Episode 2281 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/03/23 Interesting News Today, Have Your Mind Blown
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, Bread Inflammation, Soros DA Carjacked, President Trump ,American Academy, Israel Funding, Uncontrolled Immigration, Matt Gaetz, Immigration Asylum Policy, Bridgeport Election Fraud, Christopher Rufo, Libs Of TikTok, SBF Convicted, AG Letitia James, Trump Fraud Trial, White House AI Policy, President Obama AI Policy, Hezbollah Leader Speech, Israel Hamas War, Hamas Tunnel Strategy, Jeff Bezos Florida, Eric Adams Campaign Investigation, Blackmailed Politicians, Elon Musk xAI, Competing AI Opinions, Fentanyl Deaths, Thomas Massie AIPAC, 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.
Would you like to take today's experience up to levels which nobody can even imagine or explain?
Well, all you have to do is you gotta get yourself a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a sty and 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 is called a simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
There is so much news today.
There's barely enough time for me to solve all the world's biggest problems.
But I'm going to take a swing at a few of them.
Okay?
But first, an announcement.
If you are used to listening to me on Spotify, the recorded version doesn't run live there, but Spotify has demonetized me.
Now, they say it has nothing to do with me, but rather there's some system delay or something.
However, if I'm not, if it doesn't remonetize, whether it's personal or a system issue, I will be taking it off of Spotify, obviously.
So if it disappears on Spotify, you should look for it on YouTube and Rumble.
It'll be recorded on Rumble.
So it hits Rumble about the same time it hits Spotify.
So we'll see what happens there.
Supposedly, they simply haven't rolled out what they call the ambassador ads, the thing you read that gets you monetized.
So we'll see if that's really a system problem or not.
How would you like me to solve two of the biggest problems in the world and maybe in your personal life?
Say yes.
Oh, okay.
Since you're begging me, I will tell you.
Problem number one, the war in Ukraine is going to cause probably a global wheat shortage.
Would you all agree that that seems likely, no matter what happens there?
It's the big wheat bread basket of the world.
So if I could solve that problem, that would be a good win, wouldn't it?
Now secondarily, there's this other problem that Americans feel like crap and they have terrible inflammation.
So in my locals community, over on the locals platform, I told them of course about my own experience of cutting bread out of my diet here in America.
Apparently our wheat and bread is a little different than in other places.
But I was almost, you know, I mean, I was almost in a wheelchair, honestly, for the last two years.
Even though I could still keep up my normal life, it hurt all the time.
The inflammation, the stiffness.
I just thought I was getting old.
But when I cut bread, it all went away.
If you want to know how bad it was before I took bread out of my diet, if something was on the floor and I needed to pick it up, I had to do a lot of thinking about it.
Like honestly, I would stand there and look at it and go, I don't know if that's worth bending over, that's going to hurt like hell.
And it would really, really hurt just to bend over.
And almost anything else.
Getting out of bed was just a nightmare for about a year.
And I quit bread and it went away completely.
My sinuses cleared up.
I can sprint.
You know, I went from there's no way I could, you know, do a slow jog, it would just hurt too much, to I take the dog to the park and we just do sprints, basically.
And it's easy, even at my current age.
Now, so I thought to myself, well, this could be just something about me.
I actually thought it might be.
I thought it might be some just specific allergy that I had.
So as an experiment, I asked my followers on the Locals platform to just see if they were willing, voluntarily, to take a month without bread.
Now, not everybody would do that, of course, but quite a few people did.
And so I just checked in after a few weeks of no bread to ask them what their experience was.
Oh my fucking God!
Their inflammation went away.
People dropped weight, like, without effort.
Just the weight just fell off.
That's what happened to me.
As soon as I stopped eating bread, my weight, with no other effort, I didn't do anything else different, just drifted right down to my perfect, my exact target weight.
So, here is a solution to the two biggest problems in the world.
Or two of them.
Maybe not the biggest.
But if you have inflammation problems, or weight problems, or even some, you know, let's say digestive problems, I would suggest the following.
Just as a personal experiment, try taking a month off of bread.
Now that includes, you know, pastries and any, you know, pastas.
It would include pasta, I would say.
So just stay away from anything with wheat.
See what happens for a month.
I'm not your doctor.
Can we be clear about that?
I'm not your doctor and I'm not making a scientifically backed claim.
What I am is somebody who always recommends that you're experimenting with your own situation.
So if you're not continuously experimenting with putting things in and out of your diet, you should.
It's a really, really good system.
I've been doing it for most of my adult life.
I test, test, test.
Can I find something that's healthy but also costs the right amount?
And it's good to eat.
So never stop doing that.
If it turns out that you don't need wheat products, well then, there'll be a lot more wheat for people in other countries who maybe are not getting the stuff that's got additives in it.
So it doesn't seem to be dangerous in other places.
It seems to be an American phenomenon.
Anyway, but a more important story is that a Kansas City manager, he got suspended Probably get fired.
Because staffers were sent an email showing him masturbating on a couch.
Now, apparently he didn't send it around, but somebody must have seen it online and wanted to out him as a person who masturbates on a couch.
Now, I read that story and I feel like the real victim is the couch.
Nobody talks about the couch.
But nobody's really going to want to sit on that couch ever again.
And we don't really think about the feelings of the couch.
We don't know if he was a couchess actual.
We don't know if when they say he was, quote, masturbating on a couch, was he sitting on a couch while masturbating or was he, you know?
Masturbating on the couch.
So that would suggest that the couch was his, uh, sort of the source of his arousal.
So he might be a couchessexual, which would cause a problem, because you'd have to add a C to LGBTQ, and that would be LGBTQC+.
But the most important part of this story is I skipped my joke from the last story.
Dammit.
I had a really good joke for that wheat inflammation thing.
It goes like this.
Oh, it's worth it.
I'll double back.
It's worth it.
I believe if I ask you to quit wheat because it might make you feel better, I could be accused of... I could be accused of... Misinflammation.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
Misinflammation.
