the students at Harvard who made statements that were interpreted as being sort of pro-Hamas.
I think that's probably too much of a hyperbole that I'm using, but it was interpreted as being pro-Hamas, anti-Israel.
So, you know, we can argue whether it was or wasn't, but that's just the situation as it's interpreted that way.
So a number of people said, give us the names of those organization people, because the Harvard people were talking under the banner of an organization.
There are lots of little organizations, but we wanted to know who are the people.
Give us the names of those people who were pro-terrorists, according to some people.
And The reason would be that people don't want to accidentally hire somebody who's pro-terrorist.
But, Vivek weighs in, and says basically that they're college kids, and they're stupid, and we should give them a pass.
Because if you held against everybody stuff they did in college, you just have a terrible world.
Now, the first time I read that, I thought to myself, huh, you know, because I I'm endorsing Vivek.
I thought, well, there's something I disagree with.
That was my first reaction.
First reaction was, I disagree.
I think I think you need to know who is backing a terrorist.
And Megyn Kelly was strongly agreeing with what I just said at the moment.
And so, so Megan says, if you're not persuaded that murdering babies is wrong, so that's her hyperbolic interpretation of what the Harvard people said.
But if you're not persuaded that murdering babies is wrong, there's no persuading them.
We don't hire those who do the killing and we don't hire those who applaud the killers while the savagery is underway, which is a good point.
It was still underway at the time.
If you're open to hiring one of these lunatics, though, good to know.
All right.
Now, so far we have two opinions that I respect.
Because Vivek is making a free speech statement and also making a perfect common sense argument that what people say during those young years, if you held it against them forever, we'd all be dead.
Like, we would never talk to anybody if we judged each other by our 19-year-old selves.
I mean, it would be crazy.
So Viveka is completely right that it would be a bad system in America.
Let's take it from a system perspective, right?
As a system, you don't want to endorse a system that says, we're going to punish you forever for the dumb thing you did in college.
I agree with that.
At the same time, Megyn Kelly says, Why would you want to take a chance on hiring somebody who's pro-terrorist?
What if they haven't changed?
Doesn't the employer have a right to know that and act accordingly?
To which I say, yes, Megyn Kelly, you're right.
The employer does have a right to that knowledge, and they could be right or wrong about it, and it might be good or bad, but don't they have the right to know?
I feel like they do have a right to know.
At the same time, I wish they didn't know.
All right, so this is a very rare case where the people on opposite sides have strong arguments.
There are other cases, but they're rare.
Usually one side is just batshit crazy, in my opinion.
Usually just one side is just crazy.
But these are strong arguments.
So then Candace Owens weighs in.
And I'm thinking, which way is Candace going to go?
Well, you might be surprised.
Candace is in favor of Vivek's statement that you should give the kids a break.
Give those kids a break.
And she makes a very strong argument for it.
Here it is.
She said to, I think she was responding to Megyn Kelly, she said, oh stop it.
This is incredibly disingenuous, Megyn.
You know that many of these students are not out there because they want babies to be murdered.
Okay, we would all agree that nobody wants babies to be murdered except Hamas themselves.
I think that's fair to say.
But it was about hyperbole, so you can't really fact check somebody's hyperbole.
So then Candace goes on, she goes, college kids are stupid.
I used to be radically pro-choice.
Oh, here's, this is interesting.
Glad I didn't get put on a conservative blacklist for wanting babies, for not wanting, for wanting babies murdered.
All right.
As it turned out, I was just young and temporarily brainwashed from a public school education coupled with mainstream Hollywood lies.
And not because I legitimately wanted to see infants torn from their mother's wombs, That's a strong argument.
It's a strong argument that she changed her opinion from college to adult life by simply being better informed and less hypnotized.
She gives another example.
Dr. Thomas Sowell used to be a radical socialist.
I didn't know that, actually.
Who ardently supported communism.
Really?
That's fascinating.
