All Episodes
Jan. 21, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:05:40
Episode 2360 CWSA 01/21/24

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: Lots of fake news, fake science, and fake caring. All funny. Politics, Weed Heart Palpitations, WSJ Voting Poll, President Trump, Patriot Front Feds, Military Recruitment, DEI Cost/Benefit, Floating Cities, Rob Reiner, JFK Assassination, AI Chip Mfg, Meta Lawsuit, Senator Fetterman, Annual Migrant Cost, VP Harris Abortion, DeSantis Campaign, Vivek Ramaswamy, Ireland Free Speech, California Chinese Biolab, African Resources, Israel Hamas Solution, 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
A little detail about the very first story.
Do you ever turn on a movie or a TV show and you're positive you can tell if you will like that TV or movie show in the first 30 seconds?
You all do that, right?
It's like 30 seconds and you know if you want to watch that show.
Well, probably the same with me.
Our first story is that actor LeVar Burton Who is black, which is important to the story and not a racist comment.
He was shocked to discover that he's descended from a Confederate soldier.
Now, I don't know if he has any slaveholders on his side, but I just wonder how much he owes himself in reparations.
All right, that's my first joke, but I swear I've got a few seconds left.
I can do better.
I can do better.
Don't leave!
Don't leave me!
I can do better.
All right, we'll try.
Here's some fake science from NBC News on weed.
Now, every time you see NBC News as a source of a story, what should your brain say to you to keep you on track?
Your brain should say to you, I don't know if this is true, but smart people tell me that NBC News is really just an organ of the CIA.
So any message that is in their news, you could imagine I can't confirm this to be true.
It's merely an allegation that it's what the government wants you to know, or at least the CIA.
Do you think the government wants you to smoke less weed?
Probably.
Yeah, probably they do.
So now NBC News says that the science, you know, there's more weed smoking than ever.
It's at a high level.
And they say that it's now, it might be linked to certain heart issues.
Oh, well, that's pretty serious.
It might be linked to certain heart issues.
Do you know what else might be linked to certain heart issues?
Everything?
Everything.
Now, if you saw a story like this, a national story, you'd say to yourself, my God, it appears that the studies show that weed is linked to heart disease.
But when you read the article, do you think it'll say that?
Or will it say, the studies are ambiguous?
They do not clearly show a link.
But there might be.
There might be a link.
It's totally possible.
Do you know what data they will not show you?
Here's the data that this article will not show you, nor will any other article on the harms of weed.
Here's the only data that matters.
What is the mortality and life expectancy rate of regular weed smokers versus those who have never touched it?
It's the same.
The only time it's ever been studied.
It's the same.
Actually, weed smokers might live longer a little bit, but not that much.
Yeah.
Now, don't you think that overall mortality would be the simplest thing to measure?
You know, wouldn't it really jump out if the overall mortality was worse for weed smokers?
Wouldn't you notice that?
Well, I think you would.
And some people argued, but Scott, don't you know that weed smokers have more, uh, what is it?
Schizophrenia.
They have more like mental problems to which I say, I don't know.
Is that true?
I would, how would we know that?
Isn't it more likely that people who have mental problems are drawn to weed to help them with their mental problems as they see it?
Well, I don't know.
But I do know this.
Anytime you hear somebody say you should or should not do something because of its cost, you are not dealing with a smart person.
Because everything has a cost.
I've got a recommendation for you.
Stop eating food.
It just makes you fat.
Stop eating food.
It's taking your money.
So if something's going to take your money and make you fat, you should stop doing it.
Am I right?
Because all you should look at is the negative.
Why should you ever look at the positives and then weigh the positives compared to the negatives?
No, we don't do that in today's world.
No.
All we do is pick one side and say, that's all you need to know.
If you're for marijuana, you say it's medicinal.
Well, what about the negatives?
It's medicinal.
Yeah, but what, you know, there is indication there are some negatives.
It's medicinal.
And then you talk to somebody who's anti-weed and they'll say, causes XYZ problems, maybe.
Yeah, but what about all the obvious medical benefits people get?
What about freedom?
It causes more schizophrenia, we think, but we're not sure.
So the arguments on marijuana are almost always fake.
In both directions.
Because both sides will just tell you what's good or what's bad and they won't mention the other side.
So all the weed stories are fake.
Here's more fake science.
It's called the fake science of polling.
So the Wall Street Journal I looked at a study that said, they talked to a lot of Trump supporters, who said, well, we would vote for him if he doesn't get convicted of any crimes, but if he's convicted of a crime, something like, I don't know, a quarter of the people say they won't vote for him.
Is that a big problem or a small problem?
Go, in the comments.
Is that real news?
Real science?
Because polling is scientific, right?
All right, here's what's wrong with this.
People don't vote hypothetically.
So the question is, hypothetically, if he's convicted of a crime, how would you vote?
That's not anything that's real.
Here's what would really happen in the real world.
Trump gets convicted of a crime.
The 20, let's say 28%, or whatever it was, who said that they would never vote for him if he's convicted of a crime.
Now the election's coming up, it's in a few days, you know, hypothetically, and it's Biden versus Trump.
So somebody's gonna look at Trump being convicted on any one of those charges, and they're gonna say, you know what?
Given that, I'm gonna choose Biden.
In the real world, in the real world, you think that's going to happen.
But if you ask me in a poll, what would I do?
There's a good chance I'd say, well, you know, pollster, you called a upstanding citizen who cares about the rule of law, unlike those unwashed heathens out in the rest of the world.
