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, RFK Jr. Rattlesnake, European Nuclear Power, Killer Mike Arrest, Bronx Shoplifters, Shoplifting Vigilantism, Mayor Brandon Johnson, Apple Vision Pro, 11 Labs, Mikhaila Peterson, Rumble Studio, Bill Maher, COVID Vaccine, Open Border, Mark Cuban Equity, Jordan Peterson, Equity vs. Equality, Equity Discrimination, Smart Democrat Friend, Elon Musk, Maye Musk, X Platform, President Biden, Cynical Theories Book, Bidenomics, Vivek Ramaswamy, MSM Hoaxes, Senate Amnesty Bill, Dave Smith, Israel 2-State 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
- - Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's Cold Coffee with Scott Adams.
If you've never enjoyed this experience, my god I feel good for you.
Lucky, lucky you if this is your first time here.
Now, if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that I know nobody can even understand with their puny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank and shells or stein, a canteen jug or a 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 makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous hip.
It happens now.
I hope you're prepared.
Go!
Oh my God, that's good.
Sometimes the sip is genuinely delightful.
Well 2024 is going to be the funniest year and for some reason I think all of the news today is more funny than serious even though it's serious.
So we'll just jump into it.
First of all you might know there's a big rainstorm happening here in California.
Southern California in the last day or so has gotten two to four inches of rain and checking all the details and the rain has washed away almost One to two inches of fecal matter on the sidewalks.
So rain is up two to four inches in LA, but fecal matter is down one to two inches.
I think we're moving in the right direction.
So I call that all good news.
If you subscribe to the Dilbert comic, which can only be seen on X, if you're a subscriber, just look at my profile, or on the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com, You would know that today introduces a new character.
Dilbert's company is hiring a spokesperson, but they can't afford Taylor Swift.
So they did the best they could and they're introducing a new character today, their new spokesperson, Taylor Not-So-Swift.
Taylor Not-So-Swift.
And it doesn't go well.
I don't want to be a spoiler, but it doesn't go well.
That's all I'm saying.
There's a story in the New York Post that covers all the big stories, you know, the news you need to know, that there was a location in San Diego in which a massage parlor was shared a wall with a church.
And the church people were being bothered by all the alleged prostitution sex sounds coming from the massage parlor.
But this raises some questions.
How can you tell the difference between sounds of sex and sounds of church?
Because a lot of it is the same.
Get on your knees and open your mouth.
Is that sex or is that a Catholic, um, a Catholic ritual with a cracker?
You tell me.
How about, whoa!
Whoa!
Sex sound or possible religious experience?
Very much the same.
I just have some questions about the story.
It could have been two churches next to each other, and they both thought the other one was a massage parlor, but we have to dig into this a little more.
Now, in the fake news category, how many of you saw RFK Jr.
apparently pick up a deadly snake from the ground, a rattlesnake, with his bare hands?
Did anybody see that?
Did you know that the video was reversed?
He was actually putting a deadly snake on the ground.
But wait!
But wait!
It's fake news because they reversed it.
But then it's fake news that it's fake news.
Because how did he get it in his hands in the first place?
It's fake news about the fake news.
They did reverse the video.
But he got it in his hand somehow.
Now, how many of you knew it was a fake video the moment you saw it?
I did.
Let me tell you why.
Because if you've ever known anybody who picked up deadly snakes, I actually have some friends who pick up deadly snakes when they see them.
Yeah, it's like a thing.
If you know how to do it, you can do it pretty much every time without getting bitten.
Now, the way I would do it, I'd use a, you know, maybe a stick with a Y shaped to pin its head down and then you grab it by its neck and it can't really get to you because you're holding it by its neck.
But, importantly, you always pick up the neck first.
In other words, there is no situation in which you would lean down, which is what the video showed when it was reversed, there's no situation in which you would try to grab the neck and the tail simultaneously.
Because if you put any attention to the tail, you're going to lose your hand.
Right?
So you put all of your attention on getting the neck.
Period.
So when it was reversed, it looked like he was grabbing it with both hands at the same time.
You'd never do that.
But you might put it down with two hands.
And that's what it was.
So, yes, it's fake news, but he did pick up that snake.
Right?
How else does it get in your hand?
Do you think somebody else picked it up and handed it to him?
It's possible.
But if he was that comfortable putting it down, almost certainly he was comfortable picking it up.
It's a thing.
People learn how to pick up snakes.
So I don't know the details, but I imagine he did pick it up at one point.
All right.
Here's another problem with fake news.
There's a story in the New York Post that Biden called Netanyahu a bad effing guy.
Because the Gaza war is going to cost Biden votes.
So that's news, right?
An anonymous report that Biden said something terrible behind closed doors.
What would I say if this was a Trump story?
If there were a Trump story about one anonymous source who said that Trump did something terrible or, you know, embarrassing behind closed doors, I wouldn't believe it for one second.
So, in a rare moment of non-hypocrisy, I'm not going to believe this one either.
I do not believe that Biden said behind closed doors what is reported.
However, if he did, why would I care?
Why would I care?
This is nothing.
You don't think that Biden should feel a bad feeling about Netanyahu right now?
Because it is going to cost him the election, probably.
And you don't think that Netanyahu is maybe doing things that Biden doesn't want him to do, and therefore he's got a bad feeling?
Of course he does.
Why would we have any problem with Biden having this opinion?
I wouldn't.
No.
No.
I mean, we still work with Israel productively, but that doesn't mean we...
We don't carp about each other in private, you know, half the time.
So I'd say it's a non-story, but it's also probably the lowest level of credibility in the news, which is one anonymous source saying something bad about a potential president or president in an election year.
You cannot get to a lower level of credibility than that story.
Anonymous source, presidential year, period.
It might be true.
I wouldn't care about it either way.
Meanwhile, nuclear power is growing everywhere except in the United States.
The Czech government just decided to go from building one new reactor to four.
So nuclear is the way to power the Czech government.
So that's the good news.
I feel like sanity won out.
And you know what's weird?
We would never have all this nuclear power if not for climate alarmism.
You can never predict the future, can you?
If somebody had told you 20 years ago, we're gonna have climate alarmism, and that will be the thing that really boosts the adoption of nuclear energy, that would have sounded ridiculous, because the people against nuclear were also against, you know, all forms of carbon.
But, very slowly, It took decades.
The people who were sane and knew a little bit more about the topic finally convinced people that they were looking at the risk-reward wrong, and that there was definitely ways to handle the waste.
We do it now.
You just keep it in barrels on the site where it was produced.
And that it's safer than the alternatives, and that there's such a long track record, we can say that with a lot of confidence.
It's safer than the alternatives.
All right, so that's just a victory lap because you know as you know I spent years Trying to convince people that nuclear was a better risk reward than the alternatives, but seems to be worldwide recognition of that So congratulations to everybody who is sort of on the same side with sanity In a weird little story the Grammys were last night and I I guess he'd be called Rapper, yeah.
Rapper Killer Mike got arrested right after the Grammys.
So the police actually handcuffed him.
And took him away from the Grammys.
I mean, not while he was on stage, but like right afterwards.