I didn't know that at all.
Thankfully, he wasn't put on a conservative blacklist and accused of being a person who wanted worldwide suffering and starvation, as socialism and communism bring.
And then Candace summarizes by saying, students are young and experimenting.
You are an adult woman who is advocating for their lives to be permanently pigeonholed because they have the wrong ideas, which are likely being spoon-fed to them in their classrooms.
But then it gets better.
So then, then Megyn Kelly, quite reasonably.
Now the thing I love about this is everybody involved is smart.
You just don't get this very often.
It's like a delightful, it's almost delicious.
You know, three well-meaning smart people who clearly are just trying to make the world a better place, you know, in terms of this conversation.
So I guess Megyn Kelly said, you know, good luck, you know, you can hire these people, some version of that.
So then Candace says, you're a tempting snark, meaning the, you know, asking why you don't hire this kind of person.
But Candace says, but as a matter of fact, I almost exclusively hired reformed BLM activists to work for my charity, Blexit.
They actually proved to be the most dedicated employees to the cause because the mission was personal to them.
Students can change.
I love the proof of it.
Cultural appropriation with educational language has proven potent, but not irreversible.
I don't mind your ire directed toward their administrators and professors at Harvard.
The rude cause of their madness, but you're being entirely disingenuous when it comes to the students.
Now, I don't think disingenuous is the right word.
I don't believe anybody in this conversation was being disingenuous.
I think these are real opinions, and they're strong.
These are three strong opinions.
Should I take a side?
And by the way, do you know a side I'll take?
Do you know what side I'm going to take?
I'm going to take both sides.
I'm going to take both sides.
As an employer, I'd like to know.
Yes, Megyn Kelly, I would like to know.
But as a society and as a system, Vivek and Candice are right.
You don't want a system that permanently cripples people who are smart enough to go to Harvard.
That doesn't feel like a winning proposition.
On the other hand, is every topic the same?
Can we say that being a BLM supporter, when you thought BLM was a legitimate organization, and then finding out they're not, And then, you know, working in an opposite way.
Is that really the same as backing terrorists?
Well, you might say, oh, those BLM people are terrorists in their own way, but not really.
I mean, that's not really a good comparison.
So.
I would say that this is really the test case for free speech and for whether we believe college is real.
If you believe college is real, the whole point of it is to turn somebody into an adult.
You know, a good thinking adult.
If they're halfway through college.
And they're not a full thinking adult the way you would like them to be.
Why don't you wait till the end of college at least?
Yeah, just find out.
Find out what's what happened at the end.
So both I think all the people have excellent, well meaning, well reasoned arguments.
But I'm going to have to go with Vivek on this.
And I hate myself for it.
Which is fine.
Right?
I'm going to have to go for absolute free speech.
And I'm going to have to go for the Scott Adams 20-year rule.
You know, a hybrid version of it.
I've often said don't blame people for things they did 20 years ago.
If they've changed since then.
Because they were different people.
And anybody in college is guaranteed to be a different person at age 40.
Guaranteed.
They're not going to be the same.
So why are you punishing that 40-year-old for something the 19-year-old did?
That's not cool in my world.
That said, are the people who were backing Hamas dangerous?
Yes.
Did they learn their lesson already?
What do you think?
Did they learn their lesson Already now the lesson is that they don't have free speech.
That's that's sort of the lesson.
But I do think that they're being, let's say, bombarded with the opposite narrative.
So I would be surprised if some of the people who signed off on the letter haven't already softened on that opinion.
Not because people push back, but because there's just a fuller sense of information now.
You can see the bigger picture.
Yeah, and by the time the PLO practically backed Israel, not really, but they condemned Hamas, that should be a clarifying moment if you were one of the Harvard people.
Because one thinks that they were trying to back the Palestinian people, not Hamas.
One thinks that was the real impression, that that's what they were trying to do.
They just, they missed the mark a little bit, as college kids sometimes will.
