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, Super Bowl Prediction Filter, President Biden, Mice Erection Study, Jillian Michaels, Alaskapox, TikTok, Foreign Aid Loans, Climate Change Air Quality, Hur Report, Dyin' Biden, Steve Cortes, Oliver Darcy, Hillary Clinton, NATO Dues Hoax, Free Speech Censorship, Israel Hamas War, Rafah, NBC News Credibility, Middle East Peach Plan, 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.
Let's not call it the Super Bowl.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that only Kansas City can understand this morning, well, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gels or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go!
Oh, that's so good.
So, so good.
Well, you may have heard there was a thing called the Super Bowl that happened yesterday.
Let's talk about that.
Now, of course, many people made predictions, and this time it was a little ambiguous which prediction would work.
For example, you have the following prediction filter, that the mascots will determine the win.
So this was a 49er versus a Chief.
Now, one way to look at it is that a Chief would have a spear, 49ers would have a shovel.
Spear beats shovel.
So that would have predicted the win.
But, it's a little ambiguous because 49ers is plural.
So if you had a lot of 49ers, but you only had one chief, Probably the 49ers with the shovels could beat it at the Jeef.
So that one was a little less obvious, you know, mascot-wise.
But there was one filter, one prediction filter, that is very reliable.
And it worked.
And no, I don't mean the theory that the CIA was behind the outcome.
I don't mean that one.
Although that worked.
It did work.
I'm not going to say it didn't work.
But do you know which filter it is?
Follow the money?
No.
No.
I don't know how that works exactly.
Here is the filter, and I'm surprised you missed it.
The best story always wins.
The best story.
That is so predictable.
I actually think there's a reason for it.
And I think that even the 49ers had some feeling in the back of their minds That the best story was that Mahomes gets two in a row, and a chance for a third one, which is super rare in sports.
So, first of all, Mahomes had the better story than Purdy.
Secondly, of course, you had the Taylor Swift thing.
So, by far, it was the best story.
Because you could, I would say, two weeks before the Super Bowl, I already saw Taylor kissing Kelsey at the end of the game.
Couldn't you all see that in your mind's eye?
Is there anybody who didn't imagine Kelsey and Taylor kissing at the end of the Super Bowl?
And sure enough, there was the image right on schedule.
It was so... I don't know, it just seems like the universe wanted that story to happen.
And maybe the CIA, but I'm not going to claim that.
Well, Biden trolled the... But I will point, let's just talk about the idea that it was all a fix.
Did you notice that there were at least three situations in which if Kelsey had caught a touchdown pass, it would have been the end of the game?
I think there were three chances that they were close enough, because Kelsey doesn't do the long passes, he does the shorter stuff with a little run at the end.
And when they would get within range of the goal, where the next touchdown would win, I think he had three different chances.
Two of them they passed to him, and he didn't quite get there, but could have.
They were trying hard, so hard to make him the hero of the game.
It didn't look coincidental to me, but it might have been.
Could have been a coincidence.
Didn't look it.
I will remind you that Vivek Ramaswamy made this prediction over a month ago.
So this is over a month ago, Vivek said.
I wonder who's going to win the Super Bowl next month.
And I wonder if there's a major presidential endorsement coming from this artificially culturally propped up couple this fall.
Just some wild speculation over here.
Let's see how it ages over the next eight months.
What do you think?
Do you think they're artificially propped up and maybe the fix was in so they could win?
Now, I'm not going to say the fix was in, but I heard a phrase from the announcers yesterday that I've never heard before in any kind of a game.
Did you hear this?
At one point, it was just a throwaway line while other things were happening.
And Kelsey caught a pass and you heard the announcer say, I think I have this roughly verbatim, said, Kelsey was open for some reason.
He was wide open for some reason.
Have you ever heard anybody say that?
He was wide open for some reason.
What would that be?
And how many times was he wide open?
Nobody thought to cover the guy who was the most likely guy to catch a pass in the Super Bowl.
Nobody said, you know, we should cover him a little tightly.
I've got a feeling about this Kelsey guy.
I think he might be central to some of the outcome.
Have you ever heard anybody say he was open for some reason?
As if the announcer, who is a professional, couldn't figure out why he was open.
Oh, you've heard that?
Okay.
So maybe you watch more football than I do.
It caught my attention.
But I'm seeing in the comments people say, oh, that's a thing.
People say that.
But do they say for some reason?
That was the part that caught me.
You can be open.
All right.
All right.
You say that's a common phrase?
I don't know.
However, I'm going to predict the opposite of a vague.
I'm going to say there will be no endorsement, and the reason is as follows.
Taylor Swift would have to be super dumb to pick a candidate and lose 30% of her customers.
It would be so dumb.
And everything that Taylor Swift has done since she was, what, 17?
Has looked not just smart, but maybe unusually smart.
As in she seems to be possibly even gifted in terms of business.