So he has this incredible night where he's saying, you know, you can't tell me you're too old, or it's never too late, because I don't know what age he is, but he's not a young guy.
And he won big at the Grammys, having one of the best days of his life.
And the police decided to arrest him.
Now, did you know that he's not a pro-Biden guy?
He's not pro-Biden.
He was a pro-Bernie guy.
And apparently there's some reporting today that he's been friendly with some Republicans in his state.
Yeah, we don't know what he was arrested for.
Maybe he was arrested because his name is Killer Mike, and maybe that's enough.
Maybe he shouldn't label himself.
But I have a feeling he's getting hunted.
I have a feeling that the Biden administration doesn't like that he's not pro-Biden, and that could end up accidentally being pro-Trump, even though there's no indication he's pro-Trump.
I think they see the beginning of the crack, where the black men in particular are making economic decisions about the future.
Hey, I had more money under Trump.
And I think the black women probably are going to stay in the Democrat tent.
So there's a I'm hearing that there's a schism in the black community over politics, the men and women going different directions.
Now that's happening, you know, as well in other communities, but maybe not as starkly.
So I guess we'll find out about that later.
Some store owners in, let's see, where is this, in the Bronx, 46th Precinct, they've given up on regular processes for handling their shoplifters, and instead they have a WhatsApp process where they call a cop directly.
So if they're getting shoplifted, instead of calling the police, who would assign somebody, if you're lucky, to go handle it, they call the cop directly on WhatsApp, and they say, There's a shoplifter in here right now.
Come over here.
And it's working.
You know, it's not ending shoplifting, but apparently the police do get there in time and you know, they do, uh, they have some kind of chilling effect.
I don't know if they're getting arrested and released or what's happening, but they say it's working.
I would say that they should take this to a higher level.
I believe that when a store is getting, if it has a shoplifter, there should be an app with one button, but it should not only tell you, That it should not only go to the police.
I think it should be available to anybody to see.
I would want to know if a shop is getting shoplifted at the moment, because I wouldn't go in.
It's like an extra risk.
So wouldn't you like to have the shoplifting app where you could report one as it's happening, and not just the police, they would also be on it, but not just the police, but everybody would be alerted?
Now you might say to yourself, but Scott, that could create a wave of vigilantism.
Oh, wouldn't that be terrible?
Oh no, let's not have any vigilantism to protect the only stores that will give you food and medicine in your own town.
Yeah, you don't want any vigilantism to protect your ability to have a good life.
You certainly wouldn't want the shoplifters to be inconvenienced with all your vigilantism.
No, I'm against violence.
No violence.
It's just be careful what you're asking for.
Well, there's a AI brothel in Berlin.
Which is a total surprise that this would happen first in Berlin.
You know, a lot of you think that the worst thing that Germany ever did was World War II.
But that's only if you've never seen their porn.
I'll just wait a minute for the guys who have seen German porn to be laughing.
You know what I mean.
Not that I've ever seen it.
You don't want to see it for long.
It's not as bad as Japanese porn, but it's not that I've ever seen it.
All right.
So now they've got this sex doll that doesn't move, but you can use AI to have a virtual reality experience of it talking to you and moving.
So I guess the model is your virtual reality sees a virtual version, but then you can have sex with it in the real world while I think you're imagining the virtual one at the same time.
So that's happening.
And some are saying, I wonder if this will, you know, be competitive with real-life humans.
Well, I'm gonna make a prediction.
I think it's gonna put humans out of business.
Because if this is totally legal, and I imagine it will be totally legal in some places, but not everywhere, if this becomes totally legal and the technology keeps improving, The OnlyFans girls are going to have to find another job, because people might just prefer the virtual versions.
We'll see.
My prediction is, in the short run, it'll be an oddity.
In the long run, you're going to prefer the virtual reality sex over a prostitute.
You won't prefer it over real sex with somebody you're in love with, or even somebody who wants to have sex with you.
But probably, if you factor in the obesity and the bad health and the aging population, I think we're getting to the point where 80% of adults won't have a sexual option.
We might be there already, I don't know.
Do you ever walk down the street and look at the public and say, how many of them are going to have sex today?
Because who would?
Do you ever have that?
Have you ever done that?
Just look at the public and say, all right, I wonder if that one's getting laid today.
How in the world could that even happen?
How about that one?
Nope.
I don't think so.
We might already be at the point where 80% of adults are not having sex because nobody wants to have sex with them.
I don't see any way that this doesn't become huge as the technology improves.
Might take a while.
But there's no way that humans are going to be competitive when a human doesn't want to get anywhere near your obese body.
All right.
The mayor of Chicago was complaining at an event.
He was in public.
I guess the press was talking to him.
And he was complaining that people were asking why he hasn't visited the border, because he complains about migration, but he hasn't visited the border.
I'm not sure a mayor needs to do that.
Mayor of Chicago, I don't know if that's really important.
But he defended himself, and he said, I'm doing all this with a black wife raising three black kids.
And he sort of went to that, you know, he re-emphasized about his black wife and his black kids.
Now, he's black, but I'm a little confused.
Is he being racist against his own family?
Because what was the necessity of mentioning, I don't know, three to five times that they're black?
I mean, we didn't care.
Nobody was asking about that.
Hey, hey, Mayor, what color is your family?
Nobody cared.
I don't believe it was ever a topic.
So why did he put it in there?
Why does he say that he doesn't have time specifically because he has a black wife?
And he doesn't have time because he has three black kids?
How do you read that other than he's discriminated against his own family for being black?
I mean seriously, I'm not making a joke.
Is he not saying that my family is more work because they're black?
How else can you interpret it?
I mean, I don't care.
I mean, it's not like a real issue that he's racist against his family.
But how are we supposed to interpret it?
I'm just curious, is he actually being racist against his own family?
Because it looks like it.
Again, it doesn't matter.
I mean, I'm sure he loves his family, and they love him, and they would just laugh at it, and it wouldn't be anything except a joke in the family.
But it is weird.
Kind of jumps out at you.
More of a funny story than anything else.
All right, let's talk about the Apple Vision Pro.
So it's getting a lot of news.
Maybe you saw a video of a guy in London walking his robot dog while wearing his Vision Pro glasses.
I'm not entirely sure that was a real video.
It looks like the kind that would be fake.
Might be fake.
But Alex Finn showed us some screenshots from his use of the Apple Vision Pro, in which he had a whole bunch of different apps up.
So you can see a whole bunch of TikTok and look at other apps.
And, you know, his whole vision was full of apps.
Now, here's a little mental experiment for you.
If the Vision Pro experience, you know, the experience you have wearing the AR VR glasses from Apple.
If that were a pill, You wouldn't be able to buy it.
Because the FDA would be requiring tests and you'd have to do all these very expensive multi-year tests to see if it harmed anybody.
But because it's an external device, they don't control that stuff.
You don't think this is going to scramble people's brains?
You don't think that we don't know what the effect of using this over a long period would be?
Because when I looked at it, it seemed to me that Alex Finn was showing us something that looked like a dopamine overload.
