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, Hotep Jesus, Hawaiian King, Rep. Mike Johnson, Gen Z Social Skills, Congressional Conservative Christians, The Rapture, Lewiston Mass Shooting, Senator Grassley, Biden Crime Family, President Trump's Bravery, Israel Hamas War, China's Bank & Real Estate Losses, Peter Zeihan, President Xi, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
And it's not really hard to be the highlight these days because human civilization not doing so well.
But we're doing great here.
And if you'd like to take it up to a level that's almost impossible to imagine, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a 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 of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go!
Pretty good.
Pretty good.
Well, I'm going to start with the most important stories of the day, and then we'll work toward everything else.
Most important story of the day.
The newest member of what they call the squad, The progressives in the house.
Their newest member, they made a big mistake.
They accepted a man so that the squad was short of women.
And then they decided it was a big mistake.
They let a man in.
First thing the man does when he becomes a member of the squad, he pulls a fire alarm in front of security cameras to possibly delay a government action.
I don't know What the rest of the squad is thinking about their newest member.
But I've got a feeling there's a lot of head slapping.
You know, you could probably hear five slaps as soon as that news came out.
It's like, you know, you'd hear like, like five slaps in Congress.
What were those?
I hear five slaps.
Where's that coming from?
Sorry, squad.
You own him now.
All right.
Yesterday, a few of you already know from my man cave last night, that I joined a Spaces event, an audio event on the X platform.
And if you're not familiar with it, it's an audio thing where there are a number of people who are hosts and speakers, and then you can volunteer to speak, but mostly it's audience members.
It's just people who are, you know, they show up as being audience members.
And I joined one that was A bunch of people were really mad at Hotep Jesus.
It looked like it was mostly black Americans who were angry at things that Hotep Jesus had said on the Joe Rogan podcast.
I think the main topic was, and I don't know what's true, by the way.
I'm just going to tell you what they were arguing about.
It's the funniest thing I've ever seen in my life.
Apparently Hotep, And I hope I'm representing him correctly.
Apparently, Hotep Jesus made the claim on Joe Rogan that the early settlers, or at least the royal family of Hawaii, prior to Hawaii ever being part of the America situation, that in his early days, maybe the first king of Hawaii was black.
And I said to myself, what?
That can't be true.
And of course that's what all of the people on the spaces were saying.
There was a number of black people were saying, why are you embarrassing us by making us look so bad?
That you would make crazy claims that black people were early settlers of the United States.
And that crazy, crazy, that the prior king, some king of Hawaii had been black.
That's pretty crazy.
So I get into those spaces, and I'm just listening.
I'm not going to be participating.
And I think to myself, well, that does sound crazy.
That's pretty damn crazy.
So then I googled the name of the king that Hotep mentioned.
And looking at the photo, I'm saying to myself, and his entire family is there, too.
So you see the whole royal family.
And I'm looking at it, and I'm thinking, OK, definitely not Hawaiian.
Definitely not Hawaiian.
Looks black to me.
Now, I think there's some, you know, discussion about exactly what their ethnicity was, but they do look, you know, if you were an American looking at their photos in 2023, you wouldn't imagine they were anything but black.
And it's quite an eye opener, because maybe we don't know much about the migration of people and the origins of anything.
If there's anything we've learned, it's that we don't know anything about anything.
There's nothing that we know is true.
Like, take the Big Bang.
The Big Bang was basically a gospel my entire life.
And then this year, it's like, you know, maybe not.
Our new telescope is like, maybe not.
Maybe not.
And I wonder if some of the most basic things we think About the migration out of Africa, and who went where when, and who settled what, and was it the Vikings, or was it Christopher Columbus?
We might be wrong about all of that.
If our understanding of history is as poor as our understanding of the moment we're alive, with the greatest ability to know what's true and compare it to things we've ever had, and we still don't know what's true, imagine the history of today being written.
Who gets to write the history of today?
Because we don't agree at all what's happening right now.
We don't agree at all what happened on January 6, 2020.
Who gets to write that history?
So who says that the first settlers or maybe the royal family of Hawaii was not at one time black?
The picture would suggest that's true.
Now, again, I'm not taking sides.
I don't know what's true.
My larger point is we just can be fooled by anything, basically.
So who knows what's true?
It was just a fascinating discussion.
But that's not why I brought it up.
I brought it up because when the host noticed that I was an audience member, they decided to call me out for being removed from the platform because I'm such a big racist.
And then they said, just to prove that they were on the side of the good, they wanted to make sure that they were, you know, showing that they were better than me.
They wanted to get rid of me for my supposed racist past.
But then, just to make the point, I guess, a little stronger, they announced that they would be getting rid of everybody white.
So if they saw any white profiles in the spaces, which is a public event, By its nature, it's a public event.
They decided to get rid of all the white observers.
So the white audience members were deleted.
And this morning, at least one of the participants saw me tweeting about it.
Maybe it was a participant, maybe not.
And wanted to embarrass me on X by showing exactly why I got cancelled.
And quoted my actual quote.
What about that, they said.
Yeah?
Gotcha.
To which I responded, and I'm paraphrasing, this is what I was talking about.
That black people can discriminate openly against white people with no, there's no penalty at all.
So what they did to me on Spaces, but more importantly, what they did to the other people who just happened to be white at the same time.
They discriminated against them directly.
They said it.
We're getting rid of you because you're white.
And we were only audience members.
We were not participants.
Just audience members in a public event.
Now, that is exactly my point.
My point is, they could have walked over and beaten the shit out of me.
And people wouldn't have blinked twice.