I mean she just seems to have unusually good judgment about everything except men.
We'll give her that.
So do you think that somebody with judgment as good as Taylor Swift would make the huge mistake of picking a favorite candidate?
I don't think so.
Now, this is a good test of the conspiracy theory, that, you know, it's all a fix.
If it's a fix, then yes.
If somebody has power over her, like blackmail or financial or something like that, well, it could happen.
I'm saying that if nobody has any blackmail control over her, she would never do it, because she's too smart.
So that's my take.
If it happens, I'm going to assume that somebody has control.
Just like they have over Biden.
I assume.
Well, so Biden did a little social media after the result of the Super Bowl in which he showed him with his glowing red eyes for dark, dark Biden.
And he said something like, all according to plan.
Now, I think they were mocking the conservatives who were saying that, you know, it's all some kind of a CIA trick.
But do you think that Biden was even aware that he sent out a post on X?
Probably not.
Looked like some intern.
Yeah, had no idea.
And we just assume that that's normal now.
It's just normal that the president doesn't even know who he's posting on his behalf or what it says.
All right.
I don't know if he didn't know, but I can imagine he wouldn't.
Meanwhile, Biden, instead of doing an interview in which he might embarrass himself by being so near death, he decided to do a little recorded piece in which he was going to complain about companies selling you less candy.
That actually happened.
Do you think that was somebody else's idea or do you think that was Biden's idea?
Because that feels like Biden's idea to me because it's so bad.
He's trying to sell the American public that that inflation they're experiencing is partly because the candy makers are putting less candy in the wrapper.
That is the most pathetic, disgusting, weak thing I've ever seen from a president, and I'm totally here for it.
Yeah, totally here for it.
Anyway.
Shrinkflation, he calls it.
I think that's just the dumbest, weakest thing I've seen a president do ever.
I've never seen anything that pathetic.
That was planned.
There's lots of things that are unplanned, you know, like falling down stairs.
But, you know, those seem, those are accidents.
This was actually meticulously planned and executed.
Your candy is too small.
Do you know what would be better?
Don't eat, don't eat what's in that wrapper.
How about don't eat anything that you have to take a plastic wrapper off of?
You know, I guess there could be some exceptions.
Anyway, in more important news, some scientists have discovered that in mice, the more often the mice have an erection, the stronger their erections are.
Because every time you get an erection, it's like, it's sort of like a muscle.
You know, if you exercise a muscle, it gets stronger.
So some researchers went to work every single day and gave mice erections to study what the effect would be.
Now they think there might be some, you know, something they learned about humans, but I don't know about that.
I feel like maybe these just were scientists who like to, uh, Masterbate mice every day and get paid for it.
What'd you do today, Bob?
Well, I'm working on my mouse erection study.
And then the obvious question is, do the mice have erections all the time so that it happens on your schedule and it's just right there when you need it?
No, no.
So how do you line up the time you're working with the time that the mice have the erections?
How do you know to get that timing right?
Well, we, you know, we stimulate them.
I have no further questions.
No further questions.
My best guess is they show them pictures of Minnie Mouse, but without the clothes.
Have you ever seen Minnie Mouse without any clothes?
Take that little bow out of her hair.
Kind of hot.
I can see it.
I can see it.
If I were a mouse, I'd be turgid as hell.
All right, so Jillian Michaels' exercise personality was on Bill Maher's Club Random.
And it turns out she's more of an economist than I'd ever imagined.
You know, I see her doing the exercise thing and I think, wow, she knows a lot about fitness.
I didn't know that she also knows a lot about economics.
So Jillian Michaels, the best economic opinion I've ever heard, came in this conversation with Bill Maher.
Bill Maher said, we won the pandemic economically.
And Michael said, we did?
I feel like inflation is insane.
And Maher says, inflation is not insane.
And Michael says, Bill, go buy a car.
A house is tripled here.
Buy some fucking eggs.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best economic opinion I've heard in at least a year.
Blah, blah, blah, inflation.
Blah, blah, blah.
The money supply.
Blah, blah, blah, the debt.
Blah, blah, blah, economics.
Blah, blah, blah, shrinkflation.
How about screw all of that and buy some fucking eggs, Bill?
I'm going to add Bill to it to be funnier.
I'm just going to say that in every economic conversation from now on.
And no matter who I'm talking to, I'll just call them Bill.
Somebody like, blah, blah, blah, good economy.
And I'll say, go buy some fucking eggs, Bill.
And they'll just walk away.
Brilliant.
Well, do you all remember how terrible 2020 was?
You know, the beginning of the pandemic and just everything went to hell in 2020.
Yeah.
So 2020 was a weird year.
It was a leap year.
Oh, oh, this is a leap year too.
Okay, well, we have that one thing in common with 2020, it was a leap year.
And in 2020, what else was happening?
Oh, Trump was running against Biden.
Oh, Trump was running against Biden.
That's happening too.