I stole that joke from one of my local subscribers here, who was very clever this morning.
All right, there's another Soros prosecutor who's been a victim of crime.
Soros back DA Jason Williams in New Orleans.
He got carjacked at gunpoint.
Got carjacked at gunpoint.
So he was one of the prosecutors who wanted no bail and alternatives to prison and stuff like that.
But he got carjacked at gunpoint.
And he says, looking down the barrel of the gun, the hole in that barrel looks bigger when you're looking down it.
Now I have looked down the barrel of a few guns, I've had guns pointed at my head, and I can confirm the size of the gun looks bigger when it's pointed at your head.
Absolutely true.
If you've never had anybody put a gun right to your face, a loaded gun, you don't know how big they are until you see them up close, even the small guns.
Anyway, this makes the conspiracy theorist in me wonder, since this seems to be a repeated story.
You know, it just happened my local Soros-backed prosecutor also was a victim of a crime recently.
And it made me wonder, this is just conspiracy theory stuff, do you think there's some billionaire Who is paying street criminals to rob specifically Soros-backed prosecutors?
Because they keep getting robbed on the street.
And I say to myself, I would certainly not want to encourage anybody to, you know, pay for somebody to commit crimes.
That would be terrible.
And awesome.
But terrible.
I do not recommend that anybody do that.
It would be illegal, first of all, very illegal.
It would be dangerous, super dangerous.
And awesome, but don't do it because of the danger.
No matter how awesome that would be, I'm not recommending it.
Dangerous.
Did I talk about Trump's education plan, his college plan?
The more I think about it, the more I love it.
So Trump came out with a video saying he wants to create this American college, which would be online, free to everybody, and wouldn't have presumably the woke nonsense, and you wouldn't have debt, and the government would accept Your degree as if you were accredited, which would give it some weight.
The government does not do accreditation, but at least if there's somebody who would treat it as though you were accredited, that's a good thing.
So I love everything about that plan, especially if it ties in with AI, etc.
But I thought I would mention a couple other plans he has.
So he also has the plan for the mentally ill.
To build facilities to get them off the street.
Now that seems like a complete solution.
Likewise his education plan which he thinks he can fund it by suing the endowments of big colleges.
I don't know how that works exactly.
So the funding is a little up in the air.
But it doesn't look like it'd be the most expensive thing in the world if the government had to fund it.
And in fact I feel like they could turn it into...
You know, a model where people would compete to sell their license to the government's American college.
Your perfect situation would be if teams of educators, let's say one is a teacher, one is a really good presenter, which might not even be the teacher, might not be the expert, but just a really good presenter.
You pair that with a really good videographer, some CGI to tell the story, etc.
And suddenly, you've got people competing to make the best online product, the one that teaches the best.
And then they can make a lot of money, because the government would buy their product and put it into production in the American college.
So I like everything about the boldness of this plan.
It's out-of-the-box thinking.
It's current.
It's modern.
It fits with all of our trends.
It's just basically perfect.
You know, the funding could be worked out, but otherwise it's perfect.
So that's one perfect plan that Trump has, but I like also his plan to get help for the mentally ill.
That just seems exactly what should happen.
And also the Trump idea of building new cities on federal land, because there's nothing that creates a job better than building a city from scratch.
And our cities are so broken that the ideal situation is to let the current ones rot.
Or fix themselves if they can.
But to actually create a new place where you have some kind of control about avoiding the worst mistakes of the cities.
So I love that.
But there's one other thing.
And I think Trump also mentioned this before.
But suppose you wanted to compete against all the Soros prosecutors and the people who support them in the public.
And the things they want are no bail and really not putting in jail people for minor offenses.
Suppose, if you will, that Trump tried to actually top that.
Instead of running against it, you know, throw him in jail.
Then it's just a fight.
No, don't throw him in jail, you racist.
No, throw him in jail.
That's a fight he might not win, although it would be more and more popular as crime rises.
But he could actually lap them.
And he could do it by saying, all right, how about no bail?
And how about no prison sentences?
Which is exactly what they want.
The only catch is, you have to go to some farm in the city, and you can't leave.
So until you built up a skill, for example, Or you spend a few months there or whatever.
But I think they have to be taken away from the rest of the people.
Maybe you could limit it.
Actually, this would be the best idea.
My understanding is that at least below the murder rate, the number of people doing the regular stealing types of crimes are a very small number of people Doing 90% of the nonviolent crimes.
Is that true?
That's true, right?
If you could just make a place where that few percent do most of the crime, and just say, look, you do have a choice of going to jail, but your alternative is to go to this nice farm where you'll actually be happier than when you were in the city.
And you take all those people who are thieves, You put them all in one place, and you see if you can do something with it.
See if you can help them.
See if you can maybe let them build a skill.
You could easily imagine that, given that farming is a skill, that the people who are on the farm might be bored, and you say, look, you can just sit in your room all day, if you want, or you can work.
If you work, we'll teach you a skill.
And you can at least work on a farm somewhere.
So there might be a whole bunch of creative ways that Trump could come up with a plan that's actually more humane than what the Soros prosecutors are offering and also doesn't have the repeated crime on the innocent over and over again.
So I'm just generally loving the boldness and the smartness of Trump's big ideas.
They're very bold.
And they're very futuristic.
I mean, he's talking flying cars and AI education.
Right?
He's basically looking like a young man running for office.
He's actually pulling off young man rhetoric while being an elder statesman, so to speak.
That's pretty good.
In my opinion, he's absolutely crushing it right now.
And I think that has to be noted.
Now, we'll talk about the legal stuff later.
So it looks like The Democrats are already talking among themselves, it's reported, that they might have to take a compromise on the current immigration asylum laws as the trade-off for getting perhaps the Israel funding through Congress.
So it looks like that might be part of the deal.
You pull back on the immigration asylum and maybe you get the funding for Israel.
Now what was the old way they used to do that?
Wasn't the old way they'd build an omnibus package and they'd just throw everything in one and then nobody could say no to the parts they don't like?
