All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 20, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
55:44
Episode 2267 Scott Adams: CWSA 10/20/23

Politics, House Speaker, Jeff Bezos, Washington Post, Peter Thiel, Vivek Ramaswamy, Free Speech Censorship, NewsGuard, Jimmy Wales, Suburb Safety, Sidney Powell Plea Deal, President Trump, President Biden, Ukraine Israel Joint Funding, Hamas BLM Bloodlust, Ukraine War Artillery, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called CWSA Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the best thing that ever happened to you.
If you would like your experience now streaming on multiple platforms, I think Rumble is working today.
We've got the X platform and YouTube and Locals for my beloved subscribers.
And here's what you need to take this experience up to levels which you couldn't even imagine were possible.
All you need is a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tanker, gels, a sign, 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 of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go!
Mm-hmm.
Pretty good.
Yeah, sometimes those tips aren't perfect, but that was pretty good.
Well, here's the good news.
I found a movie that I can watch.
Wow.
Have you noticed that all movies suck?
Well, it turns out that there is still one person making good movies, and I've said it before, Tom Cruise.
Why is it that Tom Cruise is the only person who knows how to make a movie?
I was just watching the latest Mission Impossible just came out on livestream and it is screamingly un-woke without being bad in any way.
In other words, you don't really, you know, pick up on the wokeness or anti-wokeness of anything.
You just watch the movie.
It is so not heavy handed in the wokeness that it just feels like a movie from yesterday or something.
And the other thing that Tom Cruise does right, And I have to think it's him.
I feel it's like more him than even his directors.
They are so well edited.
He doesn't have any moment in the movie where you're like, all right, fast forward, fast forward.
It's like every moment totally belongs in the movie.
It's very rare.
So check it out.
What might not be the best movie you've ever seen, but it's all very watchable so far.
Well, today I'd like to give you another Statement from science.
Now, here's something that you've heard.
Probably you've heard this before from marriage experts, mostly divorce experts.
I think you've heard it from Jordan Peterson, and I just heard it from some other relationship expert on Instagram.
Don't remember his name.
But he was saying that the most predictive variable for divorce, you know what it is?
What is the one thing you look for?
That's most predictive of divorce.
That's right.
Contempt.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Money is one of the biggest problems, but if you're going to predict divorce, it's contempt.
So the first time I heard that it was, it was years ago.
And I said to myself, Holy cow.
Wow.
That's like, that's like opening up like this whole, uh, understanding my, my awareness has been maximized.
Now I know exactly what to look for.
Not only if I'm in a relationship, but other people, and I can totally predict what's going to happen.
And I thought, why, why didn't I know that before?
That contempt predicts divorce.
Because it's backwards science.
Backwards science.
Let me, let me just reword this.
All right.
So the experts are telling us, and sounding very smart when they do it, that if you see contempt, that predicts divorce.
Huh.
So when one or both of the people who are married to each other started thinking the other was a fucking asshole and they can't stand a moment in the same room, that, well, I didn't see this coming, but that actually predicts divorce.
Wow.
Can you believe it?
That people who don't like each other while married are more likely to divorce than people who like each other?
Where did that come from?
It's like it came out of nowhere!
Why did I think that was profound for years?
For years, I thought that was telling me something useful.
So people who don't like each other are less likely to stay together.
Why did that sound profound?
Until today.
Today, for the first time, I heard it and I thought, well, it's obviously backwards.
You know what's a better way to say that?
People who have already decided to divorce treat each other like dicks.
It's backward science.
It's not predicting.
It's already happened.
There's no predicting going on.
All right.
A very important story we still don't have in America here.
We have not elected a Speaker of the House.
And the problems are mounting.
For example... Okay.
Next story.
Elon Musk is trying to kill newspapers.
He did a couple of things in that direction this week.
So...
He posted this on X. He said, the articles printed in newspapers are quite literally yesterday's news.
The newspapers are literally yesterday's news.
And I thought to myself, well, if it's printed, yes.
I mean, they can do a little bit better online because they're usually online as well, but it is a good cut.
But I had to correct him.
I don't like to correct Elon Musk because he's usually pretty spot on.
I usually agree with him.
But here, I think his statement is incomplete.
You know, he said, articles printed in newspapers are quite literally yesterday's news, and I have to correct him, because I said, the Washington Post is not yesterday's news.
The Washington Post is yesterday's fake news.
And that's different.