But those are two coincidences.
Let's see, who was in the Super Bowl in 2020?
2020, it was the Chiefs against the 49ers, and the Chiefs won.
Huh, well, that just happened.
But back in 2020, there was a global shutdown because of the pandemic.
So there's nothing like that happening, at least in 2024.
Except that a man did just die of Alaska pox.
Alaska pox.
I don't like the sound of that.
I just stole all this from Tara Bull on the X-Platform.
She made these observations that 2020 and 2024 are looking suspiciously similar.
Now, can we use the Super Bowl prediction method?
Let me ask you, which is the better story?
In 2020, what was the better story?
Trump winning or Trump losing?
What was the better story?
Trump winning.
And he won.
In 2022, I'm sorry.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I've got all my years backed up.
In 2016, Trump winning was the better story.
2016.
Sorry, I got the dates wrong.
Have I ever mentioned, I don't know if I've ever mentioned this, I have a calendar issue.
Has anybody heard me say that before?
Like, even today, I published the wrong comic again.
Like I always do.
I'll tell you, today's a tough day for dyslexics.
So the date today is, concentrate, 2-12-24.
2/12/24.
Do you know how hard that is for a dyslexic?
That takes some concentration to write that date down.
That's a tough one.
My dyslexics, can you confirm?
That's a tough one.
Anyway, back to my point.
2016, the better story was Trump winning.
But in 2020, was the better story that Trump wins re-election?
Because that's not much of a story, is it?
That would be sort of normal.
Somebody wins re-election.
But you know what would be a better story?
A really good story?
Is if Biden won that election in a way that many people thought was suspicious in terms of the regularity of the election.
And then in 2024, he comes back.
You tell me that's not the better story.
The better story by far is that Trump comes back and wins in 2024.
By far.
Do you think there's any chance that's not the best story?
Now, I'm not saying it's best for the country.
That's separate.
But as a story, you can't beat it.
And if you add to that that there might be some extras, such as beating all the lawfare, that's a good story.
And what if The last election is shown to be, let's say, less credible than we thought it was.
What if that happened?
Right.
Yeah, buy ammo.
All right.
Rasmussen did a poll to find out who's the most respected leader of our various recent presidents, and 42% of likely voters said they respect Trump the most.
Well, can you guess roughly what percentage said they had the most respect for Joe Biden, President Joe Biden?
You want to take a guess?
Anybody?
Oh, very good.
Yeah, you're very close.
21 percent.
That's right.
You could not even get up all the way to the 25 percent level for Joe Biden.
Only 21 percent say he's the most respected.
Now, most of that difference is because Trump has a lot of respect among Republicans, but Democrats are kind of looking at Biden and saying, we might like him better, but not a super bunch of respect.
I wonder what would cause you to have less respect for Biden?
Well, a related story is that Biden has gone on TikTok with Harris.
That's right.
The politician who is sometimes accused of being influenced by China because of hunters taking money from a big Chinese company, they've just joined the TikTok platform, also known as the Chinese brainwashing platform, and it's also true at the same time That Biden has banned TikTok from government devices.
So he's smart enough to ban it, and also dumb enough to use it.
Now of course he's using it because he thinks it'll give him an election advantage with younger people especially.
And it might.
It might actually be useful.
But how much do you respect a president who bans something because it's so obviously bad and then becomes its most important user?
How could you respect that?
I have zero respect for that.
I can't respect that at all.
Vivek is on it too, but at least Vivek never banned it.
It's different if you've literally banned it for a government and then you go use it.
If Vivek banned it and then used it, I'd have the same questions.
All right.
Meanwhile, I'm gonna say this again because it's just so smart.
Trump called for an end to all foreign aid unless it's a loan.
It could be zero interest and maybe you don't have to pay it back right away, but you do owe us.
And I like that because even in a situation where you're not actively making loans to people, you can still say you owe us.
You owe us one later.
It's just the most obvious smart play.
So that makes sense to me.
CBS has some fake news about climate.
It says basically the air quality is terrible for a lot of people, in the United States especially, and it's because of climate change.
The air quality is bad because of climate change.
And the first example they give is those forest fires in Canada.
Was it last year or two years ago?
The forest fires in Canada.
Now, can you give me a news update fact check?
Don't we know that those were all set by an arsonist who's already admitted it and is in the legal system in Canada?
I thought that was completely confirmed news.
And it's the number one example they give of how climate change, climate change, is making the air dirty.
Now, it's not about these people lighting fires.
It's about climate change.
And CBS says that with no sense of embarrassment.
Wow.
Mark Levin is talking about the HER report, you know, the report that said that Biden was not going to be prosecuted, but that he had, you know, some kind of memory problems, let's say.
But here's how Mark Levin characterizes that in the Post.
He says, the indisputable evidence in the Special Counsel's report shows that Biden has been violating the Espionage Act for half a century, for which Garland, the Attorney General, will not prosecute him.