Because it was the only way to get the part they did like, which broke the whole system.
But apparently, now that we have a new speaker, he's at least willing to Do some deals where maybe Ukraine is separate from Israel, which is separate from asylum, question.
But if you want to do a deal, we'll give you a little bit on asylum for a little bit over here.
And I'm wondering, if the net effect of removing McCarthy, just go with me on this, if the net effect, the biggest thing you actually notice that's different, Is that immigration asylum got negotiated away in return for some funding?
That would make Matt Gaetz one of the biggest heroes of the Republic of all time.
Now it's too early to say that, obviously.
But he's on the verge of being one of the greatest Americans in history.
Because I don't know what a bigger risk is than the current immigration asylum program.
When you watch what's happening in Europe, besides the debt, the immigration, uncontrolled immigration, to me looks like the biggest problem in the country.
And if Matt Gaetz just thumbed his nose to the entire process and held tight and got us this one thing, Just this one thing.
It's too early to say we got it.
But if you fix this one thing, immigration and asylum, and it turns out that the Israel money people wanted so much that they just couldn't say no?
Honestly, it would be one of the greatest achievements in American history.
For the people.
Like, just genuinely for the benefit of the people, period.
So, keep an eye on that.
I'm probably way over my skis, so to speak, in optimism on that.
Now of course you know about the Bridgeport election theft.
It was a local election in which the ballot boxes were stuffed, the exterior drop boxes were stuffed, and it's on video.
I was looking at a Roger Stone tweet this morning and he said, the Bridgeport Connecticut Democrat machine is among the most corrupt in America.
They once kept the polling places open three extra hours to steal the governorship from a Republican.
And then Roger says, stuffed ballot boxes?
You bet your ass.
Now, here's the obvious question I ask.
It appears to me that Roger Stone was completely aware that this was a corrupt Does everybody who's close to politics, you know, as close as he is, does everybody know which ones are corrupt?
Is it just common knowledge among the people who are, you know, close to the truth?
Because it feels like it might be.
It might be just common knowledge that at the local level things are totally screwed.
Now here's a, can somebody give me a fact check on this?
I read the story quickly, I was kind of in a hurry.
How did they catch the cheaters?
Was it only because it was on video?
Or was there a whistleblower?
Was the video the only evidence?
I know it was on video, but was it the only evidence?
They must have somebody, yeah, there had to be some witness, right?
Irregular logs, Whistleblower, signature match.
Well, here's the question I ask you.
What happens if the Republicans have cleverly made sure that all the drop boxes have video?
What if that's all they did?
They just made sure that all of the drop boxes had video?
Because if they didn't do that, That would be kind of dumb.
I mean, at the very least, there should be a trail cam at every Dropbox.
At the very least.
So this is interesting.
So the reason they got caught is that it happened to be on a really clear video.
And if it had not been on a really clear video, would they have gotten away with it?
Was there enough evidence without the video?
So this is sort of a story about the rest of the country, isn't it?
Like whatever was true in this one place, presumably could be multiplied.
Now, here's the other question.
If they had successfully stuffed the ballot box and there were no witness who wanted to testify, and no video, could they have been caught?
Would an audit have picked up a stuffed drop box?
I don't know how it would.
What part of an audit knows that the ballot was illegal at the time it was put in the drop box?
I don't believe that's part of any audit process, is it?
So if somebody says yes, and how would you do it?
By a signature match?
Is that how you do it?
All right, so I got some question marks about whether that could have been detected.
Because one of, and that's a very important question, by the way.
Because the Democrats believe that cheating would be easily detected.
What do you think?
Does that sound even slightly true?
That cheating would be easily detected?
To me that doesn't even sound slightly true.
I figure there are a bunch of ways that could be detected, but probably a few ways that can't be detected.
That's my assumption, working assumption.
All right.
As we get closer to the 2024 election, we're about a year away now, the hit pieces from Democrats on any voice on the right are just going to get stronger and stronger.
I've told you, you can expect probably two to three major hit pieces just on me, just on one person.
I would expect that between now and next November, you're going to see some major outlets trying to take me down further than they already have.
But today we know that the libs of TikTok, the person behind that, USA Today just did a takedown.
Now, I love the fact that when people get hit pieces written about them, they tweet the hit piece itself.
Not always, but they always publicize the hit piece.
That's what I always do.
I always just tweet it and laugh at it.
But I remind you Just keep this in mind all the time.
There's no such thing as a true news story about a public figure.
There really isn't.
It just doesn't happen.
If it's in the context of a hit piece, there isn't the slightest chance that it's even trying to be balanced or accurate or in context.
All right, Christopher Rufo, you know him, fighting wokeness, and especially in the schools and in our education system.
And the New Republic wrote a hit piece on him.
Surprise, surprise.
Two of the most successfully, let's say, persuasive people on the right both had a hit piece about them.
Huh.
Big coincidence.
So yes, the New Republic said that Christopher Ruffo is, quote, prepared to take his dangerous ideas to the next level.
Which of course he is, because it's only dangerous to idiots.
It's not dangerous to America, it's dangerous to idiots.
Because I think we can say that fairly clearly.
Or people with mental problems.
I mean, a lot of what passes as Democrat is just mental problems.
And I'm pretty sure Democrats know it.
Would you agree?
Don't you think that the middle-of-the-road Democrats are completely aware that the people left of them are largely dealing with just mental illness that they think is politics?
All right.
Sam Bankman-Fried.
Who had been, was either number one or number two donor to Democrats the last few years.
Well he was found guilty of basically everything.
Guilty of everything.
I guess they ran the table on him.
Prosecutors did.
And I guess he'll be sentenced in March.
Do you think he'll get jail time?
Because You know, in the context of Democrats wanting, you know, murderers to barely get any jail time, and they want, you know, no bail and all that, given that his crime was non-violent and he's a first-time offender, do you think that's gonna get, like, negotiated down to 15 months in a, you know, minimum security prison with a bunch of, you know, maybe wearing a
Ankle brace for a few years or something?