So, speaking of billionaires and newspapers, I saw a tweet today that it was so exactly what I've been thinking that it blew my mind.
So on the X platform, Rod Lorenz posted, I wonder if Jeff Bezos is embarrassed by Washington Post's incessant lying or does he endorse it or not realize it?
And I thought to myself, I spent a full hour yesterday wondering about that.
You know, I don't spend all of my time thinking about the Roman Empire.
Sometimes I think about Jeff Bezos.
And I swear to God, I was working out, and I was just obsessed by that question.
Does Jeff Bezos know what the Washington Post does?
I mean, how could he not?
On the other hand, does he approve of it?
Or is it, you know, does he see it as a problem also?
What's going on?
My best hypothesis is that he's under duress.
That he's being forced to own it for the benefit of some government entity that has some power over him.
Either because they can buy billions of dollars worth of server time on Amazon servers, which the CIA has, or maybe they control whether he can operate as freely as he wants in different markets.
Maybe gives him some protection there.
I don't know.
You could imagine a number of government entities having some power over Amazon and therefore over Bezos.
But there's such a disconnect between what we know about Bezos and his ownership of the Washington Post.
Would you agree?
What we know about Bezos from everything except the Washington Post, I would describe him as non-political.
And a pragmatist.
Meaning that I don't even know if he leans left or right.
I couldn't tell you.
Which is remarkable, really.
And what I mean by that is he probably decides on each issue individually.
Which is what super smart people do.
So it wouldn't surprise me.
Now, I'm sure he identifies with one side or another.
Probably more Democrat than Republican.
Just a guess.
But probably not obsessed with it.
Probably more looking at each individual thing.
There will be some things that Democrats like, that he likes, some things they like that would be bad for business.
So he probably picks and chooses.
But why?
Why would he put such a reputational stain on his business by owning the Washington Post?
Because Amazon has an amazing reputation, in my opinion.
They do software better than anybody's ever done it.
I mean, I could not be more impressed with how Amazon as a technology works.
The fact that you don't think about it every day, like some problem because of it, tells you how amazing it is.
I mean, my God, the complexity of that thing, and that it actually delivers me stuff the next day.
I'm just blown away by it every day.
So I think he's under duress, but that's just speculation.
All right, speaking of speculation and billionaires, did you see the news yesterday that Peter Thiel has been an FBI informant for years?
Did you see that?
It wasn't the biggest news, but it was, you know, all over the internet.
So apparently it's confirmed.
It's confirmed from the FBI handler himself, which is pretty good confirmation.
I think the handler's retired or something, but he said, oh yeah, It was one of mine.
Now, just so you don't get too excited about it, the confirmation is that he was an informant strictly for international foreign stuff, which I don't mind too much.
Do you?
If he's an FBI informant specifically excluding domestic stuff, so he was excluded for talking about Trump or domestic politics.
He was just an informant.
If you learn something about other countries that was relevant to the U.S.
I've got a prediction, or maybe an observation.
How could anybody who's a billionaire not be talking to the FBI?
Or maybe other intelligence groups?
I would think it's universal.
You don't think that government entities have approached Elon Musk?
It's impossible to imagine it hasn't happened impossible to imagine Right now that doesn't mean he's agreed to do anything or you know that he's working with him doesn't mean he's not if I were a billionaire the way I would handle it is I would work with the government when it made sense and I would resist it when it didn't make sense or it violated some you know moral ethical boundary My guess is that's what's happening with every billionaire who has any influence over anything Right.
You know, somebody like Bezos, somebody like Elon Musk, I feel like the government has to be in one pocket, which doesn't mean they're controlling him.
I mean, it could be an interplay where everybody's looking for their own benefits.
But don't be naive and imagine that we have, you know, important, influential billionaires who are dealing with other countries, China in particular, and that they're not being talked to by the government.
Of course they are.
How much impact that has probably depends on each issue individually.
Well, Vivek Ramaswamy said something that I agree with completely.
He said in a post, it's not 1980 anymore, which is a great framing, by the way.
He says, it's not 1980 anymore.
The real threat to free speech today?
The government is using a combination of carrots and sticks to get private companies to censor speech that the government cannot censor directly.
He says, if it's state action in disguise, the Constitution still applies.
Oh, that rhymes.
If it's state action in surprise, the Constitution still applies.
Period.
I didn't realize he had a rhyme there.
I think that was accidental, but it was pretty good.
This is precisely my point of view.
Precisely.
That, in fact, you've probably seen me say that was a good argument in the 80s.