I am the kind of person with a strong moral core, and ethical behavior is the most important thing for me.
So let me tell you hypothetically, because it doesn't matter at all, it's just a way for me to feel good about myself, I would never vote for somebody convicted of a crime!
That would never happen.
So go write that down.
Go write that down, because that's true.
Alright, here's the real world.
In the real world, Let's say Trump gets convicted of, I don't know, whatever bullshit they're talking about now.
I lose track because none of it seems real to me.
It all just seems made up.
So he gets convicted of something.
It doesn't even matter what.
As long as it's one of the things he's charged with.
So there's nothing new in this example.
So he gets charged with, let's say convicted of any one of the 91 counts.
Any one of them.
What does the left-leaning media say about it?
And what is the right-leaning media?
Well, the left-leaning would say, he is disqualified.
But the right-leaning media, having now really only one chance of controlling the presidency, just Trump, do you think that they would report it as, you know, until that conviction, We really thought this Trump might be a viable candidate, but now he's not.
Now he's not.
So, probably all you people watching Fox News, you should probably just vote for Biden now, because, you know, at least he's not convicted of anything.
Is that gonna happen?
Or is it more likely that the pundits and supporters of Trump will say, you know what?
That was a bullshit charge with a bullshit crime and a bullshit conviction in a totally biased bullshit court.
I'm going to vote for him twice.
Which is more likely?
It's far more likely he'll get more popular.
It's far more likely.
And why is the Wall Street Journal even pretending?
This must be some kind of a Nikki Haley play, right?
Something to get Nikki Haley slotted in there?
Because there's no way anybody's dumb enough to think that if Trump gets convicted on a bullshit charge, which are the only ones there are, there aren't any real ones.
That's my opinion.
You think people are going to drop in for Biden because of that?
So you're going to drop Trump because he was abused by the government he's trying to fix.
So you want more of the abuse.
You're going to vote for more Republicans being hunted and abused.
That's never going to happen.
There isn't the slightest chance that won't make Trump more popular.
All right.
So that's some good fake polling.
What's the name of that fake group of white supremacists?
What are they called?
Stormfront or something?
Do I have the name right?
Oh, Patriot Front.
Why did I say Storm Front?
Is that something?
Patriot Front.
So the Patriot Front.
These are the guys who wear their nice khakis and they put in, you know, really full masks.
The kind that are really masks.
You know, they're covering even the backs of their heads.
They don't even want their ears to show.
That's how serious they are.
So they're out marching again.
I don't think there's a single Republican who thinks that's anything but feds.
Do any of you believe that's a genuine organization?
Even one of you?
Now here's what I do believe.
There probably are real racists in the group.
But I don't think they're the organizers.
I think they just make sure there's some real ones in there in case they get caught.
They can say, this is a real one.
All right, so sure.
Sure, we had a fad or two, because that's what we do.
We infiltrate.
But look, this guy's real.
Look at his social media.
Total racist.
I told you.
Aren't you glad we infiltrated this group?
Because look at that guy.
Just look at him.
All racist all over.
I think it's funny that they're trying all the same tricks that we figured out.
I don't think there's any chance they're real.
Do you?
I actually have reduced the odds of them being a real organization to zero.
There was a time when I thought it was, well, you know, 90-10.
10% chance it might be real.
You know, you could be wrong about stuff like that.
But now I think there's no chance at all.
It's actually hilariously fake.
Because as many people said today on social media, if these guys were real, the media would be all over it.
The regular media would have uncovered their secret lair, there'd be stories about their leadership, and how the FBI is on their trail, and all that stuff.
The fact that there's no story about their real identities, it's exactly what it looks like.
Alright, military recruitment for white straight males is way down.
Like, way, way down.
Are you surprised?
Why would straight white males not want to join the military?
Could it be because of all the DEI?
Of course it is.
I mean, what else would it be?
Why would you join an organization that tells you from the start they're going to discriminate against you?
Now, they would say they don't do that.
They would say that they're just trying to get some diversity, but it's all the same.
In terms of its impact, On a straight white man, it's all the same.
Now, I don't mind if people like Mark Cuban pretend that they don't understand why it's bad.
He's running a company, and as a leader, he might want to support diversity, and that impulse is all good.
I like the impulse.
So I think he's defending his employees and defending his companies and he's, let's say, establishing his brand as being very diversity conscious.
The way he's doing it is arguing that DEI is good in general, which He's not dumb enough to actually believe.
So, I'm going to assume the best, which is that he's super smart, super capable.
It probably is good for him and his companies to present himself as a DEI supporter.
Probably.
But anyway, so here's my question about the military.
Why would any straight white man join the military when they're being discriminated against?
It's the opposite of what you would fight for.
This is a country I would fight against, not for.
If my country says I'm going to discriminate against people like you, I'm not going to join to fight for you.
No, I'm going to fight against you, because you just said you're my enemy.
That you're going to discriminate against me.
No, I'm on the other side.
Let's be very clear.
I'm all-American, but I'm on the other side from you.
So, no, I'm not going to join your army to fight against people like me, I guess.
So, what's going to happen?
Here's my provocative statement.
Remember I keep saying the same thing over and over in different stories, which is that people like to look at one part of the topic, either just the benefits or just the costs, like the other side doesn't even exist.
That's what DEI is.
Let me ask you this and watch your head explode.
Do you believe there's ever been an academic paper or study that looked at what the effect of DEI would be on straight white males?
Do you think that's ever been done?
Do you think anybody ever said, you know, if we do this, you know, set of things for DEI, we're going to get a bunch of benefits for non-white, non-male people.