Anyway, I just want to compliment all three people involved in that.
That's one of the richest, best discussions I've seen in a long time, on anything really.
All right, actor John Cusack is showing you another way to go.
Now that you've seen the ideal model of how adults should act, here's the opposite.
Actor John Cusack, he went and marched with a bunch of pro-Palestinian protester types and comes back to tell us that none of them were talking about killing the Jews.
They were only concerned about the bad conditions of the Palestinian people.
So...
That's why John Cusack is not your president.
So I would like to go to the whiteboard now.
And give you a lesson on how to debate.
In America.
Alright, if you don't want to do the the model with Vivek and Megan Kelly and Candace, if you don't want to do that model.
There's a simpler way.
I mean, you could just cut through All the garbage.
Here's the simpler way.
It works for pretty much every debate, it turns out.
And this is the way I recommend you all argue.
I just realized that my camera is blocked by my own computer.
All right, here's your sitch.
You can almost see it.
All right, here's how you do it.
For every group of people, every demographic group, every country, every political party, every religion, you've got a general situation where you get a whole bunch of innocent people and then you got some bad ones.
You got your extremists, your bad ones.
Now, if you're going to debate, this is how you do it.
You pretend that the bad people are the only people in the conversation.
Until the people you talk to are ready to explode with anger, to yell at you, that innocent people are involved.
And then they say, innocent people, innocent people, innocent people.
And then you, in response, because they haven't mentioned that there are also bad people, you say, bad people, bad people, bad people.
But then in response, again, because this is iterative, When they say bad people, bad people, then you say, but good people, good people, good people.
And then what the other side does, not hearing you mention that there are also bad people, you say bad people, bad people, bad people.
And then that's called the entire argument.
So if you want to, if you want to learn how to debate like an American, Just try to ignore that there are large groups of good people with small groups of bad people in them, and that describes literally every fucking thing in the world.
How much time have you wasted in this debate?
Have you found yourself in this debate?
Oh, I have.
But I tell you, I'm quitting.
I'm quitting this.
I'm never going to have this conversation again.
Because as soon as you hear anybody talking in these terms, about all the bad ones or just all the good ones, without mentioning the others, just walk away.
That's nobody you need to talk to.
All right, here is a... Have you come up with a hypothesis of why Hamas did the attack?
What do you think was behind it?
Do you go simple and you say, it's a death cult?
It's a death cult.
Well, they kill people.
That's what a death cult does.
They kill people.
But I feel like that's not a description that gives you any predictive ability.
Because it's the predictive ability that's the useful part.
It would be one thing to understand why somebody did it, but if that didn't help you predict, you know, what happens next, it's sort of useless information.
So we kind of need to know why Hamas did it.
So what is maybe religious?
Yeah, right.
But why would they do this?
You know, they certainly have a religious difference.
But what makes them do this specific thing at this specific time?
So one of the one of the possibilities I suggested was that they were trying to provoke an oversized response.
In other words, the entire thing was designed to get Israel to overreact.
And then that would take away Israel's moral authority.
Because Israel is the one who is the victim of the Holocaust.
And they will remind you that.
And they will also remind you that they're surrounded by people who would like a second Holocaust.
They're literally right in the middle of a lot of people who would like to kill them.
Oh, oh, hold on a second.
When I say they're in the middle of a lot of people who would like to kill them, I'm talking about the bad people.
I do actually understand That not 100% of the Middle East are bad.
I know, I hate to ruin some of your arguments because you were about to say, Scott, Scott, they're surrounded by people, but most of them are innocent people who don't care.
They just want to live their lives.
Yeah, I know that.
I know that.
But you can have a great argument with somebody who doesn't or pretends they don't.
But the other possibility of why Hamas did it was that they were trying to inspire the rest of the Muslim world Hezbollah and Iran and anybody in other countries that was inclined to start running toward Israel at the same time and make it all one big attack and take them over but I feel like I don't quite 100% buy that But it could have been one of their hopes.