Have you seen me say that online?
I actually say the same thing.
It's a good argument in the 80s.
And the reason is that if you don't, if you don't pace somebody, you're never going to change their mind.
So if somebody says, blah, blah, blah, free speech, the government's not doing it, it's private company, so it's okay, the correct answer is, you're absolutely right in the 80s.
And that's what Vivek did.
Because if you don't grant them that they have a proper view, a well-constructed opinion, it just doesn't apply anymore, that something's changed.
That's a much gentler way to say you're wrong.
Say, you were totally right until recently.
Then things change now you should reassess it very very good persuasion All right, how many of you have heard?
Owen and let me say let me make this statement Free speech is gone There's not free speech in the United States.
I don't know if any country has it, but we definitely don't have it and I'm getting more and more pissed off when I hear people say we do because it's It's gone beyond just a thing we disagree about, you know, whether the definition has been met of free speech or something.
It's not really just words.
It's like you're part of the problem if you don't know that free speech is gone.
Don't be part of the problem.
I don't know if there is a solution, but if you're acting like you still have free speech, you only have the freedom to be uninteresting to the government.
That's it.
The moment you're interesting, Or you can make a difference.
People listen to you.
Your speech is gone.
Yeah, it's a practical matter.
Now, I'd like the NPCs to take a moment to say, But Scott!
The Constitution only applies to the government, not to private entities!
Yeah, you missed the whole point there, NPCs.
Missed the whole point.
Have you heard of an entity called News Guard?
How many have heard of this?
News Guard?
So apparently it's some EU organization of volunteers, mostly who are in the business of censoring people.
And it turns out that one of the people on that organization looking to censor people is Jimmy Wales, one of the founders of Wikipedia.
Are you comfortable with that?
Are you comfortable with Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia guy, being on a censorship board?
I would like to give you my insider view here.
Now normally I would not tell you about a private conversation, so I'm not going to give you any details, but I have had extensive private conversations with Jimmy Wales about the information On Wikipedia and some other Trump related stuff.
I was just reviewing them because they were like 2019, 2020.
We had some extensive back and forths.
So one of them was about the fine people hoax.
And I brought it to his attention.
Hey, Wikipedia is saying that the fine people hoax is a real thing that needs to be fixed.
It's like one of the biggest problems in the country that you need to fix it.
Now, To his credit, he looked at all my information.
I showed him the transcript, and then I showed him what was being reported, and that was different.
And he looked into it, and actually dug into the conversation that was ongoing, and got back to me and said that it looked like the people who were sort of fighting it out for supremacy had all the right arguments.
Meaning he didn't know how it was going to end up, but the process was working.
The people who were questioning the narrative were loud enough so that the other people were hearing them.
They were showing their work, right?
There was transparency involved.
And so his summary was that that would work out.
Now, has anybody looked at Wikipedia lately to see if the fine people hoax is covered correctly?
Because you know, sometimes it'll get there and then it'll drift off and drift back and drift off.
So I don't know if it is.
But, so here's what I'll say just to support Jimmy Wales.
In my private conversations, he was very interested in getting it right.
That was my take.
That he actually just wanted to get it right.
So I didn't see, you know, I could see bias for sure.
So there was no question of which way he leaned politically, but he was fully engaged in listening to the counter argument and making sure that the system included the counter argument and then let the system do whatever the system was going to do.
So I wouldn't I wouldn't hate on him too hard.
I do think that a lot of good people get dragged into the into the world of censorship and don't realize Maybe don't realize the full implications of what could go wrong.
I think they actually, a number of them are just trying to make the information better, but I'll just put that out there.
And would you, let me ask you this question.
Do you think the suburbs are less safe since Trump was president?
This seems like an unrelated question, but let me ask it.
Is that your sense?
Are the suburbs less safe?
Because one of the conversations I had with Jimmy was, he wasn't, he, he, and I don't, I don't think he'd mind this because his question was completely reasonable.
So this is nothing bad about him.
It was around 2020, Trump said in a tweet that if Biden got elected, the suburbs would start getting dangerous.
And I retweeted it.
And I had already had a number of conversations with Jimmy Wales.
So he was curious.
And I was just reminding myself because I looked at our past conversation this morning.
And he was curious if I really believed that, because I'd retweeted it.
Did I really believe that if Biden got elected, the suburbs would become less safe?
And I answered that it was a reasonable prediction, even if the purpose of the prediction was to prevent it.