And those benefits would be good for them.
Do I agree with that?
Absolutely.
Yeah, totally.
Yeah.
If I were a person of color, I'd be all for it because it'd be good for me.
And you're allowed to do that, right?
In a democracy, you're allowed to say, I'm in favor of that because it's good for me.
That's not unethical.
I like it because it's good for me.
We can all vote that way.
You don't have to.
I mean, if you don't, I might respect you even more.
But I'm not going to disrespect you if you vote for your own interest in a democracy, your semi-democracy.
So, I don't think any white man, straight white man, should have anything to do with any organization that has DEI.
But here's the thing.
You know how some people, the racist people, like to say, America was built by all these white people?
That always bothers me, right?
Because obviously a lot of people contributed to building.
The Chinese slaves on the railroad and the black slaves.
So a lot of people built America.
But, you know what else made America?
It wasn't the building.
That's the part we focus on.
The part where the country is founded, and then from the founding, there's all these great things that great people did to make it the country it is.
And that's a good story, it's all true.
But here's another way to tell the same story.
America wasn't about the building, it was about the leaving.
It was about white men, mostly.
I mean, they took women.
But it was about white men saying, I'm going to get the fuck out of this place because it's not for me.
And coming to America because it wasn't the place they were.
Leaving is what we do.
Right?
So, if you want the white, straight men to leave, just create a system that guarantees it, which is what we have now.
So, when I say I'm looking for an alternative to living in America, it's not my first choice.
My first choice is to stay right where I am and fix stuff.
But, I'm not an idiot, right?
The pilgrims probably wanted to stay and fix things, too.
I'll bet the pilgrims gave at least a little thought to trying to fix it where they were.
They probably complained, right?
It didn't work.
So in the end, being the straight white men that they probably mostly were, They packed up their women and their children and they said, you know what?
Let's just go where we don't have to be bothered by this stuff.
So they went to America.
But it looks like America is getting spoiled in a similar fashion to the places they originally left.
So we should think seriously about leaving America.
Not right away.
I mean, it's not we're not at that point.
It's definitely worth saving.
And, you know, it looks like corrective forces are in play.
I think we'll be fine in the long run.
Actually, I have an optimistic view of America.
But, as advice, I always say diversify your portfolio and always have a backup plan.
So, I think it's really time for a backup plan for white, straight men and the people who like them to find another country.
And it turns out that's completely practical, or almost, through seasteading.
So I think seasteading is going to be where straight white men escape, essentially.
Because they can't go where the majority vote controls their lives, because they won't be the majority.
And by the way, I would advise that to anybody.
If you're abused and you're a place where you don't have enough people to vote any improvement, leave.
Because if people are voting against you and there's just more of them and it's not going to change, leave.
Go somewhere where you can have some control over your life.
So I think seasteading will be a thing.
Seasteading is where you build a big artificial boat island that's so big a bunch of people live on it.
Now here's what's new.
I don't know if you saw it, the big electronic trade show.
There's a device, it's about the size of an outside air conditioner, that can create water.
Out of air.
And that's why you need, if you're going to be on the ocean, because you can't just desalinate very easily.
Desalinization is expensive.
You could do it, but it's expensive.
But this thing just picks the water out of the air.
There's no salt in it.
It can do it all day long.
We can also make power using temperature differentials, which is perfect for the ocean.
It's not great if you're on a moving ship because you'd have to have something that's below the water.
That's not good if you're moving.
But if you're a city, You can go out there and drop something into the cold, cold deep, put something else above where it's warmer, and it's the temperature differential, called a Stirling engine basically, that creates electricity.
And it's a well-known, very old technology, and very powerful.
Way more powerful than people imagine it is.
Oh, that device makes 110 gallons of water a day.
Enough for your family, just put one next to your place.
So now we have, between solar and Stirling engines, you have all the power you need for your seasteading.
You've got all the fresh water you need with that new technology.
I imagine waste could be handled in a good way or a bad way because you're in the ocean.
It looks like your food would mostly be right there in the ocean, wouldn't it?
Don't you think you'd be able to fish yourself up plenty of protein?
And you could probably do some vegetables and stuff that you could grow in there.
I think we're at a point... Yeah, Kevin Costner was not wrong.
I think we're at a point where building your own nation is going to be completely practical.
The only thing you'd have to work out is defense.
All right, I've been asked a lot about Rob Reiner, who is often active on X and old Twitter, and he would be very anti-Republican, anti-Trump.
And he's doing a, I guess he's doing a series of podcasts on who killed JFK, the JFK assassination.
Now, the reason that people are curious and say, Scott, what do you think about this?
Is because smart people I believe that Rob Reiner has a CIA connection and that his political activism might be more related to our intelligence agencies than just his pure singular opinion.
Now, I don't know that.
No way to prove it.
But we do know that Rob Reiner has lots of CIA friends because he just said it yesterday.
I just watched a video where he was describing Who is he talking to?
I forget who he was talking to, one of the podcasts.
And he actually said he knows a lot of CIA people.
And I think Mike Benz also found that he heads an organization that has a number of past CIA leaders.
You know, I think Clapper is actually in an organization that Rob Reiner organizes.
So we know he has personal connections in the intel world, and we know that he's blaming the CIA for the murder of JFK along with the Mafia.
So his take is that it's a little more complicated than the normal way the story is told, but that basically there are elements in the CIA who worked with elements in the Mafia Who were mad, the Mafia was mad that they got kicked out of Cuba.
So the Mafia wanted Kennedy to make good with Cuba so they could go back and get their casinos and their business back.