Meaning that if it's already dangerous to spend too much time on TikTok, How dangerous would it be when it's the only thing you're seeing, and you're taken out of the real world, and you're in this artificial world, and it's ten times as many screens, and they're coming at you ten times as fast, and sometimes it's 3D.
So the extra richness of this world should, based on everything we know about brains, rewire them.
This should fundamentally rewire human brains.
But we don't have to test that.
If TikTok were a pill, there's no way it would be legal.
You know that, right?
If the only difference were it were a pill, but let's say the experience was the same.
You know, you still had this visual experience of TikTok and you interacted with it, but it was just a pill.
There's no way it would be illegal.
Because the benefits don't come anywhere near compensating for the costs.
So, I do have that question about the AR VR stuff.
At some point, the product itself is so good, and Apple's very good at making products, that it will rewire your brain, and you don't know what that gets you in the end.
You know, certainly the internet has rewired my brain.
Wouldn't you agree that your own brain has been rewired and your attention span is far less?
Because there's just so much coming at you?
Yeah.
I mean, if you could rewire somebody's attention span, that's pretty basic wiring of your circuitry.
So what will VR do?
Well, more, probably.
Speaking of AI, Amar Reshi reports They have 11 labs, they've got an AI product, and they say that with one click, you could have an artificial voice, anybody's voice, creating an audiobook from source material.
Well, boy, do I have a lot of questions.
Now, given that AI has read all of my books, does that mean if you had 11 Labs app, you could have a free e-book of mine, or not e-book, but an audio book, just by saying, read me that book, which you read?
The AI has studied my books, so they're all in its database.
So it can just read my book.
Or, do they have some kind of copyright control built into it now, so it can't do copyrighted material?
But how would the AI know what's copyrighted?
Well, I guess if it's a published book, that's easier.
I think this is going to open up some legal battles that you don't see coming.
Like, really, really big ones.
Because there are going to be a whole bunch of authors Who have their own power, you know, the richest ones, who are going to say, absolutely not.
You know, I'm going to sue the pants off of you if you take my intellectual property, which is the right to have this as an audiobook, and turn it into something you can all make for nothing.
Yeah.
And then what about the voices?
What about the fact that I can have a celebrity voice read my book?
The celebrity doesn't get any say in that?
You can take the celebrity's voice and just apply it wherever you want?
It could be that as long as you're doing this privately, it's all legal.
It would only be a problem if you tried to publish it.
But that made sense in the old days.
But in the new days, if every single person doesn't need to buy an audiobook ever again, because the AI will just make one for them, this is a gigantic industry that just disappeared.
And it's my industry.
It's about half of my entire book income is audiobooks.
And I think it just disappeared.
But I don't know.
I suspect that lawyers will lawyer up and fight this pretty hard if it's what it looks like.
But we don't know if it's what it looks like yet.
When I tried 11 Labs a while ago, or actually I tried a different one that did the same thing a while ago, it couldn't handle an entire book.
So it was artificially constrained just for resources.
But if this one's not artificially constrained, there's a lot going on.
All right, Michaela Peterson is saying that on YouTube, if you go into incognito mode and you try to type in a search for either Michaela Peterson or Jordan Peterson or dad, That it doesn't autofill.
And it would be very unusual if that's accidental.
So she's saying it looks like it will kill her YouTube channel because when people search for it, they'll have to know exactly what they're searching for.
It won't help them out.
So I went over to check on my own to see if that's true for me.
So I went into an incognito tab and I opened YouTube and I searched for myself and it does autofill.
So my show autofills exactly like you'd want it to.
So if hers doesn't, what does that tell you?
Well, if mine does, clearly that's a function that would be normal for YouTube.
If hers doesn't, and her father's doesn't, I feel like the probable reason for that Would be that YouTube made a decision not to do it, and they removed that function.
What else would it be?
Oh, a Canada setting.
Somebody says, I wonder if it's a Canada setting.
Huh, maybe.
But it'd be the same problem.
Anyway, I don't know if that's true.
But I will tell you that my YouTube traffic for about five years has been flat.
Well, my X number of followers went from 100,000 to 1.1 million.
Do you think both of those things happened at the same time organically?
That my YouTube that I do every single day, every day, that it's been flat for five years.
Does that sound normal?
No.
No.
Not while my ex is going up like a streak, and my local traffic went up like a streak, and everything else did well.
I publish a book.
You know, I publish a book that does really well.
No difference.
No.
The only time it spiked is when I got in trouble.
Is that a coincidence?
Yeah, yeah.
As soon as I got cancelled, traffic went through the roof.
But as soon as they were done dumping on me, right back to baseline.
Does that sound organic?
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
So let me give a plug for Rumble Studio.
As you might know, Rumble has a product that's recent that I'm using right now actually.
So I'm in my browser and I go to Rumble Studio and for free I can I can cast to the X platform, which I'm doing right now, YouTube and Rumble at the same time.
And I'm on local separately, just so I can see their comments a little faster.
I can do locals at the same time, but I like to pull them out on a separate device so I see the comments faster.
Because they're a subscription site, so they get a little extra.
Rumble is important because if one of those sites pulls your content, at least you could be on two or three other sites, and you wouldn't immediately be out of business.
You'd have your backup automatically.
It would just be there at the same time.
So if you are doing YouTube-only videos about anything political, you should really, really, really think about using Rumble Studio.
So that you build up a couple of other platforms at the same time.
Because in case you get kicked off of one.
That's my business advice.
Diversify.
Well, interesting.
Bill Maher had a PBD on the show.
Patrick Bet-David.
It is Club Random.
And here's a little snippet of conversation that I just, I was fascinated by this because I learned something at the same time, or was reminded of something I once knew.
So Patrick Beddavid said, 70% of Americans took the vaccine and they didn't want to take it.
And Bill Maher said, when did the vaccine come about?
Under Biden?
No, under Trump.
And then PBD says, no, It came two days after the election was over with.
It was not under Trump.
They intentionally kept the vaccine until after the election.
And Mars said, oh yeah, you're right.
That's right.
Now that sounds like an ordinary conversation that normal people would have, right?
That's why it's extraordinary.
It's extraordinary because it's a normal conversation between two people who were just trying to figure out what was true and what was not true.
It's extraordinary.
How often do you ever see somebody make a claim and then go, oh yeah, you're right.
Yeah, that does change everything.
You know, every time I complain about Bill Maher, if I disagree with him or something, I have to get back to the fact that he's pretty much a national treasure at this point.
Because his simple inability to be willing, if the information is right, to take the other side.
Is a hell of a thing.
Now, I think he has way too much TDS, yeah.
I mean, he has, his TDS is through the roof.
So, you know, as soon as he's talking about Trump more specifically, it becomes, you know, crazy.
But, you know, outside of a very specific Trump context, you know, this one was sort of Trump-adjacent, he seems willing to actually look at the evidence.
So I'm going to give him a lot of credit for that.
It's hard to do in public.
It's very hard to do in public.
All right, so this tells me that the Republican complaint about Trump might be easy to get rid of.
Because there are a lot of Republicans who say, Trump, you made this vaccination and you said it was good and you haven't apologized for it.
To which I say, he wasn't in charge when you got it.
And he wasn't the one who told you it was mandatory for traveling or whatever.