Is that a fair statement?
That the report proved he's been violating that law for half a century, and he will not be prosecuted for it?
That is accurate.
At the same time, At the same time, like literally the same time, I'm reading this from Levin, and then the next thing I read is that Trump is appearing for these hearings on his documents.
The same thing, except, you know, something he did once.
There were a lot of them, but something he did once.
So, yes, I am aware that the Democrats are saying the real issue is the resistance to giving them back.
And here's what I say to that.
That's a good point.
It's a good point that the bigger issue is resistance and giving them back.
But here's my better point to your better point.
Define resistance.
Define resistance.
If the lawyers were no longer taking phone calls, well, that's resistance.
Right?
If the government said, we're going to come in and break the lock and take them from you, and if they physically restrained them from doing it, well, that would be resistance.
No doubt about it.
But what if the government's demanding them, and the lawyers are saying stuff like, well, we think we gave you all of it, but maybe they're wrong.
And we're still talking to you, and we think we should keep these.
Does that sound like you're obstructing justice?
Or does that sound like every defendant in every situation who's aggressive?
They're just doing everything they can to fight what they don't like.
I don't know, I guess the courts are gonna figure that out, but to me, as a citizen, it looks like the laws are not being equally applied.
It's not exactly the same situation, I get that, but the feeling of it is that the laws are not being equally applied.
So here's my take.
After watching Joe Biden not being able to do an interview in the Super Bowl, because he's too degraded, and I think we all agree that's the only reason he wouldn't do it, and then instead he does his little dumb commercial about the size of candy, and how the candy got smaller, that's a level of patheticness that I would normally say, you need to stop this right away.
Right?
I would say, okay, this is sad.
Politics aside, you know, I'm not being political now.
This is a human individual that you're torturing and you're just destroying his legacy by making him continue, whereas leaving gracefully might actually put him in a good position for history.
But he's not in a good position for history now.
However, the more I thought about it, The more I thought that Joe Biden is not your normal president.
For one thing, he got elected on the fine people hoax, which literally hurts me.
It hurts me.
And it hurts anybody who's white and anybody who's ever supported Trump.
Because it's the biggest hoax in the country that wasn't the Russia collusion hoax, and it wasn't the January 6th insurrection hoax.
But between the fine people hoax and the January 6th insurrection hoax, and the other things he said about MAGA, and the locking up of Americans over just protests, he is the most evil fucking person I've ever seen in politics in the United States.
I think McCarthyism was bad, but I think he took it to another level.
I don't think Nixon had anything.
I mean, Nixon maybe did some bad things, but it didn't hurt me personally.
But Biden has gone after the people.
He's gone after the public.
The fine people hoax is an attack on me.
It's an attack on 81 million people who supported Trump.
And the January 6th insurrection hoax is an attack on Americans.
There's no other way to say it.
He's locking up Americans to support a hoax for purely political reasons.
And now he's trying to put Trump in jail for using lawfare to put Trump in jail.
And he's certainly the proximate cause of the Ukraine war.
How many hundreds of thousands of people died unnecessarily because Trump wasn't president?
We assume.
A lot.
He is the most evil president, I think, in history.
I don't think anybody's even close.
And I don't think that words like Incompetent and dementia.
That doesn't cover it, because he did a lot of this stuff when he was still capable enough that nobody was going to 25th Amendment him.
Right?
And I've actually completely changed my opinion about watching him die in front of me.
Because when I watch him on TV, I'm watching a man die.
You see it, right?
You're seeing somebody on his last legs, and he shouldn't even be standing most of the time.
And I used to think, this is really bad, this is not good for the country.
But when I see the most evil politician I've ever seen, who isn't named Adam Schiff, literally suffering and dying in front of me, I'm actually enjoying it.
And I'm just admitting that.
If I could watch Hitler being tortured to death, I'd probably do it.
I don't think I'd turn it off.
I'd probably watch it.
If you were going to see Bin Laden shot in the face, if there'd been a body cam of the actual killing of him, I'd watch it.
I mean, I don't think there's anything cool about somebody getting shot in the face, but Bin Laden, I would actually watch with pleasure, as like his skull was blown off from the back.
And then if there would be a picture of him with like a big hole in his head laying there on the floor, I'd be, let's replay that.
Yeah, I'd put that on a loop.
Because killing a monster is not like killing a person.
Right?
You just feel completely different about it.
And while I don't want anything violent, of course, to happen to any president, including Biden, watching his allies torture him to death in front of me by putting him on TV, I'm actually starting to enjoy it, and I don't want to see him replaced.
I want to see them torture him every fucking day for the rest of his life.
And I want him to look pathetic, I want him to embarrass his entire team that's doing this to him.
And I want them to run him into the ground the way he's done to me.
So fuck him.
Yes, I want to see him die in public.
Not by any actions of anybody.
Nothing violent, of course.