Because, you know, predictions have two purposes.
And you should probably know this when I make predictions.
Some of my predictions are just trying to get it right, and just seeing if you can predict.
So some of it is about, is it possible?
You even know what's going to happen, and we do it for fun.
I predict this, and then you get to compare it.
But I'm going to turn off this feed if you don't stop bitching about the sound.
Now, the people on Locals, I've already trained them, but I don't want to seem like a dick, but I can't do the show if every fucking minute you're complaining about the sound.
So stop watching the platform you're watching if the sound is not sufficient.
You can watch it on YouTube.
Rumble or the X platform live or you can go to scottadams.locals.com and at the moment, it's unlocked for non-subscribers.
But could you please shut the fuck up about the sound?
Can you do that for me?
This is because this is live.
If you yell at me all day long from the comments while I'm live, I can't do this.
It's not possible.
I just have to turn you off.
You think you can settle down a little bit?
There's always a few people on the spectrum who just can't stop yelling.
I have to give them a little bit of social programming.
Socially, you shouldn't be doing it.
It's not a technical problem, it's a social problem.
So calm the fuck down.
All right.
Anyway, I do think the suburbs got a little more dangerous.
um Let's talk about Sidney Powell taking a deal.
So as you know, Sidney Powell thought the Kraken was coming and she was going to find out some issues about the election, which never panned out.
There were no Krakens found yet.
But she had a whole bunch of felonies that were dropped.
She had to plead guilty to six misdemeanors.
They had small fines and didn't seem to be anything that would affect her too much.
Had to make an apology or something.
No big deals.
But then she also had agreed to testify honestly in the Rico case against Trump that charges him with allegedly a conspiracy to take over the government.
Now, how do you think this is being reported on the left and the right?
Completely different, right?
It's completely different.
The left and the right.
So the left is masturbating to it.
I mean, I swear to God, I think people were typing with one hand and it was like, Oh, oh, Cindy Powell, Cindy Powell.
She's going to talk.
She is going to get Trump.
Oh, and it was like, it was actually creepy.
Maybe not as creepy as my, as my acting out, but it was pretty creepy.
Like, it actually just made me feel dirty watching these people.
And it was like porn.
Because there's no doubt about it, they're getting a dopamine hit from the thought that Trump could be hurt and jailed.
They're actually getting pleasure from it.
It's weird.
But here's the weirdest part.
Why are they getting any pleasure from that?
What makes them think that's going to go their way?
Their assumption is that it's obvious that Trump was guilty.
Obviously he colluded to overthrow the government, and therefore, if it's obvious he's guilty, say the left, all you need is one person who says he'll tell the truth, who's also an insider, and boom!
Trump goes to jail.
Problem solved, right?
I'm not so sure that's the way it's gonna go.
I don't think that's true at all.
If I had to bet, I'd put a pretty healthy bet on the fact that she's going to destroy the prosecution's RICO case by saying she was there and saw every part of it, and at no point did anything illegal happen.
That's what I think.
Because remember, she did not say she would testify, quote, against Trump.
That's not the news.
She agreed to tell the truth if she testified.
Is that actually a compromise?
Let me see.
You're a famous attorney and you might have to testify.
Do you think that they might try to tell the truth?
I've got a feeling that a famous attorney isn't going to do a lot of lying on the, you know, on the witness chair.
Are they?
Does that happen a lot?
I don't see how that could possibly be good for.
So this is one of those situations where both sides get a little dopamine.
When I heard it, I said to myself, oh, basically the charges against one of the main players have been now seen as bullshit because the felonies were all dropped.
In other words, they were probably bullshitting anyway.
And then she gets to talk.
I'm very interested in what she has to say.
So I think I told you this, I had a conversation with my, who I call my smart Democrat friend.
He's smart because went to a very good school, pays attention to the news, serious person, right?
So if you're in any kind of conversation with him about anything serious, he's gonna bring the goods.
Like he's paid attention, he's got an argument, he's gonna whip it out on you.
He believes, still I think, That Trump's advisors or aides have testified that Trump knew he had lost the election, but was doing his protests anyway and trying to take over the country.
Now, when I heard that, I said to myself, is that possible?
Is it possible I missed that story?
Was there a story in the news in which there was somebody who was actually in the room who's claiming That Trump said, oh, I know I lost fair and square, but I'm going to pretend I didn't because I'll overthrow the country.
And I said to myself, how would I miss that story?
And so I Googled what I could think of to Google, and there is no story like that.