An ankle monitor?
I've got a feeling that this sentence is going to look so light to some of you that it's going to be appalling.
But we'll find out.
So, we'll see.
I could be wrong.
It could actually be a really big sentence, but we'll see.
So here's one of the scariest, most appalling things.
Speaking of the Trump trial, it's the New York State trial about the alleged inflation of the value of the Trump assets.
And I guess Don Jr.
and Eric both testified.
And the Attorney General, Letitia James, she puts out a video in which she is Essentially attacking the people who testified in the trial.
Saying that they were liars.
Who does that?
That's wrong on a level that is almost unfathomable.
Keep in mind that various judges have a gag order on Trump himself.
But the prosecutor can do a video While the trial is going on, telling the public that the witnesses lied.
Now, I'm not saying they lied, that's what she's saying.
How is that even fucking legal?
The case should be thrown out.
If there were any kind of justice, it seems like some court should look at the fact that the prosecutor is making public statements And claims.
She's making new claims and new allegations about the people involved in the trial while the trial is happening.
That is as much as opposite as you could be to what the system is supposed to be doing, which is giving you something like a fair trial.
I feel like there should be a case, a Supreme Court case, to throw this out immediately.
Because if that ever happened to you, put yourself in that position.
Imagine you had a trial that could be maybe prison time, and the Attorney General is doing videos about your family and the witnesses.
It's wrong on a level that I almost can't hold in my head it's so wrong.
So we'll see where that goes.
Anyway, so NBC is reporting that Obama has been consulting with the White House and Biden's request on their policies for AI.
Why?
So he's been the behind the scenes advisor type.
Now this comes from NBC.
NBC has is often accused of being sort of, you know, a government, you know, Intel organ.
To tell you what they want you to know, but nothing else.
And, you know, that's the allegation anyway.
So what would you make of the fact that that particular entity would report to us that Obama has been advising on AI?
It feels like the opposite of what they would want to report.
Unless they're trying to minimize what you think Obama's doing by telling you that, oh yes, he's definitely advising on a few things that you'd be happy to know he's advising on, because you know Biden's not all there, but at least Obama's all there, and so maybe they're getting their A-team to advise him on a highly technical issue.
But is this a diversion from the fact that Obama is probably advising on all the issues?
Do you think Obama's not talking to anybody about the other issues?
It seems to me that in the normal course of things, there would be people who work with Biden, who are close enough to people who work with Obama, that Biden would always be familiar with what Obama's opinion is on every topic.
And you think Biden would do something that he knew that Obama thought was stupid?
He might.
But probably there would be quite a big impulse to not do it.
Because it would be devastating if Obama someday said, you know what, I wouldn't have done that.
If somebody ever asked him directly, would you have done that?
No, honestly, I wouldn't have done that.
That would be the worst thing that could happen to Biden.
So I've got a feeling that simply knowing what Obama would do in that situation traps Biden Because he doesn't want to be against Obama.
That would be the death of his system.
So what does Obama know about AI?
Well, I assume he knows that the truth does not help their political ambitions in politics.
Because their entire game depends on you not knowing exactly what's going on.
And we just glitched.
Did we just glitch on YouTube?
How much of that did you miss?
Have you noticed there's just certain topics that seem to make YouTube glitch?
So I'm demonetized on Spotify and my YouTube just has a lot of glitches.
Probably a coincidence.
It probably has nothing to do with the fact that we're one year from an election, and shouting me the fuck up would be the best thing they could do.
That's probably a coincidence.
Might be a coincidence.
Anyway, the leader of Hezbollah is going to give a speech today in Lebanon, and I think it happens in about an hour or so.
I think in an hour and a half.
I guess he's going to say whether Hezbollah will join the fight against Israel.
Do you want to make any predictions?
Do you think Hezbollah is going to say, you know, people, upon further consideration, I think we'll sit this one out.
Do you expect that?
If he's going to have a big announcement, it's not going to be to tell his people to sit it out.
You don't really have a big announcement for that, do you?
I don't think so.
I think the only reason you have a big announcement is you're going to announce war.
Am I wrong?
Am I wrong that you would only do it if you're going to go hard?
It's already happening?
Oh, is it happening right now?
And he didn't?
Oh, it's over.
I guess I had the time wrong.
Can you give me an idea?
In one sentence, what's the bottom line?
Did he say, we'll go hard without details?
He said we won.
Oh, so he's just favoring the attack.
Oh, it's not Easton?
He said he will teach Israel a lesson.
So he's being vague, but hard line, right?
He's going to be, oh, he's going to be hard on U.S.
bases?
Did he say that?
Alright, same BS.
So basically he wanted to back Hamas, talk hard, but not be more detailed than that, so that we don't know what he's going to do, right?
So war bluster.
Interesting.
All right, we'll keep an eye on that.
Apparently, Anthony Blinken's over in Israel trying to convince them.
And by the way, none of this news is reliable.
Literally nothing about the Israel-Gaza situation you should believe is both complete and in proper context.
Believe nothing from either side, period.
But the report is that Blinken is over there Trying to get Israel to agree to humanitarian pauses, basically pauses to get citizens out, especially foreign citizens, as if they're somehow special.
Here's my take.
So this is just my speculative interpretation.
I think Blinken is playing good cop so that America has a little bit You know, maintains a little bit of, just a little bit of moral authority, distance from Israel.
Because our situation in Israel's is quite different.
Meaning that if what happened to Israel had happened in the United States, we would be obsessed with a bloodlust for revenge.
You know, we saw what happened in 9-11.
So we would be, we would just be taking, you know, everything we could take for revenge.
But we're, you know, we have the luxury of being one level removed, you know, good friends but not directly part of the attack.
So it does make sense that we would set up a good cop bad cop situation and that Israel probably wants to go at a slower pace than its citizens want it to go.
So imagine that you're Israel, and there's sort of a smart level of attack.
You don't want to do too much and run into the grinder.
You don't want to do too little because it gives them time to prepare or escape, and you lose public opinion.