Here's my best guess.
I believe that they had several ways to win and no way to lose.
One way to win?
Die trying to kill Israelis.
Because they go to heaven and they get their virgins.
Am I right?
So one way to win is just get killed trying to kill other people.
According to their philosophy, that would be a win.
Yay!
Went to the afterlife.
The other way to win would be if it did provoke too big of a response, like I said, and then it took some of the shine off of Israel's, let's say, oppressed or victim kind of narrative.
That would be a big win.
And you could be sure that some of that would happen, because there's no doubt that Israel would respond.
They had to know that.
And they might not have known that Gaza was going to be invaded.
But they would have known there would be a big violent response and that they could use that to do more recruiting.
So it could be for recruiting.
It could be to go to heaven.
You know, worst case scenario, you still get to heaven with your virgins, and that's not a bad worst case if you're them.
But the other might be that they did, in fact, hope that it would inspire other countries to get more aggressive.
So to me, it looks crazy.
Because if you looked at any one of those objectives, they don't seem strong enough to justify anything they did.
And in fact, nothing would justify what they did.
But if you look at all the possibilities, it's a lot less crazy.
Because it might have inspired other people.
It might have gotten them some recruits.
And in fact, maybe that's true.
It might have taken some of the reputational advantage off of Israel.
It might have.
Now, we don't know yet, because if Israel does an amazing job of at least telling us that the civilian deaths were low, if they could keep that into some range that your brain says, could have been worse, then they maintain their reputational power and even improve it with their military success, I would say.
So, I think Hamas had several ways to win.
Including Dye.
So they can either, you know, improve their brand, do more recruiting, or dye, and in every case, they come out ahead.
So that makes sense to me.
But it's probably not one of those things.
My guess is that they were thinking, there's several ways we can win, and several ways we can get a little advantage here.
All right.
FBI Director Wray said there might be some copycat Hamas-style attacks on our soil.
He was saying that in the context of our borders being wide open, which as Democrats call it, not really wide open.
Not really wide open.
Why?
Because we take their names as some checkpoints.
That's called not open because some of them are returned.
So that's why it's not open.
All right.
So that's as bad as could be.
The FBI warning us that it might happen here at the same time the border is open.
Talk about not doing your job.
Now, I know it's not the FBI's job, but it is part of the administration.
And if I were the head of the FBI, and I were being honest and not just trying to protect my job, I would say as long as the border situation is what it is, The odds of a terror attack happening here, of this kind, is very high.
Why can't he say that?
Isn't that fair?
As long as the border is open, the odds of this kind of attack here is high.
Now, even with a closed border, there's a pretty good chance there's a copycat.
But with an open border, it's pretty much guaranteed, just a matter of time.
So there's that.
Well, Joe Biden went on 60 Minutes, and as you might imagine, the clips about it are all the clips that make him look like a moron with his squinty face.
How many people are doing an impression of him?
Because he was asked, what would you say to Iran or other countries that might want to get involved?
And he does his squinty, flinty look.
Don't.
Don't don't don't.
And that was it.
And but I have to admit.
Yeah, you know, even though it was, you know, his lame squinty flinty look.
It was the right thing.
Like if I'm being if I'm being objective.
That was exactly the right word, don't.
You can imagine Trump saying it.
Yeah, if Trump had been in that.
And they said, what would you say to Iran if it was thinking about getting involved?
There is only one word that is the right word, and that's the one Biden used.
Don't.
Because don't is very mafia talk in the sense that it leaves open what the response would be.
Like if you'd said anything in addition to that, it would have been a mistake.
So I'm going to give him credit for that.
Biden did the right amount of threat Without the details.
You gotta leave out all the details.
Just don't.
That was the right answer.
I'll give him that.
Then he went on to say that, this is the scary part, which is, this goes into the category of everything you suspected is true.