That wasn't him.
Trump was the non-mandatory guy.
So Trump created an option.
And you got to decide whether you wanted it.
Now, you could argue that it'd be better without the option.
But you'd have to argue with the people over 60 who think it improves their chances of survival.
Don't know.
I don't know what's true.
But a lot of people who think it helped them.
And then a lot of other people, the younger people, who think it was more bad than good.
Anecdotally, that's what everybody seems to see.
So I don't know what the science is.
Because you can't trust the science on any of this.
If you think you saw some data, you believe.
Why?
Why would you believe any data about the pandemic?
It's all motivated.
All of it.
Even the stuff that agrees with you.
It's just motivated.
All right.
Also on the same show, or was it on his Friday show?
Oh, no, it was based on the Friday show, I think.
So Bill Maher was complaining that people were taking him out of context a little bit because he said that Biden could have stopped, could stop the border problem with the laws that he has.
Right?
So that would be unusual for somebody who supports Democrats to say, yes, it's true.
Biden is lying.
He has all the tools he needs to stop the open border.
That's a big deal.
But Bill Maher wanted to make sure that you knew that they took him a little bit out of context because the extra context, which I will do him the favor of adding, Is that he ranted, and they left that out of the video clips, he ranted where I say Republicans are also acting, acting, they're just acting, when they say they want to solve this when they really don't because they want it as a campaign issue.
I agree with that.
Here's what Bill Maher might not be aware of.
The people he think, the conservatives he think, took him out of context by removing the part where he complained about Republicans also not being serious about solving the problem.
Every conservative agrees with him.
Do you know why they took that out?
Because everybody agrees.
Everybody agrees that the Republicans are pieces of shit for not closing the border.
Everybody agrees that the GOP, who's not trying to close that border and doing it without, you know, any other requirements, we all agree that they're losers.
So I don't think he knows that the Republicans want to close the border, and if there's a Republican in the way, they will drive over his fucking head.
Let me say that again, Bill Maher, in case you're missing it.
The conservatives, everyone that I've ever spoken to, if a Republican got in the way of closing the border under the current situation, every conservative would drive a truck over their fucking head.
Every one of them.
So when the conservatives leave out the part where the Republicans are also partly to blame, they leave it out because they agree.
It's obvious.
It's obvious that the Republicans are part of the problem.
So yeah, Bill, not only do we agree with you, but we agree with you probably more emphatically than you agree with yourself.
You couldn't get more agreement than this.
But the funny part is that he thinks he was taken out of context, which is exactly how all the hoaxes about Trump That Bill Maher believed, at one point, were all the same trick.
Just taking out context.
So, it's interesting to see him call it out.
Anyway, watching the continuing, let's say, evolution of Bill Maher toward The Light at the same time as Sam Harris seems to be devolving into a golem or something.
I don't know what's going on with that situation.
It's fascinating to watch.
But let's talk about some other public figures who are fun.
So Mark Cuban.
I don't know what's going on with Mark Cuban.
Is anybody watching the Mark Cuban Show?
Where he's been really public and especially on the X platform.
Debating a lot of people, including me.
I'm just one of the people he's interacted with on this topic, in which he claims, well, I'll just read you what he said.
He's replying to Elon Musk and Bill Ackman and some others.
He says, I'm sorry, but I can say with 100% confidence that anyone who believes equity is about providing equal outcomes does not understand what the equity in DEI is.
I'll give you a moment for your heads to explode.
All right, put your head back together.
Yeah, Mark Cuban said that in public on the X platform.
He actually thinks that his team and everybody else in the world only wants equity to be, you know, more like equal opportunity.
How do you not know?
How do you not know what Jordan Peterson is going to correct him in?
I'm going to read every word of it.
So Jordan Peterson's head exploded when he read it.
I just have to read you.
I'm going to read you the entire Jordan Peterson response, because it's all just so funny.
All right.
So Dr. Jordan Peterson says, This is truly one of the most clueless misses I've ever seen on Twitter.
And that is a hard contest to win.
Mark Cuban.
Where the hell have you been for the last 20 years?
Because the world you think you live in bears absolutely no resemblance to the world that currently exists.
What exactly do you think transpired around Harvard and Claudine Gay?
Let me guess, systemic racism?
Poor Dr. Gay.
Do you understand the depth of the rot her appalling display at Congress revealed and was echoed by the presidents of MIT and UPenn?
Let me put it so you could understand it.
If you had ears to hear and eyes to see.
And then he writes it in all caps.
So I'm going to shout it because it's in all caps.
Equity is 100% about equality of outcome.
The purposeful cloud of linguistic confusion around the term is there to allow moralizing blind enablers such as yourself to maintain their delusions.
Allyship.
Delusional allyship.
And you take the bait to assuage, assuage, a word I never say in public, to assuage your guilt for whatever you may have had to do in the course of your life, perhaps while amassing your fortune.
It goes a little too far there.
That's between you and God, and rightly so.
But in the meantime, the rest of us can only watch and wonder in an utterly open-mouthed amazement.
All right.
So what's really going on?
Do you think that Mark Cuban actually doesn't know what Jordan Peterson just explained to him?
Do you think that he's lived in the actual world and he doesn't know that?
What do you think?
It's sort of a mystery.
I'll give you my speculation in a moment, but there's more to the story.
So the Libs of TikTok found a video of the CEO of the Dallas Mavericks, who Mark Cuban hired.
And I'll just read the Libs of TikTok post here.
And in the video, she boasts about being the most diverse in the NBA and switching up roles to have more women and black people in leadership positions.
So she said, quote, you have to have a diverse group.
I made some leadership changes, and now we have almost 50% women and 47% people of color.
Diversity matters.
Didn't she just admit breaking the law?
Uh-uh.
How do you interpret that?
If she said they made some leadership changes that would indicate that there were white men in those positions, and she changed them out, there's no mention that they were doing a bad job.
And there's no mention that there was a natural, you know, a natural order to it, as in as people retired, they would replace them with some diversity, which I wouldn't mind at all, actually, because I think diversity has some advantages.
But if you do it organically and you're getting people who are, you know, qualified for the job and especially the most qualified for the job, and that's how you do it.
Sure.
But if their race has anything to do with why they're getting hired, even if it's just the tiebreaker, that is illegal.
That is unambiguously 100% illegal.
And it looks to me like the CEO of the Dallas Mavericks, who Mark Cuban hired, is admitting to a crime.
And a pretty bad one.
Now, I don't like to see people get in trouble, so I don't want this CEO who looks like a good person, actually.
She has a good vibe.
She looks likable.
So I don't want anything bad to happen to her, but I would like her to be educated about what discrimination really is.
I get that she's trying to make the world a better place as she sees it.
So may have good intentions.
And Mark Cuban as well may have good intentions.
But you have to know this is illegal and that it's illegal for very good reasons.
Smart people did a lot of thinking about this and decided this needs to be 100% illegal.
100% illegal.
And here's my best guess.
My best guess is that at one point, Mark Cuban was just trying to do the right thing and get some diversity in his company.
And maybe it got a little too aggressive.
And as a leader of a company, he's supporting the people that he hired.