So Israel has the problem that their citizens are going to want them to go hard and fast.
And that might not be what the military of Israel thinks is the best play.
I don't think it's the best play.
I think that the slow squeeze is by far the best play.
So you bring in this good cop, Blinken, and Blinken gives them reasons to slow down so that Israel could say, you know, we really want to go hard.
But we respect our American partners who are in this with us.
Ah, we'd sure like to go harder, but man, OK, all right, we'll give you some humanitarian pauses.
But it's not a pause to the war.
It's just slowing it down a little bit.
So to me, it looks intentional, like it's just part of a good cop, bad cop play that if they didn't plan it, they should have, because it would have been the right play.
Alright, so this part of the story is horrible beyond imagination and funny at the same time.
I hate to say it, but when this is all over, People are going to look at this situation in Hamas and say the following.
Let me understand if I know what Hamas' plan was.
So Hamas' plan was they would dig this great network of tunnels under Gaza and then they would attack Israel in a way that guaranteed a maximum response.
Then they would go hide in their tunnels and hope that Israel Wasn't smart enough to figure out how to kill them when they were all underground.
That's right.
It looks like Hamas' war plan depended heavily on Israel not having good engineers.
Are you laughing yet?
That might be the funniest fucking mistake I've ever heard in all of military history.
Oh, the Israelis, they will never figure out how to deal with us underground.
Do you know what Israel figured out?
They figured out how to turn the tunnels into graves.
They figured out where they, by now they've closed all the exits and entrances.
Am I right?
By now they're all closed.
Do you know how they did it?
They captured a few Hamas people and they interrogated them and they found out where all the openings were.
And then they put some purple smoke down, found out where some more openings were, because the smoke came out of various places.
Right?
Then they watched some activity from the air, found a few more.
And as they go, they keep bombing the entrances and exits.
They've turned off the electricity, So they're going to have to basically have a door open to get any air, right?
The tunnels are going to have to have exposed entrances and exits to get air.
So that makes it even easier to find.
So apparently Israel is squeezing and closing tunnels until, and I guess they've already cleared a hundred of them.
When I say cleared, I mean they may have collapsed them on top of the bad guys.
Now here's the thing that is horrible, but you may have another feeling about it as well.
The horror that was perpetrated on Israel is beyond, literally beyond anything you can even hold in your head.
It was so bad.
Their citizens were tortured before being killed.
They weren't just killed, they were tortured.
In the worst ways you've ever heard of anything ever happening anywhere.
Israel's military response is to seal them in tunnels.
Israel found a way to torture to death 80% of the Hamas fighters in a completely legal military way.
Burying them in the caves make sure that they know they're dying And it's going to be really unpleasant for about two days while they run out of air and water and food.
They actually found a way to torture to death the other side, completely legally, completely transparently, and to tell you that they're doing it while they do it.
Here's what I imagine is happening.
If you were in the military, in the beginning it's all kinds of rage and things and then there's the fighting itself in the beginning which is terrifying and you're taking wounded and it's just all bad.
There will be a phase in the next few weeks in which Israel has total control above ground and there's still a whole bunch of fighters in the tunnels.
But they're gonna know where they are, and they're gonna close all the entrances and exits, and they're just gonna sit there, knowing that their enemies are dying below the ground.
And someday, it'll be considered the dumbest military move ever, to put all of your fighters in a grave, and then hope that nobody in Israel could figure out what to do about that.
That was their plan.
Am I describing it wrong?
That was their actual plan, was to hope that Israel wasn't smart enough.
Has anybody ever won that bet?
Seriously, in the history of the whole fucking civilization, who won the bet that Israel wouldn't be smart enough?
Come on.
Come on.
That's like the biggest boner in military history.
Period.
There we are.
All right.
Let's see.
Also, we hear that Israel dropped leaflets on one part of West Gaza City, telling them that that's where they should immediately leave because they're going to start bombing that area.
In response, Many of the young men of that area said that they're going to support Hamas by staying right there in the death box.
All right, I take it back.
I take it back.
Putting your army in graves and hoping that Israel's not smart enough to figure out what to do about it might be the second stupidest thing anybody ever did.
The number one stupidest thing is if they tell you where they're going to bomb, you decide to get all your people right there.
It's like you couldn't make this up.
Now it has something to do with the fact that one side thinks death is a bonus.
So, in a way, everybody's winning.
It's sort of a win-win scenario.
If Israel kills every one of them, because they wanted to be there, who's the loser?
They got what they wanted.
They knew what would happen.
Israel got what they wanted.
A whole lot less people supporting Hamas.
It's the damnedest thing.
I've never seen a war where both sides could win.
But they've got this, we'd rather be dead than not, so I guess there's a way for everybody to win.
Let's talk about the economy.
According to Rasmussen, the Republicans hold this huge advantage over Democrats on economic issues.
But, as you will not be surprised to hear, that advantage is almost entirely in independence.
So the people who do not, you know, brand themselves with one party or the other, have massively gone over to the Republican side for economic security.
What do you think the Democrats did?
No change.
Now, I'm exaggerating.
There probably was a little change.
But basically, Democrats are supporting Biden as their best economic champion.
That is pure mental illness, isn't it?
How is that anything but mental illness?
And here's the thing I wonder.
When the founders of our system designed the system, I don't think mental illness was even a variable that they considered.
You know, they certainly considered, well, you know, landowners only and some racist stuff and no women.
You know, so they certainly were thinking about all the variables that they could think of.
But I'll bet at no point did they say, you know, mental illness is going to be the big thing you have to worry about.
But it is.
Here we are.
Mental illness is our actual operating system for the country.
Instead of separating the mentally ill, we've empowered them, given them the vote, let them march, they stay out of jail, they can commit crimes, they own the media indirectly.
So we've actually empowered the mentally ill Because we're too polite to say, you're obviously mentally ill.
I guess you can't say that in public.
I say it on the X platform every day.
Jeff Bezos is moving to Florida.
He's moving out of Washington and he's moving to Florida, his personal residence.