Talking about, he said, imagine what happens if we, in fact, unite all of Europe and Putin is finally put down Where he cannot cause the kind of trouble he's been causing.
We have enormous opportunities, enormous opportunities to make the better world.
So he's saying directly that Ukraine is an excuse to take Putin out.
Wasn't that what you were afraid of?
That's what we were afraid of.
That's not what we want to hear.
That's not what I wanted to say out loud.
Right?
I mean, it's kind of obvious, yeah.
But doesn't this just say that the military-industrial complex and the neocons always had a plan to take Putin out, and they were just going to take advantage of this as a reason to do it, but they don't give a fuck about Ukraine.
Nobody cares about Ukraine, unless they've got a, you know, grift going on over there.
But he says it directly.
Basically, he puts the entire Ukraine war in the context of the purpose of it is to take out Putin.
I feel like that's just wrong.
It just seems so wrong that you would destroy Ukraine to take out Putin.
There was no other way to compete.
We couldn't just compete with his energy, his energy economy and Keep him weak by not having a lot of money because we competed.
So instead, we created a situation where Biden, you know, doesn't fully support the American energy situation.
So energy costs are higher than they would be.
Although I think we're pumping more than we've ever pumped before, which is good.
But it could even be a lot more, which would lower the cost of fuel and oil, which would take away a lot of money from Putin.
So my impression is that Putin's stronger, not weaker.
Am I wrong about that?
If you were to fast forward where this ends up, I think Putin will make more money because oil prices are high.
His population seems to be backing him completely.
Am I wrong?
The Russian population seems to be backing him.
So he's probably got more support He's finding out all the weaknesses in his military, and then he'll use his money to shore up those weaknesses.
At the end of this, Russia's military will be five times stronger, and Putin will still be in power.
Where's the win?
How can we possibly have a win out of this?
Because we can see right now he's not going down.
There's nothing even in the works that would put Putin out of power.
Is there?
I don't see anything even in that direction.
I see somebody say, no, it's wrong.
His military will not be stronger.
It doesn't work that way.
That depends on your time frame.
The immediate time frame is weaker.
Because he's using up his bullets, so to speak, and using up his assets.
But these are old assets that needed to be replaced.
And he probably didn't have a full idea of where the problems were and where things were working, but now he does.
So now Putin has money and full transparency of his own military to know where he needs to fix it.
In the end, he comes out with a way better military.
How else could it go?
If we had done nothing, we would have had a Putin with a military that he couldn't trust, but he didn't know it.
That was their weakest point.
Their weakest point was before the war.
They're only getting stronger at this point.
That's what I say.
And the amount of losses that Russia is suffering seem to be well within the tolerable range within the Russian system.
So, How could this end anywhere else except Russia having a stronger military and more more oil money?
The only thing that could hurt Putin at this point would be a President Trump.
Because he'd go after his oil income.
So that happened.
Putin is and Putin has agreed To see if he can be useful in the Middle East by he says he wants to engage in discussions about Gaza with Netanyahu and Abbas.
And he's already talked to President of Iran.
So Putin is getting involved.
Trying to end the conflict.
Because he's had, you know, good relations with Israel, but he has not made an enemy of Iran.
And Hamas probably doesn't care one way or the other.
So are we better off?
Can I even say this in public?
This is something you almost can't say in public.
Are we better off or worse off without Putin?
Because it seems to me Putin could be like a useful player in making sure that at least the Hamas parts of the world don't become dominant.
Here's my prediction, which I've been made forever.
Radical Islam and just the population of people living in those worlds will continue to increase because they have pretty high population growth.
At some point, it is inevitable that the Islamic radicals take over some country that's got, you know, nukes or whatever.
Maybe it's France and Become a big threat to all non-Muslim countries.
I'm not saying that all Muslims will coordinate, but there might be like one, you know, dominant, radical country that emerges.
And at that point, we're absolutely going to be on the same side as Russia.