I mean, obviously, if such a story existed, it would be at the top of the feed, right?
That's how the search works.
If it's anti-Trump, it's going to be the first hit.
There was nothing like it.
There were things around it.
For example, there were stories that said that Trump's advisers believed the election was fair, and they told him so.
Somehow I think that got morphed into he knew it was fair.
Why would Trump suddenly start believing his advisers on something the advisers couldn't possibly know one way or the other?
How could they know?
It doesn't even make sense.
And then it goes further to that Trump knew he lost.
Now, I don't know what Trump said or didn't say to any people at the time, but I do know this.
Nobody could have known if they won or lost.
It wasn't knowable.
Right?
You only know what people told you.
I know that the experts said that the election was fair.
I didn't do an audit.
Did you?
Do you remember recounting the ballots yourself?
The only thing we know is what people tell us.
And what people tell us is reliable or unreliable.
It's a multiple choice question.
Or both.
It's unreliable.
Anything that comes from humans is sketchy as hell.
So think about the level of TDS you would have to have to imagine that you could read the president's mind And that somehow he could read the minds of all the people involved with the election.
So it's like a double mind reading thing.
You first must assume that Trump can read the minds of all the people involved in the elections in every state to know that they had pure thought and did nothing wrong.
Because if you couldn't read their minds, you would have no way of knowing.
If somebody found a way to cheat that wasn't picked up, how would you know?
The only person who would know is the person who did it, probably.
So he would have to read their minds and know that none of them existed.
And then we would have to read Trump's mind to know that he'd read their minds.
How deeply broken does your brain have to be to believe in double mind reading?
One that Trump read all the minds of all the people who ran the election everywhere.
And also that we can read his mind and see that he read those other minds.
That's actually the claim.
I mean, if you work it out, that's what it ends up being.
It's amazing that smart people are not immune from persuasion.
If there's one thing I can teach you that you really, really need to understand, intelligence does not protect you from bullshit.
And in fact, there are people who would say the intelligent are more easily fooled because they're more confident in their opinions.
That comes with being smart.
So the smart people are saying, yep, I looked at all the evidence, and this is the way it is.
The less smart people say, you know what?
I looked at the evidence I could find, but they could probably fool me, so no way to know for sure.
Right?
So the people who don't know much will quite often get the right answer.
Quite often.
All right, Biden did his little address last night, two mixed reviews.
Brigham thought it was a tour de force.
I'll use his words.
He said, quote, after the speech Brigham said on Fox, I think it may be remembered as one of the best, if not the best, speeches of his presidency.
He was firm.
He was unequivocal.
He was strong, as he has been particularly in recent days before he went to Israel and while he was over there.
So really, Kind of a hero in a way.
The leadership we've been waiting for is what I say.
Not everybody agreed.
Dana Perino was on the show at the same time.
And I thought he was bouncing around from Ukraine to Israel to Taiwan.
And it was a little bit disjointed.
Other people said he read one of the instructions on the teleprompter.
that was not to be read.
So there was one part where the teleprompter said, make it clear.
I think it was talking to him, not something he was supposed to read.
So he just said, make it clear in the middle of his sentence.
Now, I don't know.
That's something you could see Joe Biden doing when he was 50.
I don't know that that's exactly dementia.
But maybe, who knows?
And the part that made me disgusted is that he said that funding to help Israel and also Ukraine First of all, the fact that he tied the two together so that nobody can say no to all of it.
As long as he says that the funding is one package, you would have to say either no to Ukraine funding or no to Israel funded.
And there's probably nobody in Congress who can say no to both.
Except maybe a few rogues.
So they've got this trick to figure out how to screw the American public using procedure.
But they're doing it right in front of us.
He's screwing the American people by right in front of you to deny your popular opinion Because you might have a different opinion of funding Ukraine than you might have of funding Israel.
And instead of letting the public decide on each of them individually, he's going to put them together and use a procedure that is available to him to make it impossible to say no.
So watching my president screw me in public and then ask for applause is not comfortable to me.
No.
You fucking asshole.
Make them two separate things so we can vote independently.
Don't screw me and then tell me you're doing it and then act like I should be fucking saluting you for it.
No, you should lose your job for that.
You should be impeached immediately for tying these two funding requests together, if that's what he's doing.
So, to me it was a disaster, but the most chilling part was where he called out, very specifically, the number of defense or, let's say, munitions makers in the United States Who would make a lot of money because of this deal.