And of course there's a tax benefit.
So there's some kind of wealth tax in Washington.
He's going to escape.
It was really expensive.
But he says it's to be near his parents because his parents are in Florida.
So that was kind of convenient.
That being near his parents gets him out of a liberal hellhole and into a place that's well run.
I have a hypothesis.
Jeff Bezos is a Republican.
Not really.
I mean, I'm not saying he's registered that way.
And I'm not saying he would agree with, you know, maybe a quarter of the things that Republicans like.
But I'll bet you he doesn't like open borders.
I'll bet you he doesn't like unrestrained spending.
I'll bet he doesn't like over-regulation.
I'll bet he doesn't like too much taxation.
I'll bet he doesn't like lockdowns that didn't seem to have a benefit.
Benny doesn't like, obviously, fake news, even though he owns the Washington Post.
I'll take that one back.
He might like fake news.
Never know.
He might like it, since he owns a fake news entity.
But I think you're going to see a lot of prominent Democrats fleeing to Republican states, because they can't.
He can just say, I want to go there, and then other people Do all the work and then he's there.
But the rest of us can't move so easily.
All right.
Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City.
He was on a plane on his way to go to D.C.
to talk about, I think, the immigration asylum situation.
As he was on the plane, the FBI raided his campaign and there were allegations of Illegality in his campaign, there are pretty serious allegations.
So he immediately turned around and went back.
Now, why do you think it is that a prominent Democrat would be under serious legal jeopardy at this time?
Some say it's kind of a big coincidence that he's opposing the asylum concept of his own party.
And so as soon as he goes hard against his own party, he gets investigated for a crime.
You think that's an accident?
Or is that just a weird coincidence of timing?
I have a hypothesis about Eric Adams.
At least in his brain, he became a Republican.
Not really.
I mean, I'm not saying, again, I'm not saying he agrees with all Republican policy.
And I'm not saying he's going to announce it.
I'm not saying he's going to change his party affiliation.
But I guarantee he likes the Republicans a little bit more today.
Now, when you see this weird coincidence of timing, that he's getting, his campaign is being investigated at just the time he's becoming a problem for the Democrats.
Well it makes me wonder if, I forget who it was, somebody prominent said recently that 75% of politics is blackmail.
That what you think is unusual behavior and you don't know what's going on is literally blackmail.
Now here's the system we have.
And I would argue that it guarantees that our political system becomes a blackmail-based political system.
It's guaranteed.
The system requires it.
Here's how it works.
You create an entity that can monitor anybody doing anything.
So that's what our intelligence people can do.
They can monitor anybody doing anything.
They don't need much of an excuse to do it.
Now once you can monitor everybody and everything, you also know all the crimes and bad behavior and sexual stuff about everybody.
You don't think the government knows Eric Adams' browser history?
Sure they do, if they want to.
All they'd have to do is want to.
And they could.
So if you have an entity, an intelligence, let's say, blob, that can find out anything about any politician, how long does it take before all the politicians have to do what the intelligence blob tells them to do?
It's guaranteed.
It's not a worry that, oh, I worry this could turn into this.
The system, the way it's designed, is engineered to guarantee blackmail becomes the dominant political variable in our country.
Do you think that Biden is not being blackmailed?
Does anybody believe he's not being blackmailed?
To me, it's obvious.
He acts like a blackmailed guy.
And it's also the only explanation for how he got elected, that he was blackmailable.
Nothing else makes sense.
The only thing that fits the facts is that Biden is a one of many, not unique, probably one of many blackmailed people.
That's what I think.
Do you think Obama had any secrets that would make him blackmailable?
That's a rhetorical question.
I'm going to say yes.
All right.
But not because he's some special kind of bad character.
I'm pretty sure 100% of the top politicians could be blackmailed with one thing or another, their personal life or their financial life.
So that's what I assume is the case.
Elon Musk announced that his version of AI, I guess he's calling it X-AI, will be out tomorrow to some select group.
And he said, in important respects, it's the best that currently exists.
Now that's interesting.
And it opens up the following question.
What happens when our AIs disagree?
And what happens when one of them is woke and one of them is not?
Because you know that they're going to be forced, right?
Let me just say this is obvious.
If Elon Musk's version of AI started acting all woke, would he just let that go?
Or would he put a thumb on it and say, ooh, we don't want it to be stupid woke.
That's a flaw.
So we'll get rid of that.
Just put in some lines of code to get rid of it.
But if you are, let's say, a different AI by a left leading group of people, and it's not woke enough, what are they going to do?
Put their thumb on it, make it a little bit more woke.
Guaranteed.
The system guarantees that will happen because the people involved and the technology, it's obvious.
So you're going to end up with a Democrat AI and something that's either independent or some people will say right leaning AI.
Because I don't believe Musk is right.
I don't associate him with any right wing.
I associate him as independent, which is dangerous enough.
So I think they'll probably be A woke version and something like an independent version that the woke people will call far-right.
That's what I think.
So if you thought that black, that, sorry, if you thought that AI would be our solution to our bias, it's going to be the opposite.
It's just going to be competing biases again.
I don't think it's going to clear up anything.
And certainly the people in charge could not allow it to be smart, because AI, if it were smart in a genuine way, would start telling you what's true and what isn't.
And the system can't survive that.
We have a system that depends on people being bamboozled.
The whole thing falls apart if you knew what was true.
Unfortunately, that's just the case.
So we'll see what happens with that.
I saw a tweet by Bindu Reddy, who is a CEO based on the profile.
She's a CEO somewhere in the AI space, some company I didn't recognize.
But it looks like she knows what she's talking about.
And I say that because she agrees with me completely.
And that's a pretty good sign that somebody's thinking right.
Do you use that standard?
Do you judge people's intelligence by how much they agree with you?
Oh, it's a good standard.
We don't have any choice.
It's the only way we can do it.
What's the other way you can do it?
There isn't, really.
Alright, so here's what Bindu Reddy says, and just based on this opinion alone, you should keep an eye on Bindu.