They'd be like, I probably had it coming.
I'll bet you had it coming.
Yeah, we're in a weird place now.
But I love winning that hard.
It's like, the thing you're mocking me for is my point, not yours.
All right, now you're mocking me again.
That's my point.
Okay, now you're still mocking me.
That's my point.
You can't win harder than that and still lose.
All right, well, we've got a new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, who I also like to lovingly call a fucking idiot.
Oh my God, this guy's a fucking idiot.
I'm sorry.
I can't even be objective about this at all.
Has nothing to do with a Republican or Democrat or anything.
Fucking idiot.
First of all, he's got a long history of being super anti-gay.
Now, I don't know if he's changed since the mid-2000s, but how in the world do you have a fucking anti-gay guy in 2023 who's the Speaker of the House?
Jesus Christ.
Are you kidding me?
Now, maybe he had some reawakening or something.
Maybe he's not the same guy he was ten years ago.
But, man, if you see some of his writing, he is super anti-gay.
And not in a way that is compatible with our current times.
But more to the point, I saw a video of him saying that he has a particular problem at home.
He has two teenage sons.
One of them is black and one of them is white.
And he says that he feels bad because he has to counsel his black teen that he will be more heavily discriminated against.
What?
What kind of terrible parenting is that?
In 2023, he's going to tell his two sons that the black one is going to be discriminated against?
What country does he live in?
How about you take those two fucking kids, give them identical educations, identical skills, and have them apply for the same fucking college?
You asshole.
You fucking asshole.
You're raising your kids wrong, clearly.
But you're making the world a worse place by saying it in public.
No.
The black kid will get into the college with the same qualifications way faster.
Now have him go apply for a goddamn job.
You fucking asshole.
In 2023, black kid gets a job every fucking time.
Every fucking time.
He is so unqualified to be even in Congress, much less the Speaker.
I've never been more disappointed with anything.
Completely disqualified piece of shit.
America in 2023, we don't need your backwards views about... I mean, he's like what?
40 years?
It's like he's living 40 years in the past.
It's been at least 30 years that the black guy could get a job easier than the white guy in corporate America.
And I know that because I was in corporate America and lost two jobs for being white.
Which I've talked about all the time.
He's only 40 years old, so he hasn't learned a fucking thing in his entire life.
It looks like.
Sorry, didn't mean to swear so much.
Let's talk about dumb kids.
There's a shocking survey about K-12 and which kids were asked What they knew about the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, and 63% of U.S.
kids, oh actually not even kids, Jesus, this is adults, 18 to 39, 63% of U.S.
people 18 to 39 were unaware that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
23% said the Holocaust was a myth, exaggerated, or they weren't quite sure.
So you're telling me about a quarter of the people weren't even sure the Holocaust happened.
About 25%.
It was 23, but rounding, you know.
Yeah, well that's consistent at least.
11% said Jews caused the Holocaust.
Oh my God.
Including 19% of respondents in New York.
What?
19% of New Yorkers said Jews caused the Holocaust?
What?
Am I reading that right?
Probably.
And 48% could not name a single concentration camp or a ghetto from World War II.
Who can name a ghetto?
Can any of you name a Jewish ghetto from World War II?
Warsaw?
Warsaw was called a Jewish ghetto instead of just... What?
Okay, well you guys are pretty well educated.
Here's my take.
Number one, how much do we know about any other ethnic group?
I don't know.
I don't think this level of lack of knowledge is It's out of whack with our lack of knowledge of everything else.
It's more of a general lack of knowledge.
So here's a question.
I've told you this before, I think.
For years, I've been asking young people the following question.
How many people do you think died in World War II, counting military and civilians of all the nations involved?
And then people go, I don't know, I don't really know.
Well, take your best guess, based on your sense of things, your education.
What do you think?
I mean, it was a world war.
Give me a number.
I've had numbers as low as 10,000.
I've had people who are like people who will vote.
These are people who probably are voting by now.
And they said, around 10,000 worldwide, military and About 10,000.
I've had other people who will say 6 million, because they confuse the Jewish deaths with the entire war.
I've had other people try to give me a big number, and they'll be like, it could be 10 million?
Yeah, it's closer to 60 million.
I don't know if we can get anywhere near the real number, but it's in the neighborhood of 60 million.
If you didn't know that, I see some higher estimates just to show you how loose the estimates are, but somewhere north of 50 million.
And if you don't know that World War II killed 50 million people, would you be afraid of another one?
I wouldn't.
If I thought that World War II only killed 10,000 people worldwide, I wouldn't even think about World War III.
Wouldn't even be on my mind.
Well, so that's how dumb those kids are, and then there's another study, or report anyway.
Managers are saying that the Gen Zers, they're not getting any work done, and they lack basic skills, or basic social skills, as well as basic skills.
Now, I was comparing the youth today to the youth in my day.
Well, get off my lawn, you youngsters who can't do things like we used to be able to do.
Now, of course, I think old people always said young people weren't as good as they were.
That seems like universal and all through time.
So there's some of that.
But there's also something that I think is real about this, which is when I look at my childhood, I probably just before I was 18 years old, I probably held, I don't know, I probably did 10 different jobs that you would normally only have an adult do, right?
Because I did gardening, and currently only adults are doing gardening where I live, right?
I was mowing lawns and stuff.
I was doing farming.
You know, I'm 12 years old and I'm doing farming.
My uncle's farm.
So I'm, you know, I'm throwing hay bales around and shoveling poop and helping with the milking, whatever I'm doing.
Sapping, you know, collecting sap from maple trees.