So I feel like he's trying a little too hard to support the people he hired.
But I have another suggestion.
There's something about this that looks so stupid that it can't be real.
Do you know what I mean?
This can't be the first time somebody explained to Mark Cuban that they really do mean equity is equal outcome.
It can't be the first time.
I don't believe that he believes what he's saying he believes.
I would like to open up the possibility that he's trying to break the system.
And they know he's doing it.
Now, I can't read minds.
I can't read minds.
It's entirely possible it's exactly what it looks like.
A guy who somehow was blind to one of the biggest things happening in the country for 20 years.
I would say 30 years.
I'd say 30 years at least.
So, that's not impossible.
Can we all agree that it's within the realm of possibility that he has this gigantic blind spot?
Totally possible.
I'm going to give him more credit than that.
Because in my opinion, he's too smart to have that blind spot for that long.
He could be over-complying to break the system.
He could be selling it because he knows it's ridiculous.
And the more he sells it, the more people are getting educated how ridiculous it is.
Is that an accident?
Because he's having too much fun, and he's not responding in a way that you would respond if you knew that all of your arguments have been demolished in public.
His response is not matching the activity, which suggests, to his credit, if this is true, I'm just speculating, I can't read his mind, I have no inside information, nothing like that, it looks to me like something I might have done.
But if I did it, it would be to break the system.
Because if you take this to its logical conclusion, it's obviously ridiculous.
And it looks like he's doing that.
He's taking it to its logical conclusion.
He runs a basketball team, the ultimate discrimination entity.
He's certainly not following his own rules, at least for the team.
I just, it's just a question mark.
I would like to just put in a marker that says if you think the entire explanation is he's just defending his company and he made gigantic mistakes and they're operating in a super illegal way, maybe.
Maybe.
I mean, okay.
I've seen stranger things.
But when your hypothesis assumes that one of the smartest people you know is really secretly one of the dumbest people you know, that usually is not a good sign for your point of view.
And I'm going to say the same thing.
Mark Cuban had the same opinion about Trump, that Trump was far too literally stupid to succeed.
Does that ever sound like that's like a good analysis?
I don't know.
So if you're thinking that Mark Cuban is so dumb that he believes all of this stuff he's saying, maybe.
But believing that people that successful and that consistently smart are really secretly dumb, like he believed of Trump?
I don't know.
I can't take that too seriously.
Well, what about that Chinese risk of all the Chinese nationals flowing through the border?
There's a report now that TikTok is giving them specific instructions about how to find the holes in the gate in California.
So you say to yourself, Oh my God, China is invading with all these Chinese nationals and they'll activate them to be spies and sleeper cells and stuff like that.
But did you know, That completely legally, there are 280,000 Chinese students in the United States in 2023.
There are 280,000 Chinese students in the United States completely legally.
Well, why would they need to come to the border?
If they need to come to the border, it means they couldn't get into college.
Doesn't China want their best people here?
The ones who could get into college?
So, if I were worried about Chinese spies, I'd be a lot more worried about the 280,000 students than I would be about the people coming through the gate.
I assume, you know, there's a risk in both cases.
Well, but the undocumented thing isn't helping you as much as, your argument, as much as you think.
I get that we watch carefully the Chinese who come in legally.
I get that.
But they seem, the ones who are educated and in college, I feel like they're a bigger risk than somebody who's just walking in with the clothes on their back.
You know, even if they're trained terrorists, how much are they going to do?
Well, I suppose one good terrorist could take down a whole state if they tried.
I always think that terrorism is fake because it's so poorly done.
Have you ever had that thought?
That maybe all the terrorism is fake in the United States?
Because with the exception of 9-11, why can't they do better than they're doing?
I'm not going to give anybody any ideas.
But I'm almost positive I could take down the whole country in a weekend.
Like, actually, literally.
Why can't they?
How hard would it be?
I mean, again, I'm not going to give you any ideas, but it wouldn't be that hard.
Anyway, so I just wonder why it hasn't happened.
All right, here's my favorite story.
I often talk to you about my so-called Democrat friend.
I usually call him my smart Democrat friend.
Now, he's smart because he literally went to a much better school than I did, and is very successful professionally, and follows the news forever, knows a lot about a lot of things.
Super smart, successful guy.
But we sometimes disagree.
So I'm going to give you an update on this story.
I mentioned this in the Man Cave, so some of you have heard it.
So I wanted to find out if he had updated his opinion, his anti-Trump opinions, recently because of open borders and Biden falling apart, etc.
So I asked him if he'd changed his view about Biden destroying America.
His response was that I should read the New York Times to get the real news and stop following for all the Republican hoaxes.
Now, the reason that I contacted him was, you know, first to get his updated opinion, but then to suggest that maybe he and I could end up on the same page, which has not happened in many years, if he simply used the X platform, which he doesn't, because it shows both sides.
And I said, if you read the New York Times, you see one side.
Likewise, if you watch only Fox News, you see one side.
But if you're on X, the design of the system is that you might get fact-checked by community notes, like the RFK Jr.
video got fact-checked immediately as a reverse video.
But it also allows, almost every time, the counterpoint shows up right in the comments.
So every story on X, if it gets any attention at all, always has a counterpoint.
In fact, I spend a lot of my time putting the counterpoint into other people's posts.
So you can see, well, I did it today.
It's the normal thing we do.
So he seemed to have an old opinion of what Twitter or X is.
And so here's the update, the funny update.
I couldn't really talk to him any further because we don't have a common assumption about what is reality.
But I tweeted this, or posted it, about how my smartest friend told me to read the New York Times and stop falling for the Republican hoaxes.
And Elon Musk weighed in with a comment.
And he said, I recommend that they also read X. Worst case, they'll have a better understanding of the so-called hoaxes.
They don't need to stop reading the New York Times, but they probably will once they realize they've been had.
So my smart Democrat friend, because he's in his bubble, he doesn't watch this show, and he doesn't follow me on Axe.
So he doesn't know that I've been using him for years as my example of, you know, somebody in strong TDS.
I never use his name.
He's just, you know, my smart Democrat friend.
So I thought it would be funny to text him and tell him that Elon Musk recommends that he use X and he can still keep reading the New York Times, but he needs to see the full picture.
So I texted him that.
You know what his response was?
He said, would X publish a story about SpaceX not being as profitable as people think?
That was his response to me telling that Elon Musk personally asked him to use the X platform.
Now, here's the funny part.
Based on his response, I don't think he believes that Elon Musk actually asked him personally to use the X platform.
And here's the funnier part.
I'm not going to tell him.
Because I think it's hilarious that he's so disconnected from the actual news that he doesn't know that Elon Musk just personally invited him on the X platform.
How funny is that?
Come on, you have to admit that's funny that I don't tell him.
But it gets better.
Elon Musk's mother, Mae Musk, we follow each other on Ask, she weighed in too.
She said, I had a similar experience with an intelligent lawyer who only receives her news from the New York Times, so I started sending her screenshots of posts from Axe.
Surprisingly, she really appreciated them and has a new outlook on Tesla politics, but she isn't ready to subscribe to Axe yet.
Small steps.
I think I might text my friend and say, Elon Musk's mother says you should be on X2.