So the Mafia didn't like Kennedy's.
I don't know if Rob Reiner mentions it but You know, when Bobby Kennedy went after the Mafia, that probably seemed like some kind of a betrayal.
So they had Cuba to hate him for, the Mafia, and they had the fact that he was going after the Mafia to hate him for.
So the Mafia certainly didn't love Kennedy.
I feel that's obvious and easy to say.
But the question is, if it's true that, as people say, that Rob Reiner has some intel connection and that he might be in a propaganda role more than just telling you his personal opinion, but why would he throw the CIA under the bus?
That doesn't make sense, does it?
Can you explain that?
Why would he go hard at the CIA, blaming them for killing Kennedy, If he were working with them and on their side.
How can you explain that?
Well, easily as it turns out.
Again, I don't know what he's thinking or who he's working with or, you know, or what.
But let me tell you what he said.
The parts we do know.
What he said was, it wasn't the CIA as in ordered from the top, it was rather rogue right-wing elements of the CIA.
So the CIA leadership, no problem, they weren't involved.
But rogue right-wing elements of the CIA, what does that remind you of?
The rogue right-wing elements.
Does it sound a lot like the military looking for the white supremacists in the military?
Oh, it does, doesn't it?
Yeah.
Because then the military can be good, but the white supremacists, those damn Republicans, as they might say, well, they're bad.
If you just get rid of them, you'd be in good shape.
And it seems that Rob Reiner would like us to believe something similar like that is happening with the CIA.
Oh, the CIA is not totally clean.
Yeah, no, he's not saying that.
They're not totally clean.
But if you could only get rid of those right-wing elements, it might be.
So do you think he's throwing the CAA under the bus, or is he giving them cover and throwing Republicans under the bus?
To me, it looks like he's making a case CAA good, unless they're Republicans and right-wingers.
It's all good except for those right-wingers, so we got to get rid of them.
Yeah, that's what I think.
So if Rob Reiner is trying to look exactly like a CIA asset, he's pulling it off perfectly.
Somebody says that John Cusack falls into that category.
And I would say Cusack might be a little more complicated.
He might be a little more complicated.
Yeah.
So I don't know what his deal is.
All right.
Sam Altman.
Apparently is looking to create a network of factories to make AI related chips in the United States.
Now you might know that we can't have China or some other country control our AI chips.
Because those will be the most valuable ones probably.
But the United States has not been super good at building chip factories for reasons I don't know.
So now Sam Altman, in my opinion, is putting together a portfolio that could make him as rich as Elon Musk.
Because he's going to have investments in AI, which will be the biggest thing.
He's long had investments in fusion, which, if it ever comes online, will make AI and robots and everything far more practical.
And if he builds a chip factory, He's gonna own the AI, the AI chips, and the infusion would be the power to power all this.
You know, I love how Elon Musk's companies have, they always seem to have something in common, or they work with the others, you know.
The Skylink seems to work really well with cars and spaceships.
If you've got AI, it's going to work with all those things.
If you can manufacture anything, it's, you know.
So it feels like Musk's businesses have all these, I hate to say synergies, but it's the word.
Nobody's come up with a better word for it yet, so I'll just say it.
As the creator of Dilbert, I hate to say synergies, because I mock that word all the time.
But that's what it is.
But if you do it right, it's actually a good idea.
Well, a bunch of states, 33 states, are going to sue Meta, the Facebook parent company, for its damage to children's mental health, they say.
They say, quote, meta has harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies to entice, engage, and ultimately ensnare youth and teens.
Its motive is profit.
Blah blah blah blah.
Kids and teenagers are suffering from record levels of poor mental health.
You think this is going to work?
I don't know.
You know, I always say insurance is the only thing that predicts.
So if MEDA wins the suit, then I guess there's no insurance implication.
But what if?
What if?
What if this science showed that young kids are actually injured?
And what if some enterprising lawyers find a way to tie any one kid's suicide or mental health problem to the platform?
You know, sort of like cigarettes tied to smoking?
Will any lawyer be able to tie mental health of children or any bad outcomes to the platforms?
And if they tied it to more than one platform, would it still work?
You know, could they say, It's not one platform, it's a combination of TikTok plus this, and will that still work?
I don't know.
I'd keep an eye on the insurance angle to see what kids will be able to do.
Because I feel like an adult would not be able to sue so well because they kind of know what they're getting into.
Whereas, much like cigarettes, you can't really sue a cigarette company for giving you cancer because it says that it gives you cancer right on the package.
So adults know what they're getting when they do social media, kids don't.
So you can imagine that maybe you could sue on behalf of a kid where it'd be harder on behalf of a parent who was more more aware of the real situation.
So I think it's all going to come down to insurance companies.
All right.
So Fetterman, Senator Fetterman, Democrat, continues to rack up topics which Republicans like.
So I made a list of the ones I know of.
Tell me if I left one out.
So Fetterman is very anti Menendez, the senator who's accused of bad, bad bribery behavior.
And Menendez is a prominent Democrat.
So just the fact that another prominent Democrat, Federman, is against him, and very against him, it's like a main topic, gives you some comfort.
That even as a Democrat, he's willing to police his own side.
He's opposed to people in Congress being able to trade stocks.
Makes sense to me.
He's against defunding the police.
Makes sense to me.
He's pro-Israel.
So am I. And he's really against the people chanting from the river to the sea.
So he's got what I would consider all smart opinions on this stuff.
He's anti-open borders.
On the climate, do you think he's a climate alarmist?
Not so much.