There's nothing I wanted to hear less than that.
Nothing I wanted to hear less than he was going to take my money and transfer it to munitions makers.
Now, I get that we have to do that now and then.
It's not an unprecedented thing.
But the fact that you would call it out and then name the states that would benefit, it's like, oh, in Pennsylvania, you've got this thing.
I thought that was gross and disgusting.
And I was embarrassed by it.
You know, as a citizen.
I'm not really embarrassed by much, but you get the point.
And I asked myself, as much as Trump is famous for turning any political issue into a real estate or a business kind of frame, which I kind of like, actually.
You know, I like if he's looking at North Korea, if he sees it as partly a real estate question and stuff, because it helps.
It gives them extra variables that other people don't have access to.
So I like it.
But I don't think that Trump would have asked for money for two wars and told you it would have been profitable for the weapons makers.
I don't see it.
I do not see it.
Now it's possible, because he does, like I say, he talks about business terms about everything.
But I don't think he would have that bad a judgment.
That feels like just terrible, terrible judgment.
For selling the because he's selling he's not selling economics when he's selling war.
I mean he literally told us The war would be profitable To people who are not me Scott I will take your money, but don't worry.
It'll be profitable for these other companies, but they're Americans.
So hey That's not really good enough.
Not good enough Anyway And I saw, I think it was Mark Warner, said that on one of the shows that, maybe talking to Brett Baer or somebody, he said that if you don't understand why, maybe I already said this, why Ukraine is important to Taiwan, that you don't understand geopolitics.
In other words, he said, if we let Ukraine fall, China would see it as weakness.
He didn't say it, but that's the implication, and go after Taiwan.
Let me test that hypothesis.
How many of you think that the only thing stopping China from taking Taiwan was what happens in Ukraine?
Because you know, it's been decades and decades where China had a question about Taiwan and never once was Ukraine part of the conversation.
And yet, and yet it was the same situation.
So now you add Ukraine, and you really think that if we pull our military support away from Ukraine, which would give us greater military capabilities for other things, that that's the point that they would attack.
Once we'd stopped wasting our money somewhere else, we'd attack, that they'd try to make trouble then.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
And I thought Warner looked hypnotized.
Because he said it like it's so obvious and right in front of you that if you don't see it, you're some kind of like political idiot.
And I'm looking right at it and I'm saying, who in the world thinks like that?
That decades of not having Ukraine part of the question, but as soon as Ukraine gets in here, that's the key variable?
It's the only thing that matters?
Suddenly?
That doesn't even sound, it doesn't even sound a little bit credible.
Now I get the point, but I just can't imagine China saying, that's the variable, we'll just wait for that and then we'll go.
I don't see it.
I also don't think that countries that are geographically disadvantaged as much as Taiwan, I think they always end up with the mainland, don't they?
You just have to wait 100 years or 200 years, but sooner or later, they're going to be the same country.
And I hate to say this, because I'm very pro-Israel, but how could Israel survive in the long run?
I mean, seriously.
How is that even possible?
In the long run.
Like, in the 200 years long run.
How is it even possible?
Yeah, it seems like geography is just too important.
You know, the reason that the United States has done well war-wise is that it's hard to get to us.
Got that big ol' ocean.
But if we were literally, if Mexico and Canada were filled with people, with a growing population, that outnumbered us 10 to 1, and wanted us dead, and surrounded us, would America last?
I doubt it.
Not in 200 years.
So, yeah, I worry about Israel.
I feel like Israel needs Israel too.
I feel like there should be a new Israel that we sort of set aside somewhere in the country.
You know, you take someplace in New Mexico and say, all right, this is just the backup.
There's nothing there.
We won't put anything there.
It'll just be empty.
But someday, in 200 years, the Israelis might need an escape plan.
It'd be nice to have one set up.
But on the other hand, if you had an escape plan, you wouldn't fight so hard to keep what you got, so it would be demoralizing.
So it's a bad idea.
But I do worry.
200 years?
How in the world can geography and population not be the primary variables?
All right, Christopher Ruffo posted this.
He said Hamas leader of, he was talking about a Hamas leader, said this, quote, I want to take this opportunity to remember the racist murder of George Floyd.
This is the leader of Hamas this week.
The leader of Hamas this week decided that a key thing to say to the rest of the world is that we should remember the racist murder of George Floyd.
And he says the same type of racism that killed George Floyd is being used by Israel against the Palestinians.