I mean, shoveling snow.
I mean, just a lot of things that kids can do, but typically adults would do them.
So by the time I got to college, I'm doing about four jobs in college while I'm supporting myself, at least supporting some of my expenses.
College was a lot cheaper back then, so you didn't have to have as much investment in it.
And by the time I reached the real world workforce, I had already held 15 adult jobs.
You know, they were all little bits at a time.
But I'd worked in a resort in, I don't know, six different capacities.
I'd worked in the kitchen.
I'd done the front desk work.
I'd, you know, I'd washed dishes.
I'd been a server.
You know, I'd done all these things.
And every one of them is a job that typically an adult is doing today.
And I thought that by the time I reached my first real job, I was trained sort of like an adult.
I mean, I was given responsibilities that, by today's standards, you sort of wouldn't give a kid.
And I don't remember blinking twice about it.
It was just normal.
So, I do think that kids today are just simply not doing as many things.
Most of the things they do are on a device.
But as soon as they stand up and start walking around, they're kind of just in their house, or in their school, or in a car.
And the number of things that they have to navigate or figure out is really, really small.
Like their life has just shrunk into this little experience.
But in many of our days, we were outdoors solving problems, like physically moving and solving problems.
And of course, the phones make everybody depressed, partly because they don't move around.
All right.
So yeah, that's probably a difference.
But the good news is that these kids, dumb as they are, they eventually grow up to be wise and useful members of society.
For example, there are quite a number of people in our Congress who are very pro-Israel and are supporting the Jews 100%, and as do I.
That's good, because it means that they've grown up to take on serious issues and be leaders, and really leaders of the country, in some ways even the world.
So what they believe, just to give you some details, is that they believe Israel should be protected, and in part because it's part of their belief in the rapture.
So this is not everybody in Congress, but many of the conservative Christians believe that Jesus will come back and he will raise up the dead, so the dead Christians, and then he will take the living Christians who believe in Jesus and they will go up to heaven.
Everybody else will not go.
So in a sense, if I could just recap this, just sort of the quick summary.
So the conservative Christians believe that it's very important in a biblical predictive sense that they protect Israel because apparently Israel has to be there as part of the Jesus coming back.
So the So the Christians in Congress, some of the conservative ones, are very, very pro-Israel because it's in part not just an American interest, you know, geopolitically, but it supports their view that we should do everything we can to help the Jewish people until Jesus comes and slaughters them all in a more appropriate way.
So they're very much against all the death and bad things that have happened To the Jews, but they're very much up for Jesus coming down and killing everybody who isn't a believer in Christ.
Did I get that right?
I'm not a religious scholar, but I think I got that right.
No?
I'm getting different opinions on this.
Well, let's see which part is wrong.
I'll just do the individual parts, because I probably just got one part wrong.
So one part is the Christians who believe in the rapture, the ones who believe in the rapture.
Israel is important to the whole scheme, right?
And they're also very pro-protecting the Jewish people.
That's true.
Very supportive of Israel.
But they also believe that anybody who doesn't believe in Jesus Will perish in the rapture, and will never be part of heaven?
Will they go to hell?
So this is the part I don't know.
Will the people who are not part of the rapture, do they go to hell?
I'm seeing yes's and no's.
Some say yes on hell, some say no.
Well my understanding was, That the conservative Christians want to protect Israel until Jesus can come and slay everybody who's not a believer and doom them to eternal hell?
Now I'm just asking you if I have it right.
I'm not giving you an opinion of what's true.
I don't know what's true and what's not true.
I'm just asking you, is that their belief?
I'm getting a lot of no's, but I don't get it for a reason.
It's a different interpretation.
All right, well, I guess I'm not a religious scholar.
But the point is that our dumb kids grow up to be smart like that.
Now, not only that, but some of them become mass shooters like this guy in Maine.
So yesterday, if you were watching the news, and I wish you weren't, some mass shooter guy He ran around and killed at least 16.
Last night they were saying 22, but it might be 16.
And he took a rifle and went into at least a couple of places in Maine and shot people up.
Now, they did fairly quickly get an identification.
Very impressive work, because as I said, oh wow.
As I said, Let's see, I want to just show you this picture in case he's running around your neighborhood.
So they got this good picture of him.
Here you've got, you can see the still picture.
He's looking directly at you.
And then you can see a completely different person that they've identified as being the same in the video.
So one of them had a nose job, To lengthen his nose, apparently, before he did the shooting.
His face shape was changed to something skinnier, but he's a person of interest.
Now, as I was watching the news last night, I saw that they had so-called identified him, and they even had his name, and then they compared him to the video that I was looking at, and I said to myself, that's not the same guy.
There's no way that's the same guy.
Now, I understand it's a different angle, but that didn't change the shape of his face.
So, I was listening to the news and the news said he's a person of interest and they wanted to make really sure that he was a person of interest and not a suspect.
Do you notice the difference between a suspect and a person of interest?
I don't either.
But I think it's, you call him a suspect, if you're sure of the identity, and you're sure of the crime, you're still not saying he's guilty, but you're like, well this is the guy, he's on video, and he's here.
So, suspect.
I think you say person of interest when you're not so sure about your identification.
Now it turns out they can't find him, but the guy who they think did the shooting, was a weapons expert.
Ugh.
Of course.
He was apparently some kind of firearms trainer.
So he had military experience and he was a firearms trainer.
Worst situation ever.
and apparently brutally, evilly efficient at taking people out.
How often do you think this happens?
Where the person they think it is doesn't match the video?
I'm going to tell you a story from my own experience.