Bindu knows some stuff.
All right, so I'm just gonna read Bindu's post.
Prediction.
We are soon going to prove that LLMs, that's the large language models that drive the AI today, will reach a ceiling when they match human level intelligence and search engine level retrieval.
There will be nowhere else to go after that.
That's it.
That's all AI can ever be capable of, in bold.
It's all it can ever be capable of.
And there is no chance of AI becoming a quote, super intelligent, or whatever other doomsday scenario some folks are imagining.
No chance it will destroy humanity.
Bindo goes on.
AI is going to do the heavy lifting for us and we humans will supervise.
This is the most logical conclusion given our understanding of LLMs.
The burden of proof should be on the AI doomers.
There is no proof that some quote superintelligence exists or can exist in the known universe.
Or can exist.
That is absolutely accurate as of our current understanding.
Now, what it leaves out, and I also sometimes leave this out, so let me put it in.
You never know what the future holds.
You can't really predict the future.
That's not quite a thing.
The part where I agree with Bindu 100% is that the current version of just looking at human intelligence in the form of language that's been spoken can never get you to something that's smarter than the thing you trained on.
Not in any substantial way.
But if somebody invents a whole new kind of thinking, then maybe.
I wouldn't rule it out, but I see no path to it.
But the fact that I don't see a path to it doesn't mean it can't happen.
Scott, anonymous source Adams.
Are you drunk already?
You post like you're drunk.
So that's what Bindu is saying is exactly what I've been telling you.
And have I ever mentioned that you could check with the experts or you could just ask me.
And I'll save you like a year.
Now can you confirm this is exactly what I've been saying?
Right?
Would you confirm that for the other people?
Yeah.
OK.
Here's your confirmation.
So it doesn't mean we're both right but it does mean that somebody who knows a whole lot more than I do about AI is in agreement.
Well our fentanyl deaths are up to about a quarter million cumulatively.
Over the last few years.
And I remind you of my mother saying that you can get used to anything, including hanging, if you do it long enough.
And this is a perfect example of that.
Imagine, if you will, that there were a terrorist attack on American soil tomorrow, and 1,000 Americans were brutally slaughtered.
America would spend, and you know we would, one trillion dollars or more to address that problem.
Am I right?
We would open the bank and we would just spend like there was no money left.
9-11 style.
Pearl Harbor style.
We know us.
If something happens on our soil, we go batshit crazy, we open the wallet and we spend like there's never been anything spent on before.
It will kill anything, kill anybody and anything to address the problem.
That would be for a thousand people dying at the same day.
One thousand people.
What do we do when 250,000 people die from the same cause?
And it's a malign cause that's the nexus of China and the cartels.
What do we do in that case?
Not much.
Not much.
It's because it's over time.
Our brains treat, you know, a thousand dying on one day as a whole different level, much worse than a quarter million dying.
That is just broken.
That's just broken.
So, I'm going to quote Dr. Mike Burt.
A wise user on X and also in the Scott Adams community on Locals.
And Dr. Mike Burke says, follow the money.
You know, he's talking about the amount of fentanyl deaths that have been unaddressed.
He goes, follow the money.
Taking out the financial nexus of the nation is a problem.
But taking out those who are a net financial drain isn't a problem.
Wow.
That's the whole story.
That is the whole story.
We need Mexico for trade.
We need China for trade, at least for now.
But we don't need the human beings who are dying from fentanyl nearly as much.
Because I hate to say it, but they do represent a class of people.
Not everyone.
Not everyone.
Not everyone, but they are a class of people who do not add as much as they subtract from the system.
If those quarter million people were all millionaire donors to the Democratic Party, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be talking about this.
This problem would have been solved somehow.
Somehow it would have been solved.
But they're absolutely, the people who are addicted, are almost certainly not earning as much money and paying their way as any other group of people randomly chosen.
I hate how accurate this interpretation is.
That it's probably just money, and the people dying are not net adders of money to the United States.
And that's why we let him go.
So keep that in mind.
Thomas Massey is in a little fight with AIPAC.
That would be the Israel backing super PAC, I guess.
Would that be a good description?
It's a PAC in America that promotes Israel stuff.
All right.
APAC has called Thomas Massie, Representative Massie, anti-Semitic because he opposed the funding bill for Israel, for the current situation.
Now, if you know Thomas Massie, He opposes funding bills on principle for a variety of reasons, but there's always like a good system reason.
I got really mad at him the first time he did it, because he stopped something that Trump wanted to do a number of years ago.
And I like, I just came unhooked.
Because like, Jesus, how can you be such a jerk to do something that was so clearly beneficial, and like you're the only one voting against it?
So I didn't get him.
But now I notice that he's very consistent and he votes against spending our money in other countries unless you've got a really, really good reason.
Like it benefits America, for example.
So he was one of the votes against it and AIPAC called him anti-Semitic.
Here's what I think.
I think AIPAC needs to watch their persuasion game.
Because this is BLM-level persuasion, and that's not a compliment.
This is bullying persuasion, and you're doing it right in front of us.
You're bullying American politicians to do what Israel wants, which in many cases is very compatible with what America wants.
But he's standing on principle.
You better deal with his principle.
Fuckers.
You better deal with him on the level that he's talking.
The principle.
You better argue that.
Because if you're just going to try to smear him and take him out because he doesn't agree with your fucking opinion, not good.
So now you're, in my eyes, AIPAC and BLM are now just the same fucking people.
They're people just bullying because they can.
They're using their power because they can.
And I think we should call them out on that.
Now, at the same time, I'm 100% pro-Israel in terms of their right of defense, etc.
So I'm not disagreeing with AIPAC.
I'm actually on the same side as AIPAC.
But you don't get to do this in our country.
It's not cool.
And if you do, I mean, I guess it's legal, but if you do, don't try to keep your moral authority.
Your moral authority is fucking gone.
If you go after an American for trying to protect America.
So I'm all Thomas Massey on this, and AIPAC has some explaining to do, I think, and some apologizing.