And as Christopher Rufo points out, the Hamas, BLM, DSA, I don't know who they are, and decolonization are all the same bloodlust.
And I agree.
Hamas and BLM, clearly not the same, but they're of the same, let's say, philosophy.
They're a similar kind of danger, except smaller numbers.
If there were more people in BLM, who knows?
But yes, I think it's important to point out that they all have blood lust for the people who don't look like them.
Well, what's happening in Ukraine?
I saw one data I didn't know.
70% of the casualties are from the big guns.
I guess that means artillery.
Did you know that?
70% of the, at least recently, 70% of the casualties are from the big artillery.
Because basically it just drops on you and you didn't know it was coming.
It just happens all day long.
Does that make sense?
But it turns out that the new, more modern artillery, That Ukraine has, has been a match for the vast outnumbering number of big guns that the Russians have.
So the, uh, the Ukrainians apparently have set up a very sophisticated spotting and destruction system.
So they'll, they'll spot sometimes with their drones, they'll put a drone over the target so the drone can just watch the target and they shoot at it.
And then the drone tells them how to adjust.
All right, you're 20 feet short.
Just a little bit.
Shoot again.
So they can pretty much take out 100% of anything they can see.
I mean, think about that.
The Ukrainians now have the ability to destroy 100% of anything that can be seen from the air that's on the front lines there.
All of it.
So they're just going one by one and just taking them out.
And apparently it's almost just routine.
See it, shoot at it, adjust, kill it.
Go to the next one.
Now, I don't know if they're going to run out of artillery shells before Russia does, because one of the things they take out is the local munitions depots.
So it's harder for Russia to get the munitions to where they need it.
So it does look to me like a total, uh, you know, a total, uh, what would you call it?
It's a tie.
Nobody's going anywhere.
And I don't know how our leaders can't make peace in a war where it's obvious it's not going anywhere.
It seems to me that's the ultimate way you could make peace.
It's like, all right, have you been paying attention?
Whatever you do, we're going to match it.
We're going to do it forever.
Why don't we work this out?
I see a comment that says, actually, Scott, the Russians are advancing rapidly.
Well, do you believe that?
I believe it might be a report somewhere.
But do you believe the Russians are advancing rapidly?
I don't.
Nope, I don't think so.
Alexander McCorris reports it.
It doesn't matter who reports it.
I just doubt it's true.
Now, I do think that there will be places where either side will punch through.
But once you punch through, it's just target practice.
So punching through is not getting you a lot.
You don't see the Russians giving up?
I don't see anybody giving up until they get what they want.
But the Russians could get what they want without war.
Probably.
All right, I've got an idea for... Well, let's talk about Gaza.
So the hospitals are failing there, as you might imagine.
Emergency supplies are having trouble getting in at the Rafah Crossing, as you would anticipate.
And apparently the ground attack has not started.
So it's much later than people thought.
Some of it might be that it takes a while to organize a ground assault.
But I've got a feeling that they may have changed their tactics.
And remember what I said?
It didn't make sense to do a ground assault.
You remember I said that?
I said it makes more sense to do a siege.
Which is what they called it.
They actually used the word siege.
And the siege would be basically starving out both the civilian and military people until you separate enough of the good people from the bad.
And then you can do whatever you want with that.
So I think time is on their side.
And maybe the worst thing that Israel could do is create a bunch of casualties that are way beyond the pale.
I think several thousand have already died.
in Gaza.
I saw 4,000 plus.
I don't know how many people would have to die in Gaza before our hearts and minds reverse, and it just looks like, you know, Israel's the bad guy, if you were backing them at this point.
But there is some number.
I don't know what that number is, but there's a number.
If we hit it, everything reverses.
So Israel would be smart to stay away from whatever that mental number is.
You know, keep those Loss is down to be somewhere in the range of Israel's own losses.
And at least, you know, not too much of an order of magnitude bigger.
And just take as long as they need.
It'd be very expensive, but fewer people die.
You know, to me, having your enemy living underground is more of a plus than a minus.
If you're a guerrilla outfit and The other team doesn't want to bomb your city?
Being underground is a very good idea.
However, if it's a siege, being underground is just the place you die.
Am I right?
And you can't shoot at people when you're underground.
So I think the tunnel networks become the weakest part of the Hamas military effort.
To me, that's their weakness.
I think we'll just starve them out, basically.
I don't think anybody's going to go down into a tunnel if they don't have to.
You could just send a robot down there.
All right.
So here's where things are going.