When I was a bank teller at the age of 22-ish, I guess, I was robbed a few times at gunpoint.
One of the people who robbed me at gunpoint looked like this guy.
He had some facial hair, he looked about that height, and a little brown hair, kind of looked like that guy.
But when the FBI came in and said, all right, now describe the guy who robbed you.
I described a guy who looked, well, like the guy in the picture.
Like a different guy.
In fact, the one I saw looked 30 years older, had gray hair, and not much of it, a little beard stubble, but not a beard, and different clothing.
I described a guy who in no way matched the person on video who actually robbed me.
The way I found that out is the FBI visited me a second time, which is never good, to find out if I was in on the crime.
I think, you know, in retrospect, they never said that, but in retrospect, they said, um, can you describe that guy again?
And I would describe him, and then they said, um, could you come with us?
And I thought, what?
Yeah, we'd like to show you something at our office.
What?
So they take me to the office, and they've got this machine where they can replay the video from the video cameras of the robbery.
And so it had a manual crank on it, I remember, so they could really slow it down frame by frame.
And they started cranking it, and they go, is this the guy who robbed you?
And they show a guy who looks very much like the guy in the video.
He looked like a young Clint Eastwood with a sport jacket.
I had described a 60-year-old guy with some stubble and like a long coat, different color, everything.
So I see this guy looking like Clint Eastwood walking through the bank and they go, is this the guy who robbed you?
I'm like, no, not even close.
And they go, watch this.
And they go slowly and they crank it and I watch the guy walk up to my thing, pull a gun on me, and watch me handing him over my cash.
And I'm watching and I'm like, what?
I was there.
I look right in his fucking face.
And you know, when somebody aims a gun at you, I don't know how many times people have aimed guns at you.
I'm up to three.
I've been under the gun three times in my life, all in San Francisco.
But you see, you remember him.
Indeed, the second time I got robbed, I also ended up going to a police lineup.
And as soon as I saw the lineup, I was like, oh, yeah, him.
Like, easy to remember.
And that guy put the gun right in my face.
Like, the second guy that I easily identified looked exactly like I remembered him.
He literally had a gun in my nose.
I was looking down the barrel of it while I gave him the money.
So one of them I remember perfectly, but it gets weirder.
Here's the weird part.
Remember how I said the first one I described completely differently than the video?
Separately, the FBI interviewed my manager and I think one other person who also had a good look at the guy.
Because, you know, my manager actually followed him out of the bank once he realized what had happened.
He's got a good look at him.
My manager described him the same way I did.
That's right.
Two people independently described him as a completely different person.
And we both had a good look.
But when they told me I was wrong and I come back to the bank, I turn around and I look on the wall behind me where they had the most wanted pictures of known bank robbers.
And one of them was the picture of the guy who robbed me.
And I'd looked at that picture a million times and never made the connection.
It was that guy.
So, I guess he liked robbing banks.
Anyway, so I don't know what's going on, but one possibility is that the real shooter killed the firearms guy and took his car.
And maybe his guns.
And that possibly the real shooter is not this firearms guy, but that firearms guy might be dead.
So that's just a possibility.
Given that we don't really know what's going on, it's fog of war, anything's possible.
I wouldn't make a big bet on that hypothesis.
But he just doesn't look like the picture to me.
Or the video.
All right.
So for about 10 minutes, that story took Israel off the headlines.
And I said to myself, Huh.
How long is Israel not going to be the main story?
And by morning, you know, they were already equals.
And by this afternoon, we'll only be talking about Israel, I assume.
Well, Trump went in for another gag order.
I get confused about all of his legal jeopardies, but I guess there's a second gag order.
The first one was stayed or it's been suspended temporarily, but he got fined $10,000 for saying something about an officer of the court, but maybe he was talking about somebody else.
That's a little unclear.
He got mad and he stormed out and Blah blah blah.
Now, did I see a story that the ACLU is backing Trump to get the gag order taken away?
I feel like I saw a headline on that, but I didn't see the story itself.
Yeah, I'm getting yeses.
So that would be an example of the ACLU finally doing something I agreed with.
I appreciate that.
But I don't think there's any question anymore that the Biden administration is a weaponized Weaponized government and that the process is rigged.
You know, the 2024 election is already rigged.
They're doing it right in front of you.
Because this lawfare stuff seems so obviously designed to stop him politically and not based on a political or not based on a, let's say, a justice philosophy.
So justice is not driving their actions.
It's just politics.
So that is rigging the election.
You don't have to wonder if it's being rigged.
They're doing it right in front of you.
So if anybody ever asks again, oh, Scott, do you think somebody rigged the election?
I'm going to say, well, I don't know.
Let me examine your question.
Do you believe that rigging the election applies narrowly to only the counting of the votes?
Are you that dumb?
If you think of it as anything the government does to fix the outcome, well this weaponization of the government, Department of Justice, is just rigging an election.
But they're doing it right in front of you, and it's completely legal.
But there's no doubt about it, they're rigging the election right in front of you.
Or trying.
We'll see if they succeed.
All right, the US economy, against all odds, grew what they call a staggering 4.9% in the third quarter.
I'm trying to remember in my entire life, maybe it happened when I was little, when was the last time we had a 4.9% growth in the economy when we weren't coming off a recession or something?
Never?
Do you believe it's not true?
Hmm.
Oh, maybe it's just because inflation's up.
Oh, that's why.
It's just inflation's up.
All right.
Okay.
Got it.
Everybody raised their prices.
Yeah, it's bullshit.
Okay.
But what is true, apparently, is that we did not go into a recession.