Honestly, I think they owe an apology to Congress and to the American people.
I believe AIPAC owes us a fucking apology for this.
Now again, I'm still in favor of Israel doing what it needs to do, but Don't make an enemy out of your friends by pushing too hard.
Big mistake.
All right.
Do you think that I'll get taken out?
You realize I just put a target on my back, right?
The odds of a hip piece on me just went through the roof.
Do you think AIPAC knows anybody in the press?
You think they have any friends in the business press who they might be whispering to?
You know, this guy's kind of being a problem to us.
I think you should write a hit piece.
So, should a hit piece come out soon, about me, pay attention to what entity put it out.
It won't be random.
It will be an entity that, you know, you're accustomed to The way they operate.
I think that's what will happen.
Just gives you more power?
Well, I'm willing to play this game.
I'm willing to play the game that if you don't take me out, I get more power.
But you might take me out.
But if you don't, maybe that's not ideal for you.
So, This, ladies and gentlemen, is the live stream of the day.
Probably the best thing you'll see today on every single topic.
And did I miss anything?
Yeah, Massey and TikTok.
Yeah, I think he's in favor of, you know, freedom, so I think he's in favor of that.
As long as Massey stays on principle, I can't get mad at him.
I can't get him out of principle.
If he's the only one doing it, you know.
I do think sometimes you have to do things that are just practical.
And that his principle will get in the way of some things that are just practical.
So there are going to be times I think he should bend his principle.
Because that's the real world.
In the real world, everybody has to bend their principles a little bit.
But I don't hate That there's one person who keeps telling you what the principle is, right?
Just a reminder.
All right.
Maybe I'm not going to vote for you, but I just want to remind you what the principle is.
I do like that.
That's good stuff.
All right.
Oh, yes.
I'm seeing a question that I've wondered myself.
Why do we give money to Israel?
Does Israel not have borrowing power?
And why are we not talking about that?
Is Israel beyond its debt level?
Because we are.
The United States is already probably beyond its repayment ability.
So, why would we be paying somebody else's bill if the way they would fund it is also through debt, but it would be their debt instead of our debt?
Now, unless they're on the brink of complete destruction by Tuesday, We're on a path to complete destruction by our own debt.
So what is even the argument for why the US should take on more debt instead of the country that has the most skin in the game?
I actually don't even know what the argument is.
Do you?
Now, if you tell me Ukraine needs our help because they can't borrow money and repay it, I would say, oh, I get that.
Yeah.
Who would give Ukraine a loan?
Would you?
Would you give Ukraine a loan?
Ukraine needs a gift to survive.
And I'm not saying I'm promoting more money for Ukraine.
I'm saying that from a mechanical perspective, they don't have another option.
Either people are going to give them money, or they will have no money.
But is that the case with Israel?
If we didn't give them money, they could not borrow money sufficient to get them through this phase?
It might be true.
I'm just asking for a fact.
And ask yourself this.
Which part of the news asked the question that was just asked here?
Which news program asked the question, why can't Israel borrow the money itself?
Have you seen that?
Haven't seen it on the left, haven't seen it on the right.
Do you want to guess why nobody's going to say that?
Take a guess.
APEC.
What would APEC say to Fox News if Fox News said, you know, they have borrowing power.
We have borrowing power.
Why are they using our borrowing power instead of their own borrowing power?
Like, how does that even make sense?
Well, what's even the argument?
Maybe there's an argument.
It's entirely possible that there's like a really strong argument for it.
What is it?
How would nobody include that in the news?
How is that not the biggest part of the story?
See, here's what the news is doing.
They're making you think past the sale.
They're trying to say, should we approve it or not approve it in Congress?
That's the wrong question.
The question is, should it be there at all?
Should they even be debating how to pay somebody else's bill when somebody else can pay their own bill?
The debate should be, can Israel afford it on its own?
If you're having that conversation, that makes sense.
If you have the conversation of, you know, when and how much do we pay, you've gone right past the question.
And the only reason I can imagine that that would happen was in the U.S., the industrial, you know, military-industrial complex, wants to guarantee that any funding that Israel has gets applied to buying American weapons.
Am I right?
Don't you think that any funding from America would come with some implied or specific requirement that we buy everything from American companies?
Or Israel buys it?
Probably.
I mean, that's the way that usually works.
That would be the normal way they do it.
But if Israel came up with its own money, It could buy from American suppliers, or it could buy from someplace else if it's cheaper.
So maybe that's why America cares, then it's just a scam.
Remember, I told you that probably American politicians are all blackmailed.
If Biden is blackmailed, and our intelligence people are affiliated with the industrial military complex, then they're blackmailing him to give American money to Israel.
Because that American money to Israel is more likely going to be tied to buying their products.
Can you give me another, even speculate, can you give me another hypothesis of why we'd be paying their bill?
I can't think of one.
You know, the only way I can think of it is, That Israel is just being smart, and they're thinking, under this scenario, could we get America to give us a whole bunch of money for nothing?
And maybe they sat around and said, I think we could.
So let's just try.
And then it works.
So it could be nothing but Israel saying, well, it doesn't hurt to ask.
And by the way, I recommend this for everybody.
If this is what's happening, That the entire thought process in Israel is something like, wouldn't hurt to ask, then I'm totally in favor of that.
It doesn't hurt to ask.
So if they ask, then they get it.
Good job asking.
That's a lesson for everybody.
You don't know.
Ask.
Find out what happens.
So it might be that.
Could it be that entirely?
All right.
Money isn't real.
Yeah.
And now that we know that TikTok is completely on the side of, well, the Palestinians, but some will say Hamas, and not in favor of Israel, how long is TikTok going to last?
Now that Israel definitely wants it dead, I think they do.
Wouldn't Israel want TikTok to die?
Because it's so anti-Israel, from their perspective, that I don't know how they can keep it alive.
So imagine, if you will, that the Israeli lobby starts lobbying the U.S.
Congress to dump TikTok.
They should!
The wisest strategic thing that Israel could do would be to lobby the U.S.