But I want to watch the Democrats drag his lifeless body onto the stage and watch him breathe his last words, because he's fucking evil, and watching him die is enjoyable.
Just like Hitler, just like Bin Laden, and just like any other common murderer and piece of shit.
To treat him like a regular politician when he's played the fine people hoax and the January 6th hoax and of course was complicit in the Russia collusion hoax.
He is no friend to the Republic.
He's a fucking criminal and a evil bastard of which we have never seen anything like it.
There is nothing comparable to this in any experience in America.
So 86% of people polled in a recent poll say Biden is too old.
Jonathan Turley puts that in context and he says that to compare that to only 82% of the public agrees that the earth is round.
So there are more people who can understand that Biden is too old than there are Americans who believe the earth is round.
But to be perfectly accurate, the world is not round.
It is not.
It's not flat, as far as I can tell.
It's a little bit ovoid.
Yeah, it's a little bit ovoid.
That's the way we roll on this podcast.
the little bit ovoid.
The fine people, Oaks, as he published another piece in American Greatness, talking about He debunks it thoroughly, as he has been doing for years.
He mentions me and Paul.
He mentions me and Paul.
if he doesn't go further in politics.
They're not going to make an offer to him to be on CNN, because he'd be too good.
All right.
When you calm down about the 34-minute glitch, maybe we can carry on.
I know that's very exciting to all of you.
We still don't know why at 34 minutes my podcast glitches, at least on the locals, sometimes on the other platforms as well.
Looks like it glitched everywhere.
Yeah.
Anyway.
So back to what I was talking about.
Here's a story from Steve Cortez.
So he was... So I said that CNN usually hires weak Republicans to defend Republicans.
So it looks like the bad point of view.
But when they got Steve Cortez, they made a strategic mistake.
Because he was by far too strong.
And he would debunk their hoaxes right in front of them.
Now what do you think happens when you hire somebody for CNN and he goes on the air and starts debunking your own news?
He didn't just give them opinions, he debunked CNN right in front of them.
Well, they fired him.
But they didn't fire him, fire him, as in stop paying him.
It was better than that.
They paid him and didn't put him on the air because his contract kept him off of other media.
That's right.
They paid to keep him off the air because he was debunking the Fine People hoax and doing such a good job of it.
He did a PragerU video.
And, you know, video is going to be a little more viral than text.
And it just completely demolished the hoax.
So he got not fired, but basically hidden for pay by CNN.
And then, listen to this.
So there's a media reporter called Oliver Darcy on CNN.
Now I've often pointed him out, he's like one of the three horsemen at CNN who will say the most ridiculous things.
So the most ridiculous things you'll hear, Steve Darcy will be one of the three people who said it usually.
So here's what he said.
So he, quote, this is according to Steve.
That Oliver Darcy castigated his work on the old Twitter, posting, quote, calling this a malicious lie, which is not.
So in other words, Darcy is saying that the fine people hoax is a real thing.
Calling it a malicious lie, which is not, and journalistic malfeasance, which it's also not, is a weird thing for someone who is a paid CNN commentator to say, given the network's accurate reporting on the matter.
You remember CNN's accurate reporting on the matter?
Yeah.
I don't.
They still don't report it accurately.
And it is the most debunked hoax of all time, because it's right there in the transcript.
There's really nothing to argue once you read the transcript.
So just think about the fact that Oliver Darcy, in public, He either believes the hoax or he's pushing the hoax.
There's no way to know what he's thinking internally.
Do you think he believes it?
Do you think that Darcy is fooled by CNN's own reporting?
Or do you think he's lying and he knows he's lying?
I don't know.
I can't tell.
So I'm looking at the comments.
A lot of you think he knows he's lying.
I don't know.
The way he's saying it suggests he might believe it.
Like he actually believes his own network's reporting.
Which would be weird.
I don't know how you can work there and believe their reporting.
I mean, you see it right up front.
If you're in the front row, how can you believe it's true?
I don't know.
So Hillary is pushing the new hoax.
I'm going to call it the NATO funding hoax.
No, let's call it the NATO hoax.
But you could also call it the summer hoax.
So if you're going to hashtag it, summer hoax or NATO hoax.
And here's what Hillary Clinton says.
In a post on X today, or yesterday, she said, Trump sells out our NATO allies to Putin.
Now what she's talking about is a story where Trump said that if a NATO country didn't pay their dues, that he told them they wouldn't protect them if Russia attacked them.
Now, everybody with even the slightest bit of common sense knows that, first of all, you would make the decision individually.
You're not going to say in advance you wouldn't protect them.
You would never announce it, obviously.
So that's not serious, but it is a serious way to negotiate.
If you don't pay your bill, you're not going to get the service, and the service is protecting you.
Now, so of course he would protect American interests, and American interests probably would be served by, you know, playing along with NATO if a NATO country got attacked.
But he's being smart by saying, no, you don't get a free lunch.