Would you agree with that?
Does it look like recession didn't happen?
So I'm going to take credit for another prediction that was counter to the experts.
Will you give me that one, if you've been watching for a while?
I was one of the few people who said, I don't think there is going to be a recession.
And almost all the experts said, oh yeah, definite recession.
So I'm going to take that one as a victory, because I got that one.
All right.
As Jesse Waters and other people are reporting, Jesse does a great job on these complicated stories.
I always recommend Jesse Waters for the cleanest, clearest summaries of the most complicated stuff.
He's great at that.
So Chuck Grassley has some information that 40 FBI informants had been spying on the Biden so-called crime family for 15 years.
Forty different informants.
Apparently many of them had information that would have been actionable.
These are the claims.
But in each case they were blocked or nothing happened.
And that that blocking continues today.
And that the FBI basically was Trying to get Trump when they made up the dossier stuff and tried to protect Biden for 15 years.
Which would suggest that the FBI is sort of rogue if not just controlled by Democrats.
Now what's fascinating is I mentioned the other day the Oliver Stone updated JFK updated documentary that's out now.
And it's fascinating.
And in that He alleges that JFK believes that the FBI was running like its own, you know, not his employees.
It was like running his own empire under Hoover, which I think historically...
Hearing something outside that shouldn't be outside.
So historically, oh, it's a garbage truck.
And apparently, Multiple field offices blocked every effort to go after the Bidens, and the allegation is that the FBI has known for 15 years that the Bidens were crooked, but they might have been using it to blackmail the Bidens.
So it's possible, and that's just an allegation, it's possible that the FBI, or whoever is controlling the FBI no matter who the boss is, Is using the FBI to blackmail leaders.
And that we don't even have anything like a, nothing like a republic or anything like that.
It's basically just sort of a blackmail Rico criminal situation.
And has been for decades.
You know, maybe since Kennedy.
Now the reason that I can say such a thing in public without any risk, Because if it were true, you'd expect the people in charge to have to kill me or something.
The reason I can say this is nobody believes it.
It's such a big claim that your head can't even hold it.
It's like, wait, what did you say?
The government of the United States has been basically a criminal enterprise, you know, using the FBI and probably the CIA as enforcers, or maybe they were even their own domains doing their own thing.
Who knows?
But it's something like that?
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
And that there's ample evidence, in fact, more than ample.
It's beyond ample, it's to the point of obvious.
And your brain still can't handle it.
Well, but they're still collecting taxes and Building roads.
You're like, yeah, yeah.
I mean, it's kind of working.
I didn't say it didn't work.
I'm just saying it's nothing like you thought it was.
You know, we don't have any representative of government or anything like that.
It's pretty much just a criminal enterprise.
All right.
Let's see.
So the big worry here is if these claims, these allegations are true, it would suggest that there isn't any way that Trump could win the next election because he would be seen as an existential threat to the entire criminal web of organizations from the FBI to God knows what.
So that would suggest that there's a JFK situation building up here.
Not necessarily an assassination, but it could be the lawfare, it could be something to just take Trump out.
Let me just say one thing about Trump.
I'm still backing Ramaswamy.
I think we need to go younger.
But he is brave.
He is legitimately brave.
I wasn't sure that that was, you know, just part of his act.
But the more you see of him, the more it looks true.
He looks like he's risking his life to see if he can clean things up.
And he knows it.
He would have to know he's risking his life.
You know, after he killed Suleimani, the Iranian terrorist guy.
And I assumed that would just open up the ability for Iran to assassinate him back.
But they wisely chose not to.
Yeah, I don't think they could have taken that hit.
But the balls on that guy.
Like he just kills this guy.
He just orders him killed.
And then goes on with his day.
I'm trying to wrap my head around how difficult it would be to be in his situation.
He's being threatened with jail every day.
He's got tons of people who want to take him out for every reason you could imagine.
He has every reason to retire and not put up with any of this stuff.
And he just can't do it.
He's drawn to the fight.
Well, all right.
Israel had what they call their biggest raid yet on Gaza.
But nobody on the Israeli side was injured.
So it was mostly just tanks.
Nobody got out of the tanks.
They drove around for a while and did whatever they needed to do or accomplished whatever they needed to do and came back.
I would assume that in this kind of operation there are a whole bunch of probes before there would be some kind of a larger attack.
So I would put this in the probe category, not the raid category.
Now the talk is about the question of Whether they should go in quickly or go in slowly.
I would like to, as I have before, question the military experts who say that the longer you wait, the harder it's going to be because they'll have time to prepare.
I'm not sure that's true.
Because both sides have time to prepare.
But if both sides prepared equally, wouldn't Israel have an advantage?
Because I think, you know, having everybody trapped in a kill zone and preparing Is very much better than being in the kill zone and being prepared to kill, preparing to be killed, you know, while trying to take as many people as you can.
So it seems to me that time is more on Israel's side militarily, strategically, tactically, than maybe the experts are saying.
However, public opinion in Israel and elsewhere among supporters definitely wants it to happen fast.
Now if you're in Israel, you want it to happen fast because your blood is boiling and you'd feel the same way.
You just want blood.
You need to get rid of the risk.
You don't want ever, even once, to think that your children would be subject to that kind of risk ever again.
So you'd want to smash it.
You'd want to do it fast.
You'd want to do it complete.
And you wouldn't care about much else.
That would be a normal opinion.
And you can see why They haven't.
Now, allegedly, and I think this is questionable, but allegedly the United States has asked Israel to hold back a little while until we can get some missile defense and maybe some missiles and other assets into the area.