He says you need to balance the climate with our other threats and national security.
Meaning, maybe you ought to use a little coal and a little bit of oil because otherwise we're all screwed.
Perfectly sensible.
He even supports fracking in his state, but not the fracking industry in large.
Pretty reasonable.
Pretty reasonable.
I don't know what his exact complaint is about the industry, but he's not against the technology, and he's not against using it in his state.
So, and he said directly he's no longer progressive.
He just likes to be called the Democrat.
So, what exactly is left?
What topics Does Fetterman favor that a Republican wouldn't?
I think he's, he's pro-Second Amendment, but he would be more restrictive than others or not?
What kind of?
Well, I'd like to just know more about his situation.
Don't buy as Scott, it's a swing state.
Oh, well, yes, let's say this.
Let me say this about their swing state.
He's, I think he's a perfect Democrat for Pennsylvania.
Because Pennsylvania is not like super progressive.
I would say even, I would go further and I would say that, you know, I grew up in upstate New York.
Now, upstate New York is not exactly Pennsylvania.
They're a little different, but not a lot.
You know, if you grew up in upstate New York, you probably have some sensibility about what a Pennsylvania person thinks, right?
It's not that different.
And Fetterman seems very Pennsylvania to me.
He can work in upstate New York, too.
You know, even though that's more Republican, or used to be.
All right, so he's just an interesting story.
I like to keep an eye on him.
It's funny that a Democrat can make news by not being crazy.
Oh, there's another upstate New Yorker who's agreeing with me about the Pennsylvania similarity.
Yeah.
So, Ed Walkness, one of the fun accounts on X, says it's going to cost, this is according to a 2023 estimate, the cost for the illegal immigrant population, or migrant population, is $451 billion just for one year.
So America is paying $451 billion to make sure that the migrants are safe and taken care of.
Relative to that, Andrew Oakner says it would have cost $15 billion to build a wall to keep them out.
So we're paying $451 billion to take care of somebody, the people that we could have kept a lot of amount for.
I don't think it's $15.
I think it's closer to $25, and that means it's closer to $50.
But it's not close to $451.
I mean, if you're doing it, if money is what matters, apparently it isn't, then walls are pretty good investments.
All right.
Kamala Harris is apparently going to be the leading face for abortion, so that will be her job in the coming election year, to talk about abortion.
And, you know, I usually say a lot of bad things about Kamala Harris, but this might be the perfect job.
Because think about how this goes over with Republicans.
The Republicans are going to look at Kamala Harris saying, hey, more abortions, and they're going to say to themselves, OK, but, you know, in my family, we wouldn't have an abortion whether it was legal or not.
So it doesn't really affect my family, because we Republicans are just going to have the baby if we get in that situation.
So really, it's The abortion question is mostly whether the Democrats can do it.
You know, it's a generality, but it's more about whether the Democrats can do it.
Because the Republicans, even though they do have abortions, of course, they're more likely to say, oh, we would just have the baby because we don't like abortions.
But Kamala Harris is saying, and I'm going to sort of characterize her, she's saying to Republicans that if abortion is legal, there will be less of me.
That's right.
Because Republicans presumably wouldn't care one way or the other because they're not having the abortions anyway, on average.
Whereas the Democrats want to have them, and the face of, can we kill our babies, is Kamala Harris.
And I look at Kamala Harris and I say, so you want permission to kill your baby, who would grow up to be like you.
Okay, I don't want to think that the baby would necessarily be exactly like the parent, you know, you can't blame the parent, can't blame a baby for something the parent's doing, so it wouldn't be a fair thing.
On the other hand, my subconscious is telling me, I do want less of you.
Not, not for racial reasons, not for gender reasons, for political reasons only.
So it's a weird, it's a weird sales thing where it's weirdly effective because the Republicans, the only ones who have to be convinced are looking at it and go, okay, that's a pretty good argument.
You probably do need less of you.
It won't affect us.
All right.
Lloyd Austin, the news is reporting that Lloyd Austin, the Defense Secretary, is back to work.
But I have a question.
How can we be sure?
Did he tell anybody?
That's all I had on that.
That's all I had.
I have nothing else to say about that.
Did he tell anybody?
I feel like it's George Costanza's situation.
Where he just sort of shows up at work after he quit.
And people just sort of notice he's there.
Did somebody see Lloyd?
I feel like he's working.
Did he mention it to anybody?
Does anybody know?
Anyway.
Has DeSantis backed down to the race yet?
Some people said he was going to do it today.
Apparently he canceled some interviews, which make people suspicious, and it would be about the right time and people are calling for it.
Vivek is calling for it, etc.
But do you really think it would happen before the New Hampshire?
Oh, he's in New Hampshire today?
I feel like he wouldn't pull out before New Hampshire, that he wouldn't call out because he could at least take some votes away from Nikki Haley.
Because shouldn't DeSantis, if he's going to drop out, shouldn't he at least let Trump do the best that Trump can do in New Hampshire by maybe keeping some voters from going from DeSantis to Haley?
Or do I have the, is my analysis wrong?
Trump would do better with him in the race, right?
Or do I have that backwards?
Would anybody say the opposite?
That Trump would be better off with him in or out?
34-minute glitch.
Yeah.
Better with him out?
Oh, better with him out because his votes would mostly go to Trump, not Haley.
So we... Okay.
I think either way he's gonna win New Hampshire.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
Certainly the DeSantis energy all suggests that he's done.
Would you agree?
I feel like DeSantis is making no attempt to get a big publicity hit.