If we're going to protect you and you don't have to pay, why would you pay?
Why would they pay?
It wouldn't make any sense.
They could get it for free.
So, Hillary's trying to twist this as her trained monkeys in the press are trying to twist it into Trump's trying to kill NATO.
That's right.
Trump, the person who got the most funding of all time for NATO, she's trying to sell you the hoax that he wants to kill it.
Nobody's done more for NATO than Trump.
I think he has asked, you know, about if that makes sense in the future, which is a perfectly good question.
All right, so she says that Trump sells out our NATO allies to Putin, and then she said, and here's the chilling part, quote, this should be front page news of every paper in the country.
These are the stakes of 2024.
Correct me if I'm wrong, But she's literally telling her winged monkey press how to report this story.
She's telling them that the hoax should be their main story.
The person who, as far as we know, organized the Find People hoax and made sure it was on the front page of everything, the woman who is certainly behind, at least pushing it, the Find People hoax, she's telling you a third time that the third hoax should be the headline.
And then the AP reports... Basically, the AP reported the same thing.
So, it looks to me like Hillary just sounded the alarm.
Not alarm, but, you know, sounded the bad signal.
This is the hoax we're gonna focus on for the summer.
Now, how many of you, like me, I said it in public, I said it a whole bunch of times, there's gonna be a big summer hoax.
Now, there might be another one.
But they like to have one really solid one to last all summer, because the summer is a slow news time.
So you have to replace the slow news that nobody cares about with an exciting hoax, because it gives the news something to talk about.
Yeah, like a George Floyd, etc.
Right?
There's always a summer hoax.
So this one might have happened too soon.
I don't know if they can push it all summer.
There might be another one coming.
But once you see the the hoax framework and how the Democrats use the hoax as primarily their campaign strategy.
Their campaign strategy is literally hoaxes.
Now compare that to Trump.
Trump says the border needs to be protected better.
Is that a hoax?
Trump says he could have ended the war in Ukraine in a day, or he could.
Is that a hoax?
Because it looks real to me.
There's a big difference between the party that's just making promises, and maybe they can do it, maybe they can't.
There's some promises they'll make like fentanyl that maybe nothing happens.
But they certainly aren't hoaxes.
There's certainly things that you see Trump attempting to fix, at the very least.
All right.
So meanwhile, the court has ordered Elon Musk to testify in a SEC inquiry over the acquisition of Twitter.
So this is exactly what it looks like.
It's lawfare against somebody who's protecting free speech, the last bastion of free speech.
And so the government is trying to take him out.
It's exactly what it looks like.
Yeah, the Biden administration is trying to take out an American citizen for the crime of free speech and making everybody have it.
That's actually happening.
Do you know it should be the front page of every newspaper?
That Biden is trying to end free speech as we know it.
And here's one example, the Elon Musk thing.
Here's another example, January 6th.
Here's another example, everybody who got kicked off the news for saying things that were true.
The story is the complete end of free speech.
In my opinion, free speech is literally gone.
Everywhere except on X, and even then you're going to get fired.
If you have a boss, you're still going to get fired if you say something they don't like.
So I asked the question provocatively a few days ago, at what point do we say we should not teach children that America has free speech?
Because I think it's now.
I feel like you'd just be lying to children if you say, you know, in America we've got free speech and it's one of our advantages.
That's actually not true.
We do not have free speech in a way we've understood it for, you know, decades and centuries.
What we have now is absolutely not free speech.
I don't know what it is, but it's not free speech.
All right.
So it's about time we teach the kids that.
While the Super Bowl was going on, Israel moved into Rafah, which is in the southern part of Gaza.
So I guess, nobody said this directly, but I'm reading between the lines, does this mean that the north is already done?
I mean done in terms of, you know, obviously there's infinite cleanup and sweep up and still people in tunnels, but have they largely conquered the north of Gaza, the idea?
Because I'm hearing they're going into the South, and they're even saying that the people in the South, their only option, I think, is to move to the North where it's already destroyed.
That's their only option, right?
There's no place else to go.
So they gave the notice for the Rafah people to evacuate.
And I guess the only place they could go is to the destroyed north, which means that they're destroying less of the north now.
So did they actually win?
I mean, in the north?
I don't know what's going on there.
So there's a little mystery going on.
But apparently Rafa is the big city that a lot of people thought they would never go into, but Netanyahu is saying, yes, we are going in there, total victory.
So now you understand the total victory slogan, right?
So Netanyahu is saying total victory, and it's very clarifying.
Because if you thought they weren't going into Rafa, then you didn't understand what total means.
Total victory.
Like every single Hamas person will be jailed or killed.
Every one of them.
You know, the fighters.
So, there's a story that Biden is mad at Netanyahu, and behind the scenes called him an a-hole.
So NBC is reporting that.
NBC is reporting it.
Now remember, if all you know is what the news is, you don't know anything.
You have to know who the players are to know something.