And they say the intention of that is to keep the other players, mostly Iran and Hezbollah, and maybe Syria and who knows who else, from Getting active and joining the fight.
It would be a way to suppress them.
Maybe, yeah, Turkey, etc.
Now, maybe, but you shouldn't believe anything in the context of war.
So I don't know about that.
It seems to me just as likely that Israel wanted to delay because they weren't quite ready.
Now, here's the dance that Israel has to make.
If they go too soon, And they just, you know, brutalize the entire area.
The civilian deaths will probably be too high, or at the very least their enemies can frame it as too high.
Whatever too high is.
One is too high, I suppose.
And so if they go in soon, They've got to worry about creating something that will look like genocide.
Because their enemies will call it genocide.
No matter what it is.
No matter how respectfully they treat the locals who are not combatants.
No matter How much casualties they take themselves to avoid civilian casualties, it's not going to matter to their enemies.
They're still going to call it a genocide.
So at the very least they want to have the facts on their side, right?
To not create something that a reasonable person would call a genocide.
If they wait too long, Then they might lose some morale, and maybe the other team's leaders could escape, and there could be other bad things awaiting while they get ready, which is a good thing.
But my take is that the ideal way to go in is slow, but right.
So I think slower is actually to their advantage, and while nobody in Israel wants to go slow, Not the military, not the public.
I think it's good for them.
Because... Let me be direct.
I'm 100% backing Israel.
And I'm not doing any moral equivalent bullshit.
There was a horrible attack, they need to go take care of it.
It is their business.
For the most part.
I mean, we'll get dragged in, but they're going to do what they're going to do.
That said, let me say directly, nobody in Israel is thinking straight.
I'm just gonna say it directly.
Nobody in Israel is capable of making a clear-headed decision.
Do you know why?
Because they're normal.
They're normal thinking people.
Who in the world could make an objective, smart, you know, long-term decision in this context?
Oh, the really smart leaders can?
No, they can't.
Oh, the people who are professionals and know how to do this stuff?
You know, they won't be so emotional.
Yes, they will.
Yes, they will.
It's their children, too.
Absolutely, they'll be.
So, don't even pretend that Israel, because of the trauma that they've just suffered, could make anything like Good long-term decisions.
I just don't think they're capable.
You know, as capable as they are in general, nobody can be in this situation.
Nobody.
Nobody, no matter how smart you are, no matter how well-meaning you are, no matter your intentions, you can't put anybody in that situation and expect them to act like a normal person.
It's just not a thing.
Now, I've had a number of conversations with people who are there and who live there.
And I can tell you that their thinking does not include the risk of World War III.
At least I haven't determined it.
Now definitely they think about it.
It's in the conversation, right?
But in terms of the odds of it, I think they're discounting it to zero.
I do think that they expect a high chance that Iran and Hezbollah, and therefore Lebanon, will be part of the battle.
There's a good chance that's going to happen.
But I think that the thinking is that it's a localized thing.
Now from an American perspective, the thing that I would worry about, you know, protecting the families in the homeland here, is that Iran would be so threatened by military action, and let's say the hot war begins, that they would maybe activate whatever cells they have in America.
And that you saw that one person with some firearms may have injured, I don't know, 50 to 80 people.
May have killed 16.
And he's not done.
He's still on the loose.
That's one person.
You saw what, I don't know, 1,500 fighters from Hamas could do.
They took a country to its knees.
1,500 people.
So how many people would it take in America To take down major infrastructure?
The answer is, alarmingly few.
Alarmingly few.
It's really just a case of whether Iran says go do it.
If they have agents here, and they're trained, and Iran says go do it, it's going to get pretty ugly here in the United States.
If I were making the decision as a robot, how would I do it?
All right, here's how a robot would do it.
But nobody's a robot, so this is just as contrast.
If I were a robot, I would say, all right, odds of winning the war against Hamas if we go in hard against Gaza?
Probably close to 100%, would you agree?
The amount of casualties in the civilian group is a huge variable and the most important part, in my opinion, in the short term.
But they could definitely get the job done.
And I would also say, in other words, killing the armed Hamas people and their leaders.
And that has to be done.
Now I'd also like to say that every scenario Has the Hamas leadership just wiped out and their soldiers?
So I don't think anybody's in favor of anything that doesn't get that done.
Whether it's slowly or quickly, that's going to get done.
that that decisions made and done and there's nothing left to talk about if our robot i say to myself alright one hundred percent of hamas is destroyed And then I'd put some percentage of likelihood that the civilian casualties are horrific.
And then I'd put some percentage that they were kept down to a lower level.
If they go in slowly, I'm going to guess fewer civilian casualties, because they'll have time to maybe filter some good people out, the civilians.
Maybe.
But then I would say, all right, now calculate the risk of a more global, or let's say a regional war.
And say, all right, odds of a regional war, if Israel goes in hard, 50%.
50%.
Because the US military is sitting there ready to attack both Lebanon and Iran, I assume, or at least back up Israel in those attacks.
And I think Hezbollah has like 200,000 missiles aimed at Israel.
200,000.
In order to take out 200,000 missiles, you're talking a really major action, I would assume.
That wouldn't be fast, either.
And those missiles are going to be firing in the meantime, so it's going to get pretty ugly.
So I'd say, all right, the odds of that, would you say 50%?
Well, give me your odds.
Tell me.
Let's say Israel goes in hard, and whether it's true or not, the enemies say, oh, you've killed too many civilians.
Of course, one would be too many.
What do you think of the odds of Lebanon and Hezbollah attacking Israel with something closer to full force.