And he'll also think I don't mean it.
Come on, that's funny.
That is funny.
The news is all funny today.
And then Elon responded to his mom, he said, if someone only reads the New York Times propaganda, They will not know what is really going on in the world.
And that's true of not just the New York Times.
That is true to any source on the right.
It's true of any documentary.
It's true of every news channel.
It's true of everything.
If you don't see the opposing sides, you could not possibly know what's happening in the world.
That's just a fact.
All right.
And X is, to my knowledge, the only place you can see opposing sides without a filter.
Can you think of any other?
Does anybody know anywhere else you can see opposing sides within a filter?
I always like Fox News' trick of bringing the least capable person for the other side.
Some of it's because the most capable people don't want to go on Fox News.
They would shun it.
And CNN does the same thing.
When CNN brings on somebody to argue for the Republican side, they don't send their best.
They don't send their best.
Anyway, some other people weighed in where I referenced that Biden had destroyed the country.
And I think they took that a little bit more literally than I meant it.
And they said, oh, you tell me how he destroyed the country, Scott.
Oh, how did he destroy the country?
So please, please give me details and perhaps a source to suggest how Biden had destroyed the country.
First of all, learn to understand hyperbole.
Secondly, have you heard about the border situation?
Have you heard that retail is closing in cities so they soon won't be able to buy food or medical supplies?
Have you heard that you can't walk down the street safely?
Have you heard that we're in a number of wars?
Have you heard that Republicans are being jailed for their political opinions?
Have you heard that the school system is completely disintegrated, largely because of the teachers' union, which is just a Democrat tool?
Have you heard that free speech is gone?
Have you heard that equity is replacing merit, which will destroy the whole fucking world?
The fact that it hasn't happened completely, yet, Is not the strongest argument.
Every one of these things suggests doom.
Now, I don't think we're doomed because I know a Republican will fix it.
There's no way that this continues.
They're going to have to do a lot of rigging to beat whoever the Republican is.
I assume it'll be Trump.
But are there people who don't think that these things are existential?
The equity versus merit is an existential risk.
It's the biggest one we have.
It's bigger than climate change.
It's bigger than nuclear war.
This is the single biggest risk to the country.
How do you not know that?
Let me explain how you don't know it.
Have you ever heard this before?
That the progressives only do what looks good on paper?
And Republicans do things that look like they would be a system that could work in the long run.
And that's the entire political difference.
The Democrats do things that look good on paper, but can't possibly work.
And the Republicans will do something that hurts like hell, if it's a good system, and it'll work in the long run.
Yeah.
Now, I have to give credit to... Just give me a moment, because I didn't make that up.
So there's a book on that.
It's a book called Cynical Theories.
And it talks about the fact that the book talks about the fact that Democrats do things that look good on paper.
And that's basically the whole story.
Now, I'm going to get to you to some examples of that in a moment.
But first, let's talk about Bidenomics.
So Biden said today in a post on X, he said, experts said that to get inflation under control, we needed to drive up unemployment.
We found a better way.
Under my plan, unemployment has been under 4% for two full years, and inflation has been at the pre-pandemic level of 2% over the last half a year.
So where do I start?
Where do I start?
We can start with the fake inflation numbers.
All I'll say is that none of the economic numbers are real.
It's an election year.
If you're a citizen of the United States and you see economic statistics in an election year, the first thing you should say is, that's not true.
And then you should just keep it that way.
Nothing's true about economics in an election year, because the government controls those numbers.
So of course they're going to be friendly to the government in power.
I think you'll see that every time.
But I came here just to mock this, and so here's what I ask.
So Biden says he didn't listen to the economic experts when he concocted his imaginary economic plan.
So that opens the question, who exactly did he listen to if, when he made his economic plan for the biggest economy in the world, he didn't listen to the experts and he's bragging about it?
Who exactly did he listen to?
I have two guesses.
One would be the migrants, and the other would be other dementia patients.
Because I don't think you can come up with this shit by talking to experts, and he's admitted that he didn't.
So why are we okay that the guy in charge of our economy isn't talking to the experts, and when they tell him to do something, he does the opposite?
Maybe it worked, but I wouldn't brag about it.
You know what I mean?
Maybe he got exactly what he wanted.
Because actually, this is a good result.
Employment, you know, not being that bad, and inflation coming down.
That's a good result.
But, can you tell me which parts of his economic plan caused that?
Go.
List all of his economic plan.
Uh-huh.
Nothing?
Nothing?
Oh, wait.
There was that infrastructure bill.
The infrastructure bill.
That's it?
That's it?
And are you doing better because of the infrastructure bill?
Do you know anybody who got hired, got a job, to work on the new infrastructure?
I don't.
Never heard of it.
Nope.
And how does the infrastructure bill, which should drive up inflation, how did that lower inflation?
Can he connect anything he did, if he did anything?
I mean, I remember when he drained our national reserves of oil.
I remember that.
Is that how he helped inflation?
Well, it did help inflation.
Or did it make inflation worse?
Because then he was... I don't know.
Did it make inflation worse?
Let me think.
If you drain the national reserves, you're decreasing the cost of oil because you have more competition.
So it should make inflation better.
Yeah.
So when he's bragging about inflation coming down, Shouldn't he mention that the way he did it was giving away our strategic reserves and we can't fill it back up because it costs too much now?
I think Trump wanted to fill it up when the gas was cheap, the exact right time to do it.
All right.
So I would like to see someone do a interview on the street or even on TV with experts and say, Well, Biden is bragging about his economic plan.
Can you give us the top three things in his economic plan?
Go.
Let's see you do it.
You're all well informed.
So tell me the top three things of his plan.
Infrastructure bill.
And then, well, so you ever ask anybody to list three things when you already knew one of them?
What do they always do?
If you said, Bob, I know you like three kinds of foods.
I can remember you love ice cream, but what are the other two?
What will Bob say?
He'll say, well, I like, let's see, I'm trying to remember.
I like ice cream.
Like Bob, I just fucking said that.
Don't say that back to me.
I just said, I know you like three things.
The one I know is ice cream.
Don't start your sentence with your answer with, well, there's ice cream.
Um, can't think of, uh, did I say ice cream yet?
So on the list, we've got the ice cream.
We've got the, uh, well, we're starting with the ice cream and then the other two that are on top of the ice cream.
All right.
So yeah, I'd like to see somebody ask the details of his economic plan.
Because as far as I know, there isn't one, right?
Am I wrong that there actually isn't an economic plan?
Or that I've never heard one?
Wait, that's not true.
I'm exaggerating a little bit.
There is an economic plan, if I'm being honest.
There's the infrastructure bill.
Let's go to the next story.
As you know, we live in a hoaxocracy, and Vivek Ramaswamy is listing a few.
He says the MSM mainstream media lies like it's their profession.
That's not true, Vivek.
I feel like that's so wrong.
He's saying the mainstream media lies like it's their profession.
Well, I'm going to disagree with that.
No, they lie like it's the job they want.
Boom!
Yeah, they lie like it's the job they want.
All right, and he lists some of the hoaxes.
Now, you've heard my list before, but here's his list.