And this is NBC reporting an anonymous source, the least credible reporting from the least credible entity.
Right?
NBC would be the least credible entity because the smart people tell me they're fully owned by the CIA.
So why would they go after Biden specifically on this point about Netanyahu?
Is it because they don't want Netanyahu to go into Rafa?
Or they're trying to tank the relationship between Netanyahu and Biden?
Or are they trying to make sure Biden doesn't get re-elected?
Because I think Netanyahu's not so popular that saying a bad thing about him would hurt you necessarily.
All right.
Well, we don't know that, but I wouldn't believe that story.
If we're going to be consistent, and I like to do that, If we had heard this story about Trump, would you believe it?
If you heard an anonymous source, reported only by NBC, said that Trump had said a bad thing about another world leader, would you believe it?
I hope not.
That would be the lowest level of credibility.
So, when it happens to Biden, do you believe it?
You should not.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I don't know if it happened or not.
But you should put on this the lowest level of credibility.
An embarrassingly low level.
Like, really embarrassingly low.
But does he, does Biden, is he pleased with Netanyahu?
I don't think so.
Because they do have a different opinion about the ceasefire.
And that's a pretty big topic.
So I don't think he's happy with him.
But did he call him an a-hole?
I don't know.
I wouldn't bet my life on it.
All right, here's the funniest tragic news I've heard in a while.
The Jewish News Syndicate, I don't know who they are, but they're reporting that there's a split in Hamas leadership, and that some senior officials realized that the terror group will not remain in Gaza after the war.
Wait, what?
According to this, there were members of Hamas who believed that Hamas would still remain in Gaza after the war.
Seriously?
Have they not been listening to anything?
Do they have no access to news?
Let me explain what total means.
Total victory.
Total victory means every one of you will be dead, including the leader.
100% guaranteed every one of you will be dead or in jail, I suppose.
Right?
But Hamas is still acting as if maybe they'll still be in power after the war is over?
Do they really not know that that option is completely gone?
It's weird.
Hamas, no Mas.
No Mas.
No Mas, Hamas.
No, let me, if Hamas is listening, and I'm pretty sure Hamas tunes in every day to listen to my podcast, because they're so fascinating and entertaining.
But if you're listening Hamas, let me explain what the word total means.
Total.
Total.
It means all.
Like every bit.
Nothing left over.
No crumbs left over.
All of it.
All of it.
So no, there won't be any Hamas left in Gaza.
They will be all gone. 100%.
Every single one.
Is that clear enough?
All right.
You're probably wondering, and I know it's taken me a long time, but so many people are asking, so I guess I have to do it.
Scott, how would you make peace in the Middle East?
All right, all right.
If it's going to come to me, I'm going to do it.
I was thinking that maybe some of you could handle this.
I was saying, there are 8 billion people in the world.
Does it always have to fall to me to solve everything?
But OK.
OK.
So let me give you my solution.
For the Palestinian situation, what we call the one-state solution or the two-state solution.
Are you ready?
Number one, make Jerusalem the capital for both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
I'm just waiting for the reaction.
McDrewsom, the capital for both.
Oh, there we go.
There's the nose.
Oh, you haven't heard the whole plan?
Did you think that was it?
You didn't think there was a trick?
Come on.
How long have you been listening to me?
You don't think there's a second shoe that's gonna drop?
You don't think I've got a clever way to frame this?
Alright.
Here it comes.
You make Jerusalem the capital for both Israel and the Palestinians, but it has to be a remote workforce.
You can't actually go there.
So anybody can go there except the government.
The government cannot go there to work.
They can go there to visit.
Nobody would be prevented.
So the government of both could visit as much as they want, but they wouldn't be allowed to have a building there.
They wouldn't be allowed to have a building.
Or if they have a building, it's just a server farm, and they just work remotely.
Now, what happens if the Palestinians and the Israelis want to meet with each other?
Which seems like a good idea.
Do you know where it would be a good place to do that?
Jerusalem.
Maybe the only thing you should do there, politically, is when those two sides are meeting.
Maybe it's the only thing.
Now, I know what you're saying, but Scott, Scott, you know, it's Israel's land, blah, blah, blah.
It's still their land.
They would still have total military police control.
It would still be, you know, on their map.
It's just that you would say, all the politicians are working on Zoom, And nobody's going to be there physically, but it's both of your capitals.
And if you want to meet together, we've got this one facility that you both own, and that's where the meetings will be if you need to be together.
All right?
So that's the first part.
I'm just getting started.
The second part is, you say to the Palestinians, so, you say you would like to take over Israel and get what you would say is your land back.
Now Israel would say it's their ancestral home and they have it fair and square.
But you recognize there's a difference of opinion.
So suppose you said, let's talk about this issue.
And I'd like to make you an offer.
Here's the offer.
And let's say you're Israel.
Here's the offer.
What is it about Jerusalem?
I'm sorry.