I think he's just going through the actions for his... I think he's just paying back his donors by saying, well, you gave me money, I guess I better appear at these events because I haven't quit yet.
So I feel sorry for him, because I think he's just going through the motions.
There's a Vivek update.
Sean Hannity asked him about possibly being a VP in a Trump administration.
And Vivek, because he's smart, said, quote, there's a lot of ways to drive change in the country, inside and outside the government.
You know, my only issue with Vivek is he might be too qualified for a lot of the jobs that you keep suggesting you should have.
I think he's too qualified to be a vice president because they're a little bit wasted in that job.
He's also too qualified to be a spokesperson.
You know, if you think that Vivek's skill is that he's just a good talker, I think you're missing the... You buried the lead.
He's a good talker because he's insanely smart.
It's the insanely smart part we like.
Not just the good talking.
So would he be a good spokesperson?
Yeah, he'd be the best there ever was.
Is that a good place for him?
No!
No, that would be a place for a good talker.
Right?
Somebody who understands everything well enough to really communicate it well.
But if you're strategically, you know, brilliant, you need to be inside the room, not just talking about what happened in the room.
So we'll see where he goes.
How many of you are following this Ireland free speech situation?
Which I was trying to ignore but now it's too big to ignore.
So I don't know if I have this right yet because I'm only just wading into it today and I was kind of in a hurry this morning.
So here's what I think I understand.
So Ireland is considering some legislation that would Ban so-called hate speech for anybody who's got an Ireland connection, like a business that's there or a citizen.
Now you say to yourself, well why do we care about that?
That's just Little Ireland.
But it turns out that Ireland, Little Ireland, Has a lot of the big tech companies over there.
So the thinking is that they could put pressure on the tech companies, and it wouldn't be easy for them to move out of Ireland, because there's quite a big presence there.
Now, the thought is that it's not really a hate speech issue at all.
If you can get a hate speech bill passed in one little country, Then you can just say, oh, everything those Republicans are saying is hate speech.
So you basically just close down the opposition.
So that's what people worry.
I'm reading Michael Schellenberger's post and stuff on this.
People worry that the real play, that it's a Trojan horse.
It's not about hate speech.
It's about stopping the opposition speech and that it would be expanded.
But here's the part I don't get yet.
Maybe somebody in the comments can fill me in if there's a quick way to do that.
Why wouldn't the tech companies just say, okay, we're gone?
Is it just cost?
It'd just be too expensive?
Is that the only reason?
In taxes.
So basically it's, oh, so they have a big tax haven over there.
So it would be prohibitively expensive for them to leave.
So, so it'd be easier for Google to say, ah, we like free speech, but we don't like Republicans either.
So, all right, we'll give you all you want.
Is that what's going to happen?
That would be very dangerous if that's what's going to happen.
All right.
And as Michael Schellenberger points out, that people think it's an anti-Semitic sort of conspiracy theory that George Soros is trying to buy influence and control the governments.
But then he points out that Alex Soros, who's running the show at the moment, is always being photographed with the top leaders of all the countries.
Do you know why anybody takes a picture with a top leader of another country?
Do you know what that's all about?
Well, Michael Jelleberger's take is that it's so Alex Soros can show everybody who he bought.
I'm paraphrasing, he didn't say it that way.
But the idea is that you're advertising your control over the people.
Do you see it that way?
So if every time you saw a world leader, you saw them smiling too big and acting like they're really, really good friends with Alex Soros, wouldn't you...
Think Alex Soros is controlling things?
Because he gives a lot of money to a lot of people, and the people he gives money to in the political realm like to take a picture smiling really big.
So maybe they get more money later.
So follow the money works.
It does appear that if you look at all the money that Alex Soros is giving to the NGOs and the politicians and the way he's doing it, it does look like he's either The dumbest guy in the world, or he's intentionally trying to destroy the world, for reasons that are a little unclear.
So I'm actually still confused about him.
Maybe he's some kind of weird true believer in something?
But it feels more like he's enjoying the power and the influence.
And so if he just keeps giving to people who act a certain way and they act a certain way to him, maybe that's all he cares about.
I can't believe he thinks he's fixing the world.
There's no evidence that he's making the world a better place.
Do you think that the Open Borders is entirely one guy, Alex Soros?
What do you think?
Do you think it's entirely one person?
No?
You're saying no?
You think it's the World Economic Forum?
It's the whole UN?
Yeah.
Who in the world thinks that massive immigration is going to turn out well?
I don't know anybody honest who thinks that would work.
Well, there's a Chinese bio lab found in California.
Robbie Starbucks was writing about it on X. I don't know what to think of this.
So there's this Chinese guy who had a lab with every kind of bad, deadly chemical in it, or virus, and he got caught, and apparently he's actually on record as saying he wants to defeat the American aggressors.
So it appears that On the surface, there was literally a Chinese biolab by a terrorist who was maybe funded by China, who wanted to create a virus and destroy America.
I feel like I'm missing something in this story.
There's a little too on the nose or something.
I don't know.
I'm going to put a pin in this one and say, it's all scary stuff, better pay attention to it.
But I feel like there's more to know.
Don't you think?
I feel like, I don't know, there's a variable missing in that.
No, Mr. Bond, we want you to die.
I don't know why we're saying that, but somebody's saying it.
All right.
There's a, if you didn't see the video, there was a big UFC fight in Toronto, and I guess the chanting was, F Trudeau.
So, the UFC fans in Canada are not big fans of the President.
But I use this story to remind you that sometimes we think we're in some kind of political opinion difference.
I'm not sure that's true.