What do you think?
I'll just read out your numbers.
30, 100%, yes, 100%.
100% is the wrong number.
75, 90, 25, 50, alright.
Yes, 100%.
100% is the wrong number.
75, 90, 25, 50.
All right.
So I'm a robot.
So I would talk to a bunch of people and I'd poll them.
Because actually, if you took the average of people's opinions, it probably wouldn't be too terrible in terms of an estimate of it happening.
Because humans are humans.
So if you tell all the humans what's the situation, a whole bunch of humans, if you take their average, probably pretty close to what will happen.
That's my hypothesis, anyway.
So if I'm a robot, I say, all right, talk to all the people.
They say anywhere from 90% to 30%.
So I'll pick a midpoint, 50%.
I'll lower it a little, 40%.
40% chance that it turns into major Iran-Hezbollah action, US is in, Russia wonders what to do, that sort of thing.
So, would you take a 40% chance of that?
But remember, that's not all bad.
Because it could be that that's the 40% you want to happen, if you're Israel.
Because you might say at this point, you know what?
We always knew we'd have to fight.
We always knew it.
This is the best time to do it.
Because we have at least the cover of this horrific terrorist act to give us cover to do the things that we knew we had to do.
We've known forever that it's going to be military.
And the Hezbollah is not going to aim 200,000 rockets at us.
And we're just going to let it grow.
War is coming no matter what.
There's no better time to do it.
But, then I'd say, So, so far everything's positive for Israel, right?
It's positive if they get rid of Hamas, and it's positive if it sparks a larger war, which they can now use, take the opportunity to eliminate those risks or reduce them as much as possible.
So they might actually be thinking, you know what?
Can't think of a better outcome than having the entire, you know, having the US Navy right off the beach At the same time, we need to do something with Hezbollah and maybe the leadership of Iran.
But then the next question is, could that lead to Russia getting involved?
Or a nuclear exchange somewhere?
If Hezbollah's missiles are better than we think, and Iran also launches and maybe somebody else joins in at the same time, could it destroy Israel?
I mean, could Israel be one month away from not existing?
That's not impossible, is it?
And then, if it looked like it was going to be that bad, would Israel use a nuke?
Because if they did, they would be the pariah forever.
On the other hand, it might be the only thing to save their country.
What would they do if they thought it was the only thing they could do?
I don't know.
Honestly, I don't have a guess.
I don't know if they'd take the hit, as brutal as it would be, or would they say, you know what?
We're just going to end this right now.
I have no idea.
But it's not zero.
Would you agree?
The odds of this sparking something nuclear, either something with Russia or Israel, just You know, ends up not doing as well as they hoped and it's just the only thing they have left.
What's the odds of that?
What are the odds of it going nuclear and or more than regional and becoming global?
Because nuclear might get that done.
Your estimates are 0, 50, 25%, 15.
are 0, 50, 25%, 15.
I think the odds of nuclear are going to be below, well below 20%.
But above 1% would be my guess.
Let's put it at 10%.
If there's a 10% chance that what Israel is doing would create a nuclear confrontation somewhere, and or a world war, what would the robot say about doing it?
Meaning going into Gaza?
Well, the robot might say, you know what would be better?
Just take your losses of 1,000 people every 10 years from terrorism, because it's never going to stop, and try to contain it.
Because the alternative is, if you do an expected value calculation, you would multiply the number of people who could die in a nuclear attack times the odds it would happen.
So if you thought there was a 10% chance that 10 million people would die, you would value that as a million people.
Why are you swearing at me?
What's your problem?
I don't even know what that's about.
Somebody, yeah, somebody straighten him out.
So if you were a robot, you'd say, do whatever you can to avoid a 10% chance of a nuclear confrontation.
But if you were a country whose children had just been killed in front of their parents, fuck it.
Honestly.
That's what you would say.
If you were in their position, that's what you'd say.
Yeah, this might lead to a world war.
But it's a small chance, and there's no way they're getting away with this.
No way.
So there is a slight difference of interests here.
Maybe not a big one, but there's a slight one, which is that what is best for Israel in terms of not only their mental health, but their future security, is to go hard and completely eliminate the enemy maybe as soon as possible.
Even at the risk of civilian deaths that are shocking.
So that would make sense if you were there and you had gone through that.
If you were a robot, maybe you'd have a different opinion, but the robots are not in charge, so it's irrelevant.
There's no need to go in, just keep the water off.
You know, I don't know enough about sieges to know why that won't work.
There may be an aquifer or something they can get to.
I would think food would be the bigger one.
What would happen if he just waited?
So, for reasons that are very human, people are going to be way more worried about the 200 and whatever hostages than they are about the 200 people who probably died today in bombing.
Would you agree?
That for some reason hostages grab our Grab our brains in the way that a thousand people are dying a day that we don't see their names and they're just in the rubble.
Like somehow it doesn't put your brain on fire the same way.
It should.
It should.
But it doesn't.
So here's what I think.
I think those hostages have no chance of living if Israel goes in fast.
Maybe, you know, a small chance.
But a very bad chance.
If Hamas thinks that they have any chance at all of stalling for advantage or negotiating something away, they could easily give us back some hostages.
And in my opinion, that would be worth the wait.
One of the offers I saw that was hilarious was that we would trade all of those hostages that Hamas has for every one of Israel's hostages, which are far more.
The trick would be the hostages released would be released in Gaza.
And then they would just kill them in Gaza.
Now what's interesting is they might say yes to that.
If you were Hamas, you might say, wait, you're going to release them, but they're going to come here in the siege?