Because we'd be fighting the same enemy.
So it seems to me we should start early and just say, look, the big war is ahead.
The big one, you know, the whole civilization one where it's Islam versus everything else.
That's the one you got to get ready for.
Like if you really want Russia to last 100 years, you better work on getting on our side right away because we'd like the last 100 years too.
That's the big fight.
And again, it's not against Islam.
it would be against presumably some pocket or state that became super radical and had a big military.
So I'm being asked, have I changed my mind that the small amount of money we spent on Ukraine was a bargain to degrade Russia's military?
No, it was a bargain.
But it's only works if you end up like crushing Russia.
But that didn't happen.
So if you don't, if you don't kill the king, the king gets stronger.
So it was a.
It was a good statement of what was happening at the moment, but it doesn't look like it's the end state.
So yes, I would modify that prediction to, it looks like Russia won.
Looks like they're going to keep some territory, and it looks like their economy will survive.
Yeah, China isn't friendly toward Islam, but they're not friendly toward us at the moment.
All right, the country, not the people.
Rasmussen did a poll on Trump, found out that 30% of Democrats are at least somewhat likely to vote Trump.
30% are at least somewhat likely.
30%.
Does that even sound real?
To me, that doesn't sound real.
Remember, it's only the somewhat likely, right?
The most likely is that they'll just vote Democrat.
But they're at least somewhat likely.
And I feel like that is a big change.
But same poll.
And keep in mind that Trump only got 5% of Democrat votes in 2016.
So if if a lot more people are at least thinking about it, you could blow past that 5%.
But here's the real shocking part.
Same poll.
The.
The 50% of black voters are somewhat likely to vote for Trump this time.
50% of black voters are at least somewhat likely to vote for Trump.
Does that sound true?
I don't know.
Maybe it's something about the way the questions are asked, but I'm not really buying it.
Yeah, so it's a Rasmussen poll, but I think it's just something to do with the way the questions are asked or something.
I don't know.
I can't imagine there will be an enormous A shift like that.
But I think there could be a substantial shift.
Not that big, though.
And by a 26 point margin, separately from Rasmussen also, 26 point margin, more voters think the relationship between the United States and Israel has worsened under Biden.
That's fair.
Wouldn't you say the relationship has worsened under Biden?
At the moment, it's tight because it's war.
So we're all on the same side.
But that's what the public thinks.
Well, Greg Abbott, governor of Texas, still sending those migrants up north.
He's shipping another 10,000 migrants, or he shipped 10,000 in the last two weeks, and he's just keeping them coming.
Now, I feel like Abbott is the only one who's doing anything useful these days.
It's gonna be, I think, if he gets what he wants, Which is this forces better border security.
It's going to be one of the greatest plays in politics as.
Yeah, and it's a great hardship to not only the migrants, but the people who receive them.
And we're not making light of that, but it's also maybe the only way to get any change and the change is required.
It's not even optional, it's required.
You send 55,000 people so far, somebody says.
Okay, all right.
He's definitely reshaped the debate, I'll say that.
Oh yeah, 55,000 to six sanctuary cities.
So that's working.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is your Monday version of CWSA, the best thing you've ever seen.
Is there any topic that you're dying to hear about that I haven't mentioned?
You have no idea what's going on in New York City, do you?
I think I do.
I think I know.
Suzanne Somers, yes.
Rest in peace, Suzanne Somers.
All right.
Any other topics?
No, you're not frozen.
I'm seeing your comments.
Oh, I see my camera's frozen.
So, looks like I died on... How interesting.
The feed on YouTube died.
Now, do you remember when I was telling you people kept saying, Scott, why don't you use StreamYard and stream to all the other services?
And I said, it will only work once in a row.
And since then, it's been nonstop problems.
Now, was I right?
It's frozen right now, and Rumble doesn't even work anymore.
And my microphone and camera only works half the time, and somebody said it got worse.