I think it's a testosterone difference.
Because if you fill a stadium full of high testosterone people, they praise Trump and they yell at Trudeau.
Is that always a coincidence?
I don't think that's a coincidence.
Isn't it literally just the high testosterone people detest Trudeau and love Trump?
I think that's all it is.
Alright, speaking of testosterone, there's a Wall Street Journal saying that there are more American single men who say they don't have any close friends.
So 20% of single men say they don't have any close friends.
Was that shocking to you?
Who is shocked here that 20% of single men don't have any friends?
Close ones.
Well.
Oh, really?
Okay.
Okay.
I thought it would be much higher.
I don't think it's 20%.
I think it's closer to half.
What do you think?
I think at least half of all men don't have any friends.
Yeah, close to half.
So I think that's a terrible poll.
My only advice for men who want to have more friends is that it has to come through joint activity.
Men don't make friends because somebody was nice at the bar.
That doesn't really happen.
Somebody chatted with you at the bar and you made friends and then you became friends forever.
I've never heard of that.
I've heard of people who are roommates who stayed friends, but they were roommates for accidental reasons.
I've heard of people who played sports together, becoming friends.
I've heard of people who work together, being friends.
You've got to do a thing with other guys if you want to be friends.
Take up a sport, join a, you know, work somewhere where there's guys.
That's the only thing.
It's just activity.
It's activity, activity, activity.
I'm not even sure rotary if you join the rotary That probably only works if you're getting involved and really doing the work.
You know, you're not just a member who attends meetings But it could work.
Yes All right Endwokeness noted that in Australia they've got mass migration problem too.
737,000 migrants in 2023.
So one out of 36 Australians arrived last year.
Wow.
But 70% of Australians polled wanted less immigration.
Only 10% wanted more.
46 Australians arrived last year.
Wow.
But 70% of Australians polled wanted less immigration.
Only 10% wanted more.
Is Australia a democracy?
They're getting more immigration, but 70% don't want it.
No.
It's obviously not.
Obviously not.
And is America a republic with democratic principles?
Obviously not.
I don't know who's in charge.
Now when I say that, I don't say that like hyperbole, like, oh, we don't know who's in charge, you know, conspiracy theory.
I mean it literally, I actually don't know.
Because there's no evidence that Biden's in charge.
If it's not him, who is it?
I actually don't know.
Legitimately, I don't know.
I don't think it's Obama.
I think Obama gets involved in some political stuff and maybe a few things he cares about.
I'm sure he wants a Democrat for president, so he might be involved in the campaign.
Klaus?
I don't know.
I don't know.
So...
So the U.S., there's a story that the U.S.
is getting more involved in trying to blunt the influence of China and Russia in Africa.
Because as you know, China's aggressive in Africa, building infrastructure, giving them loans, and really trying to get economically tight with the African nations.
To get a big advantage with them in the future.
A lot of it has to do with resources, because China needs a lot of natural resources and Africa has them.
So they figure, you know, the more they wrap their economic futures together, the more they'll have access to the resources.
So let me ask this.
How is it working out for China so far?
Is China pretty happy they put their money in Africa?
Because they built some gleaming facilities that are working out just the way they hoped?
As far as I know, China has basically wasted an immense amount of resources in Africa and got almost nothing in return.
Now, I'm not positive that's true.
Actually, the rare minerals might be a valid argument.
So I do think they're getting resources.
But what I don't think is that they're delighted with the return on their investments.
Because America also has, seemingly, all the rare materials we need.
I mean, we're building stuff.
So, China has raw materials like rare earth.
We have rare earth.
But we didn't spend a gazillion billion dollars in Africa that got pissed away.
So, I think it would be a toss-up, strategy-wise, whether it's smarter to compete with China and try to get as much control of Africa as we can.
And it doesn't know, but it was a better use of 10 trillion than our stupid wars.
I don't know.
I guess the question is, is any amount of money that you put into Africa going to work out?
Because there's a theoretical amount of corruption that makes it impossible to invest.
And I think they're below that line.
I think they're uninvestable.
So if you try to make it investable by investing, I don't know if that could get you from here to there.
I don't know if that's really a path.
So, of course, Africa will improve like everything improves over time.
But if you try to make it improve too fast, you might have some issues there.
So I'm not sure we should be competing there.
Well, let's talk about Israel and the two-state versus one-state solution.
So Netanyahu has said directly now that there's no plan, from him anyway, for a two-state solution.
He wants Israel to control the West Bank and Gaza, and that's it.
And then you're done.
Israel controls it, and we're done.
Forever.
Now, as you might imagine, that is very provocative, The Arab world doesn't love it, and the Biden administration wants a two-state solution, and all the protesters want an end to the violence, and for them to work out something that would look like a two-state solution.
So what's going to happen?
Well, things are getting bad there.
Well, they were always bad, but getting worse.
The numbers of people killed, civilian, you know, I think I won't even say the number, because you're just going to say, that number came from Hamas.
That is exaggerated.
And I'll say, yeah, you're probably right, but it's the only number we have.
And I told you where it came from, and then you'll say, but still, it's so misleading.
Maybe it'd be better you didn't mention it at all.
So I'm not gonna mention it at all.
So just know that there are claims of immense numbers of wounded and dead, civilians and fighters, but estimates of how many Hamas fighters they got is more like 20%, and progress is slowing.
So the suggestion is that Hamas is on the border of winning.
Hamas is on the border of winning.
Because for them, not losing is winning.
If they lost half of their fighters but stayed in power, that's a win.
Right?