Well, we're here in the siege.
Yeah, bring them.
They'll help us fight.
They might actually say yes to that, which would be weird.
So who knows?
So my guess is that Israel will continue to say, we want to go now, but America is holding us back.
But maybe everybody wants to hold back.
And maybe that's a convenient story.
So you have a reason for holding back so your citizens don't get angry at you or lose hope.
All right, President Xi of China Apparently, you might be aware there was a huge collapse in their real estate market.
A lot of things got built and financed that nobody wanted to live in.
They were unnecessary.
But now Xi is looking to blame the bankers.
So he's going after the executives of the banks, which is bad.
If you're a Chinese executive and the government decides to go after you, that doesn't work out well for you.
So China's got trouble.
Both in banking and real estate.
And it makes me wonder, I do wonder about Xi and corruption.
It seems to me that the big thing that America does better than a lot of other countries is we police our corruption a little bit better.
We still have too much.
But you can generally count on doing a deal with an American business and something like exactly what you agreed to will happen.
Most of the time.
I'm not sure that's true in China.
Maybe in China it's just all bribery everywhere and I don't know how bad it is.
But it's interesting to see Xi going after corruption at the highest levels in banking and real estate.
So it does make you wonder I mean, part of me thinks that he just wants to turn the corruption to his benefit, and he's only mad because he wasn't getting anything.
It wasn't helping him.
So it's not really about making the country better.
It's like, well, I wasn't getting a share, so this doesn't work.
We'll keep an eye on it.
So Peter Hussein had the most absurdly non-believable story That goes like this.
That the Chinese spy balloons was not at all what you thought it was.
And that it wasn't President Xi even being aware of it.
How does he know that?
I don't know.
But that the... Well, the story goes like this.
The reason we didn't shoot them down is that we put our own assets, flying assets, above them and below them and sucked all of their Digital secrets and of the balloon so the balloon got nothing because our Missile silos were closed and you know, we of course protect against this stuff All right.
I'm not saying any of this is true Just tell you what he said yeah, we'll get to the part where I don't believe any of it.
All right, so we'll get to that part and so the story was that we're so good at hacking things we hacked their balloon and We figured out what city the signals were coming from.
And wait, it gets better, according to Peter.
We figured out what floor it was coming from.
And we figured out the computer it was coming from.
And that allowed them to piece together the entire network of who was involved with the spy balloon.
And somehow they determined, sure, That China's intelligence services had done this as a rogue thing that even Xi didn't know about.
Do you believe that?
Does any of that sound true?
Now, Peter Zayan is often accused by people of having some kind of CIA connection.
I don't know anything about that.
I just know it's funny, because he says things that are so perfectly aligned with what you would expect the CIA would want you to hear.
And it's like, could it be a coincidence?
Could it be a coincidence?
I mean, it might be.
It could be just total coincidence.
But when I see somebody say that President Xi doesn't know what his intelligence agencies are doing, and the intelligence agencies have embarrassed him greatly on the world stage, That looks like exactly what the CIA would want China to hear, so that they would have internal fighting and not trust each other.
Now, how would Peter Zayan know all this stuff?
Literally none of it.
None of it sounds credible at all.
So there's that.
Peter Zayan also said that the American cyber skills are just way, way better than the other countries, not even close, and that our people have already penetrated all the major systems of our foes.
And if they attacked us, our cyber guys would just turn off their entire operation, and it would take years to recover.
Sure.
You know what else I used to think was true?
I used to think that Russia were so good at hacking that they'd be hacking all of Ukraine's systems and Ukraine would be helpless because all that hacking would take them down.
Have you heard any stories of Ukraine having problems with hacking?
I feel like maybe hackers are overrated.
Now it could be that only American hackers are good.
Maybe.
But remember when we were talking about Russia hacked the DNC emails, and that we knew exactly who it was?
I never believed any of that.
None of that sounded true.
No, I don't believe that they could figure out who did it.
What kind of hacker would be, you know, getting into this sort of thing, like an official government hacker, and couldn't cover their trails?
What kind of hacking is that?
Yeah, that sounds like maybe America did it.
Never know.
You never know what's true these days.
So I don't believe that our cyber people are already in all of the systems of our foes and can turn off their lights.
I don't know.
That doesn't sound true.
That sounds like something the CIA would want other countries to think, doesn't it?
Doesn't that sound exactly, exactly what you'd want the other countries to think?
Especially if you're looking to You'll go to war.
Hey, Iran.
I don't know.
I just thought I'd mention.
Our hackers are so good, we could turn off your whole country anytime we want.
Just thought you should know.
It's a good time to tell you.
Well, I don't think any of that's true, frankly.
The CEO of X, what's her name?
Linda Iaccarino, actually said in public that they expect X to turn a profit by early 2024.
What?
Really?
That would be the most impressive thing I've ever seen in business.
Like, I'm skeptical.
So I'm gonna be skeptical about it.
But, wow.
Imagine if it really happened.
I would be so fucking impressed.
Because it looked like there was no hope that Twitter would ever be profitable.
It didn't look like there was anything you could do.
And so how in the world did he do that?
It was just subscriptions?
I don't know.
I guess I'm skeptical that they can really be profitable in 2024.
But even if it's 2025, it would be kind of amazing.
All right.
We'll see.
We'll keep our eye out for that.
Alright ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the best live stream you'll see this morning.
I'm gonna say goodbye to the folks here on YouTube.
What's that?
I'm looking at some of your comments right now.
Cash flow positive...
Well, that's a good question.
Are they profitable or are they cash flow positive?