Russia Collusion!
Hunter Biden Laptop!
Charlottesville Bubba Wallace!
Juicy Smollett!
Covington Catholic Students!
Gretchen Whitmer Kidnapped Plop!
COVID Leak!
A Lab Leak!
It was a Conspiracy Theory!
Steele Dossier!
Doe St.
Gay was in the Bill!
Migrant Kids in Cages!
Georgia Election Integrity!
It was a new Jim Crow!
Duke Lacrosse Kids!
January 6th Video Force!
Peaceful!
MF BLM!
Bryson from Ivermectin is a horse named Homer!
Trump used tear gas to clear a crowd from a Bible photo, the list goes on.
Now, I usually make fun of list persuasion, because usually when you do list persuasion, it's fake.
You know, the things on the list are, you know, maybe one of them's real and the others are fake, so it looks like more.
But every one of these is real.
You could check for yourself.
You can absolutely check to see what the headline was in the beginning, and then you can go back and check and find out what eventually the story became.
There's no mystery to any of these.
Every one of these was a media hoax.
We don't know the intentionality of it, but they were definitely not true.
All right.
Apparently, Congress completely stopped pretending to do the work of the people.
Matt Gaetz reports that the Senate amnesty bill Uh, would literally force President Trump, assuming he comes into office, to let in illegals well into his term.
So they're not only trying to screw us now, they're trying to put some, uh, mechanism in place to prevent Trump from ever fixing it.
Really?
Really?
That's actually happening?
In the real world?
And, uh, Gates says any Republican who votes for this is no better than the Democrat.
Paging Bill Maher.
Paging Bill Maher.
We all agree on this.
You and Matt Gaetz are on the same page.
It's the GOP.
It's not just the Democrats.
Yeah.
So, it feels like the Senate just completely stopped pretending to be on the same side as the humans that they should represent.
I don't feel like they're even trying.
In fact, we've become a hoaxocracy, but also a confusopoly.
Confusopoly is a term I invented years ago for, let's say, cell phone companies and insurance companies when they compete against each other, since they're basically selling a commodity.
They just make it really complicated, so consumers can't tell which one to buy.
It's like, oh, this insurance, I don't know, is it better than the other insurance?
I'm not even sure.
How do I tell?
So you just buy the one that talks to you first.
So that works for everybody, because it keeps everybody in business, but nobody can dominate.
So that's a confusopoly.
But I would say the Senate has become a confusopoly, because they spend more of their time Preventing the public from knowing what they're doing, then informing the public.
Boom.
That's a Confusopoly.
If you were to just add up the time spent explaining, uh, let's say accurately, not, not explaining just, you know, the political spin, but just accurately explaining what's in the bill, you don't even have to tell me to vote for it or not vote for it.
Just describe it.
Just get in front of the microphone say all right, there's a bill coming up It's got this and that and that and we'll talk about which parts we like and what we don't I'm just describing it to you.
So you are an informed voter Nope, because even the senators are not allowed to know what's in the bill.
They're only allowed to know that they're Their puppet masters want them to vote for it.
And if they don't they're not going to get a committee assignment Which gets extra pay and you know all kinds of benefits So Pelosi and company and Schumer, and I'm sure the Republicans are just as guilty, like to make things so complicated that they can all get their pet pork through and the things that they're scamming money from and making money launder.
And as long as the other team is getting their taste, both teams get a taste, it's basically how to screw the public without telling the public what they're doing, keeping us in the dark, And not even really pretending to do the work of the people anymore.
Not even pretending.
So it looks like what they did was they created a bill that allows them to keep funding their corrupt Ukraine war, so they get to keep all the corruption and the money laundering that they like.
But we also give our money to Israel, which has a better debt-to-GDP ratio than us.
So really, Israel should be giving us money as our allies, but no, we're going to reverse it.
And then the deal is to also keep our borders open far more than we think makes sense or would be safe.
You know, I remember when compromise was, if I accept this thing I don't like, You know, you'll let me have this thing that's good.
So I'll take a little imperfection to get, you know, a little more good.
But it looks like our Congress just decided on three bad things.
Shouldn't it be, you know, maybe there's one good thing which allows us to accept the bad things?
And that would be like a negotiation.
But in what world do you put three bad things together?
That nobody in the public wants.
I mean, by majority.
And then sell that to us as a compromise.
No, that's three bad things put together.
That's not a compromise.
That's something nobody wants.
Nobody wants.
All right.
When I say nobody wants it, what I mean is, um, I don't think people want this bill, where these three things are tied together.
I don't think anybody wants that.
And I don't think anybody wants these things individually, uh, by a majority.
There are individuals who want them.
When I say not anybody, I mean the majority of the people.
That's my understanding.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't think anybody wants any of it.
Meaning the majority.
All right.
Um, so apparently, uh, The GOP wants to give more money to these NGOs, these non-government organizations that are part of the vast network helping the migrants get here.
So the GOP wants to give them another $2 billion when Elon Musk, and he said this in a post, he said, NGO personnel who deliberately and repeatedly broke the law to facilitate illegal immigration should face prosecution immediately.
But instead, they're being rewarded with a lot of extra money.
Does that look like the Congress is on your side?
Doesn't to me.
It doesn't even look like a little bit they're trying to be on America's side.
Where's even the cover story?
How about a cover story that it's good for us?
You can't even lie to us and tell us why this is good for us?
I don't see any explanation for why it's good.
I believe these people should be in jail.
Why shouldn't they be in jail for breaking our laws to encourage mass illegal immigration?
Yeah, that's jail.
All right, here's another fun one.
I have this view about libertarians that goes like this.
You can't be a libertarian Unless you're like, let's say, Thomas Massey or Rand Paul, who I appreciate when I disagree with them.
Because I like the fact that there's always a strong libertarian perspective on everything.
Because you need it.
But what you definitely don't need is a libertarian country.
Can somebody do a fact check?
Has there ever been a libertarian government that worked?
Because it can't work, right?
Even on paper it doesn't make sense.
Yeah, it couldn't possibly work.
So when I see libertarians like Massey and Rand, Paul, I say to myself, you know what?
I used to be a little bit opposed to them because, you know, maybe they were pushing back on something I didn't want them to push on.
But now I love the fact that they're part of the conversation, because I don't think you should ever have a conversation where you don't have the libertarian perspective.
Somebody's saying that Argentina, but I wouldn't call them libertarian.
That just seems like free market.
To me, that just looks like capitalism.
So when you have a libertarian, who's not in the government, you know, being part of the important conversation, you can fairly easily trigger them into cognitive dissonance.
So I'm going to talk about a little conversation I had online with Dave Smith, who goes by Comic Dave Smith.
Do you all know him?
Pretty, pretty well known in at least the conservative side of the world.
Yeah.
So he does, he does a good product.
He's good on a lot of shows, and he's got his own podcast.
I would recommend it.
He has great guests, and he has a libertarian point of view that you should see.
Anyway, he was talking on a recent podcast that Netanyahu was aware that supporting Hamas would basically kill any chance of a two-state solution and would lead to Something, you know, not exactly like October 7th, but then certainly it was going to blow up.