Because they would have degraded Israel's reputation in the world.
They don't care so much about their own deaths.
That'd be a win.
So, if Israel has really only degraded 20% of the actual fighters, that doesn't look like they're winning to me.
What do you think?
Because they're hurting public opinion.
And they're not getting what they wanted for it, which is kill Hamas.
So that's not ideal.
But if you have Netanyahu who's against the two-state solution, and you've got Biden who wants one, and of course we're going to have to get on the same page at some point, what do you do?
Well, let me give you a lesson in negotiating.
If you have a situation which cannot be solved anytime soon, your best bet...
All right, somebody's saying Israel isn't losing.
Like that, I don't want to get into a dumb argument, all right?
So let's see if I can say it in a way that you'll stop saying that.
You don't know who's winning and losing.
Because that depends on the final state, and that's unknowable.
You don't know if Israel will be forced by public opinion to slow down what they're doing, which will leave Hamas intact, which would definitely be losing.
But you also don't know if Israel is just going to ignore public opinion and do whatever they need to do until they do win, which they could.
It's possible.
So you can't say Israel is winning and you can't say Hamas is winning.
You can say there's an argument for both situations.
Are you OK with that?
There's an argument for both, but you don't know which way it's going to end.
How would you?
Well, I'm going to give you a prediction based on the only way it could end.
When there's only one way it can go, it's not hard to predict.
Would you agree?
I don't think it was hard to predict where Ukraine and Russia would go.
They would kill more people until they got tired and they would make some kind of agreement that looks sort of like the borders the way they are now.
So you don't have to be a genius if there's literally only one way things can go.
I mean, you could say, well, it'll be a nuclear war, but not really.
It doesn't really look like it could be a nuclear war.
So here's the way I think Israel and Gaza is going to go.
The two-state solution, people will never give up.
Netanyahu will not be able to stay in office and push his one-nation thing.
Biden isn't going to say one nation.
And here's what's going to happen.
There's only one way to solve it.
You make a 20-year deal and say, here's the deal.
We can't just hand it back to Hamas.
You understand why.
But we'll make a 20-year plan for a two-nation solution.
If, after 20 years, the following security and, let's say, education of the people in those areas, reaches certain criteria at that time, We will look into turning you back over to Hamas, or not Hamas probably, but to the Palestinians to run it.
Because after 20 years, you've shown us that you can live with us in peace and not be a threat.
Now, what would Biden say to that?
Oh, that's too slow.
And then Netanyahu says, it's all you're getting.
All right, we'll try to sell it.
So then they can say, this is the only plan.
Because you know you can't do it in a day, and you know you can't wait 100 years.
So we're going to do the only productive thing we can, which is to say, look, 20 years is reasonable.
Because you've got to change a lot.
And it's going to take 20 years, especially educating the youth.
So, if Israel gets control of the curriculum in the schools, such that they can actually brainwash the youth, and they can reduce the number of terror attacks to whatever level they say is low enough that they're okay with it, at the end of 20 years, they will definitely be open to that two-stage solution.
What will really happen in the real world?
First of all, it would be hard to say no to that deal if it's the best one you can get.
Because Israel is never going to agree to a two-state solution right off the bat.
That's just stupid.
Like, even to imagine that's going to be a serious conversation is crazy.
But eventually, you know, they could make a claim that things can change.
They can't make a claim that it would work today.
That would be crazy.
Literally crazy.
So, when you only have one thing you can do, that's probably what's going to happen.
So the one thing you can do is say we'll create some series of confidence-building steps to get us to where we both would like to be.
Because I don't think Israel would hate it if they got out of the business of protecting themselves from their neighbor.
It just doesn't seem possible.
But if it could be done, I think they'd like it.
I don't think that their lust for extra land, you know, expanding in this way, I don't think that's as much as they would like to just not have the problem at all.
That's my guess.
So, I'm going to predict that there will be a phased kind of approach.
Oh yeah, and maybe the Abraham Accords will be wrapped into that, as in, you know, if you guys can get along for a while, Saudi and Israel will get along for a while and maybe help with the rebuilding.
You could tie all that stuff together.
But the important thing is...
Israel would have to know that they could say no after 20 years.
And then they would.
They would definitely say no after 20 years.
Because there isn't a chance in the world that the Palestinians will stop their attacks.
There's no chance of that.
And if they poll the public, maybe one of the criteria is polling.
Maybe one of the criteria is, if we poll you, you can't be 80% in favor of killing all of the people in Israel.
Because we're not going to give you a state if that's the situation.
So, you know, even though polls can be faked and whatnot, they could say, you're going to have to get public opinion down to some reasonable level of wanting to kill us before a two-state solution is even, you know, something we could take seriously.
So yeah, that's the only way to go.
So therefore it will.
There's talk of a hostage deal.
Hamas is saying they'll give back all the hostages if the fighting stops and Hamas can go back in charge of Gaza.
That's not gonna happen.
So these are all fake offers.
So why is Hamas making a fake offer that they know will be turned down?
So that it looks like they're negotiating.
So it looks like they care about, you know, giving back to hostages.
Yeah.
So it's a fake offer, and Israel should match it with a fake offer of their own.
Oh, hey, what?
I'll make you a deal.
Can't give you that estate right away, but if you work with us, keep things safe for 20 years.
Yeah, totally possible.
All right, that, ladies and gentlemen, is the end of my content.
Tight and perfect, I think, for today.
I'm going to say bye to the YouTube and Rumble and X viewers.
Thanks for watching, and I'll see you again tomorrow.
Same place, same time.
Export Selection