I think there's going to be an Israeli decapitation strike on Iran because there may be no way to avoid it.
So here would be the normal sequence of events.
If the ground assault starts, Then Hezbollah has not just a free pass, but almost a requirement for survival that they have to attack.
The reason being, if they don't attack them, their supporters will think, why are we giving you all this money?
Like, this is the time you attack.
You have all the cover of Israel going into a civilian population.
You're going to have high numbers of deaths.
You know, they're distracted.
There could be no better time to attack in the history of Hezbollah.
This would be the time to attack.
You know, given that they know they're going to lose no matter when they attack, it doesn't matter to them, I guess.
So if the ground assault starts, Hezbollah will get aggressive.
And if they didn't get aggressive, they would be seen as weak.
And why are we funding you?
Sort of thing.
So they have to.
If Hezbollah gets aggressive and, uh, Israel takes too many hits?
Is there some amount of little annoying hits that Israel will just put up with?
Because a full-out war is too much?
But I think Hezbollah will exceed Israel's patience.
And then what would be Israel's next move?
An all-out war with Hezbollah?
You think that would be the next move?
That would be, I think, a mistake.
I think that would be a mistake.
I would do a decapitation strike on Iran if they can figure out a way to make it work.
The hostages will probably get killed no matter what, and I'm not saying that cavalierly or, you know, without respect to their dignity of their lives, let's say.
But realistically?
Realistically, you know, they're in a place where there's not much you can do.
I don't see too many rescues happening, but maybe a few, and worth trying.
Certainly worth trying.
I wouldn't expect a lot from any rescues.
But I think Israel's done talking.
I think that they cannot, it would be a waste of time for Israel to destroy Hamas and just fortify their border with Hezbollah, because it would just recreate.
As long as Iran gives money to the bad guys, The whole situation will just be recreated, and I don't think they can put up with it a second time.
So if they want to end it, they would probably have to try something bold, like taking out the leadership of Iran, as many times as it takes.
Like, you know, immediately they get a new hardliner.
You just got to take out the new hardliner as soon as you can.
Now, you may say to me, Scott, this will create Massive terrorism around the world and the lights might go out in the United States.
I think they might.
I think the lights might go out in the United States because I'm sure Iran has terrorism teams in the United States by now.
They would presumably be activated automatically and they would presumably go after things like the grid.
You have to really make sure everybody knew what was going on.
So I would expect the lights to go out actually.
In the next few weeks.
Not permanently, but I'd make sure you've got batteries and candles, is what I'm saying.
Because I think Iran will hit back if they get hit, and I don't know what would stop them from being hit.
We're already seeing that our embassies are being cleared out in the whole area.
We see that America barely has a government.
If you were Iran, or even Hezbollah, or even Israel, And you look at our leadership and you look at no Speaker of the House, don't you tell yourself you're going to have to kind of do this on your own?
Now, the American military being in the Gulf, I guess we've got a strike force that kind of pulled up in the area.
Do you think that's because of Hezbollah?
Or do you think that's to keep Iran under control in case there's a Decapitation strike.
I don't know.
Could be all of those things.
Could be what Joe Biden says, just a way to keep everybody, you know, where they are and not to get them involved in the war.
Maybe.
But, so I'll make this prediction.
If there's a bloody ground assault, which I think is in question, I think the siege is more likely at this point, but if they go in and there are massive casualties, Hezbollah will be active.
Israel will say, we're done with this.
And they'll just take out Iran.
At any cost.
I think they'll take out the leadership.
I remember when Soleimani was taken out by Trump.
And people said, oh no, that's going to create a wave of attacks.
Did it?
I think it might have done the opposite.
So I've got a feeling that the Iranian people are not so happy about their leadership that they wouldn't mind seeing them vaporized, frankly.
That's an unpredictable thing, because if you attack any country, they tend to back their leaders during the attack.
So it's a dicey proposition.
So do you imagine that Israel or the United States knows where the head of Iran is?
I feel like they might be just waiting to know for sure where he is.
And I don't think he'll be able to appear in public.
Has he ever?
Has the leader of Iran appeared in public in recent years?
Or is it always sort of in a room that you didn't know where he was?
I can't imagine him doing an outdoor event in the world of drones.
By the way, you know that in the age of drones, our leaders will no longer be able to do outdoor events.
So that's going to happen.
All right.
All right.
How many on these other platforms want me to turn it off?
Do you want to talk about the audio problems some more?
▲
Export Selection