And the notion is that Netanyahu has said in public that he was supporting Hamas because you needed it to blow up worse so they could basically get rid of this two-state solution thing.
I hope I'm describing that about right.
I think that's about right.
So the idea is that Netanyahu always had a plan.
That did include some death and destruction to Israel, but that his plan would be, in the longer term, he wouldn't have to have two states and they could dominate the region and maybe it would be safer or better in the long run.
I guess that would be the argument.
Now, I thought it was necessary to To point out that if that was Netanyahu's plan, which I do accept because he said things in public apparently that were like it, and it makes sense.
You know, anecdotally, observationally, it kind of does look like it.
Now part of this also, that Dave Smith said, was that Netanyahu did not sufficiently defend Israel from the October 7th attack, and that perhaps that was intentional as well.
That's too far.
That's a little mind reading.
I can't actually imagine Netanyahu intentionally, first of all, knowing the nature of how well it was defended.
Because it's not something the Prime Minister is going to know in detail.
So I doubt he knew that it was that poorly defended.
And I definitely doubt he gave any orders to poorly defend it.
So I feel like that's a little bit goes into the mind reading.
But you can't rule it out.
I can't rule it out.
I just don't think it's an evidence.
However, even without that part, here's the important part is, did Netanyahu know that supporting Hamas financially and politically would lead to something so bad that it would allow Netanyahu to cynically get the control of the region that he always wanted?
And I said, You know, that might be a reasonable interpretation, but you have to, it's worth noting that his plan worked, or that it looks like it's working.
Now, does anybody disagree with that?
That if that was the plan, we're just taking that as our speculative assumption, the plan was to destroy the possibility of a two-state solution, so that in the long run, Israel could control the area.
Wouldn't you say it's working?
If that was the plan.
And again, you'd have to accept that as an assumption.
But if that was the plan, it's working.
And then you'd have to say to yourself, but what about the long term?
Maybe in the short term, there's lots of death and destruction nobody likes.
But in the long term, do they come out ahead?
To which I say, you don't know.
You don't know.
I don't know what the future looks like.
But I doubt it's giving control back to the locals.
I don't think that's going to happen.
So I just wanted to put some context there that you can say that he's evil, but you can't say that the plan isn't working, because you don't know.
And you can't say that it won't work out for the best for Israel's perspective, not for Gaza.
But you can't say it's not the best for Israel in the long run, because you don't know.
And it's actually reasonable to assume it might be wrong.
But it's reasonable to assume that there was no way to ever get peace with a two-state solution.
I think that's true.
I don't think there was any way to get peace with a two-state solution.
But you don't know.
It's an unknown.
So, now, was I making a good point or not?
Let's start with that.
Is it a valid point that if what he wanted to do was to kill the two-state thing, it looks like he did it?
Is that good?
So I thought that was additive.
And I said I understand why you don't like the plan.
Obviously you don't like the bloodshed and stuff like that.
So Dave Smith responded to me.
In a sarcastic way, he said, yes, the Netanyahu's plan for supporting Hamas worked to end the peace process risk, and it only had the nasty little side effect of 10-7, October 7th, and the current mass slaughter campaign in Gaza.
But genius Scott Adams sees no evidence that an unprovable counterfactual wouldn't be worse.
Does that sound like word salad?
Let me read it again and see if you understand what it says.
But genius Scott Adams sees no evidence that an unprovable counterfactual wouldn't be worse.
So unprovable is a negative, counterfactual is a negative, and wouldn't.
So you've got three negatives, and then worse is a negative.
So I have four negatives in that sentence.
So let's see.
No, five negatives.
I see no evidence, negative, that an unprovable negative, counterfactual negative, wouldn't negative, be worse negative.
I don't even know what that means.
All right.
Now here's the problem.
Did comic David Smith think that I thought that October 7th wasn't expensive?
Does he think I missed the news about October 7th?
So why did he need to remind me that October 7th happened as part of his point?
What did that add to the argument?
The one thing that everybody knows.
And everybody knows is part of the conversation.
Huh.
That seems irrational.
And then he talks about the current mass slaughter campaign in Gaza.
That's how he characterizes it.
Am I aware that a lot of people are dying in Gaza and a lot of them are not militants?
I think everybody is.
Did he think I didn't include that in my calculation?
What are you thinking here, comic Dave Smith?
So, back to my point where I said that progressives like plans that look good on paper.
And here's comic Dave Smith.
He's no progressive.
He's a more, what's that word?
Libertarian.
I had to check his background in education.
Sorry.
Had to do it.
Because he was acting like an artist.
You know what artists do?
They can't handle the risks and the rewards, both short-term and long-term.
Never can do it.
They can talk about what they see.
They can talk about what looks good on paper.
But you can't talk about the costs in the plus and minus near term, and also...
The plus and minus long term, and then come up with a net.
The only people who can do that analysis tend to have backgrounds in analytical stuff.
So if somebody's a lawyer, an engineer, economist, MBA, probably trained to make sure they don't leave out any variables.
If you're a, I don't think he has a college degree, I didn't see it mentioned, but if you're a comedian, Without that background, then you would have opinions that look like comic Dave Smith's.
And when challenged with a fairly obvious statement that you should look at whether the plan succeeded before you talk about its costs.
Yes, the costs everybody sees.
Gaza's being destroyed, October 7th, we all see that.
But what about the fact that they did it for, that Netanyahu had a plan, allegedly, And that plan seems to be working perfectly, allegedly.
And that, in the long run, is probably the only thing that was possible.
A one-state solution.
You could argue that, but at least it's coherent to imagine that he wanted to kill that idea.
So I would say that this is another example of not just progressives liking things that sound good on paper.
Here's something that sounds good on paper.
You want me to solve the problem with Gaza and Israel?
It's easy.
You do a peace plan, stop fighting immediately, then you get together and you make a deal to rebuild Gaza and then stop fighting.
Why can't we do that, people?
Why isn't that the easiest plan?
Why are we doing all these bad things when it's so simple?
Stop shooting each other, make peace, rebuild, live in peace?
I don't think it could be easier than that!
But, if you're a progressive or apparently a libertarian, you are unable to game out the long-term consequences of any of your decisions.
That's why there's no libertarian country.
Because if you gamed it out, it would all go to shit.
There isn't a single possibility that a libertarian system could work.
I mean, not really.
So if it works on paper, it only looks good on paper.
It doesn't work in the long run, even on paper, because it doesn't get the incentives right.
So comic Dave Smith is a... I think he's a plus.
So, you know, I'll have fun mocking his opinions for being irrational, which they are.
But he's a plus.
I like that he's part of the conversation.
I like having the libertarian point of view and everything.
I like the anti-war point of view in everything.
And so keep on pushing, comic Dave Smith.
I think you're a plus to the world.
I just think you should be a little bit more humble about your analytical abilities.
That's all.
You don't even need to change your opinions.
Just be a little bit more humble about your ability to analyze complicated situations.
People without training are not as good at it.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the best live stream you're gonna see today.
I gotta go off and do some other stuff.
I'm gonna try to say goodbye to the X and Rumble and YouTube audience.
I had a little technical difficulty yesterday, but I think I'm good now.