What is it about Israel that you want?
And they'd say everything like it was ours.
That's what they would say.
Right.
The Palestinians were displaced in 1948.
When they're kids, they say, we want it all.
So you say, well, define all.
Let's break it down.
We'll go back to total.
What's the total?
So number one, is it about the location?
It's something about the location, right?
Because it's like holy.
And they say, yes, obviously, the location.
It's the holy place.
The location, obviously.
So then you say, well, from a God point of view, Since God is the one who is important to the question of what location who belongs in.
It's sort of a God point of view.
Do you think God doesn't understand how location works?
Because location doesn't work the way you think it does.
From a God perspective, who can see the entire universe and all the planets, the position of that Holy Land is somewhere back in empty space.
Because position is only relevant to other objects.
And the other objects on Earth are just some of the objects.
Most of the objects in the world, or in the universe, are elsewhere.
So there is no such thing, from a God's perspective, there's no such thing as a location.
Because the location of tomorrow just doesn't exist.
I mean, the location of yesterday doesn't exist.
So then Hamas says, all right, you're being too cute.
That's too cute, you know what we mean.
And then I say, what do you mean?
I've got an idea.
If it's the location that matters, and you guys are really good at building tunnels, how about this?
The Israelis will have above ground, because they've got that stuff there, it's already built, and we'll give the Palestinians as much as they want underground.
So if you're a mile, let's say you have to be at least a mile down, but you can have as much as you can have the whole thing.
The Israelis will own nothing underground, you know, unless there's oil there or something.
And you can have as much as you want.
Total location, you got it.
And then they're gonna say, Scott, we didn't have underground before.
We were above ground, so we're not gonna settle for tunnels, right?
We're not going to settle for tunnels.
And then I'd say, okay, so you're admitting it's not the location that's the important part.
Well, that's just all we were trying to accomplish.
So you're saying the location, first of all, doesn't exist logically from a God perspective because all the planets have moved since then.
And secondly, you're saying that even if we gave you the location, In the way that you've actually been maximizing location recently in Gaza, underground, you're saying that's not good enough.
So it's not the location by itself.
There's more to it.
They say, yes, it's the physical place that our ancestors walked, like above ground.
And then you say, how much of the topsoil would you need To be happy that that was your ancestral place.
And then they say, what?
So yeah, suppose we take the top foot of topsoil to get down as far as certainly existed in ancient times.
We'll go down like 3,000 years, which might be a foot, two feet, I don't know.
And you can have as much as you want.
If you want to build your house somewhere else, we'll find a place in Israel that's got some extra dirt.
We'll just scrape off enough for your house, and then you can have holy land dirt and literally build it on the same dirt that your ancestors walked on.
So you'll also get land, you know, because the West Bank has extra land.
Extra doesn't mean nobody owns it, but you know what I mean.
There's space.
And so you can get the dirt, And you can get the location, you can get the sun, because you're, you know, on the dirt outside, if you like, and you would agree that location doesn't mean much in terms of God, so you can have the dirt, the location, and then they say, but what about the money?
Like, we lost everything.
You know, when we left, you know, we would have owned a house, we would have owned property, and that'd be worth something.
Here's what I would do.
If they would accept All the other terms.
And if Israel wanted to pay some kind of reparations just to put a tag in this thing forever, they should do it with stock.
They should issue stock in the index of Israeli companies.
And here's why.
Because you want the Palestinians not just to be satisfied that something happened, That, you know, gave them some peace, but that they're bought into Israel's continued economic existence.
If you gave somebody $5,000 in stock in the Israel economy, would they want to throw away $5,000 and say, no, we hate this dirty Jew stock.
We don't want any of your, and you say, I thought you wanted reparations.
I can't think of a better reparation than stock because it will keep going up.
The only thing that would be required for Israel's stock to go up is what?
Let me say it to you in a better way.
Are you ready?
Here's the payoff.
It's coming.
Have you seen the Israeli stock market today?
I think it's at an all-time high.
Do you know why?
Because they're unambiguously winning in Gaza.
Unambiguously.
What would the stock market look like in Israel if they made a deal with the Palestinians that the Palestinians actually accepted?
What would that do to the stock market?
20 to 50 percent?
I mean, it would change the future of Israel forever.
So it's the sort of thing where if you gave people stock, they would have a financial incentive that would be real, and it could double if they just decide to do a little piece.
It could double.
And $10,000 probably means a lot to a lot of people, especially if it's every family member or something like that.
Now you might say to yourself, Scott, Israel can't afford that.
To which I say, don't the Palestinians have friends, like tons of people who would like to help them out?
Have them help them out by buying stock that is then gifted to the Palestinians.
Then everybody wins.
Islam wants to own the planet, somebody says.
Oh, I get it.
I get it.
I do understand that there's a religious imperative, but you can cleave that out, at least for the Holy Lands, just by making location look stupid as an idea.
Now, anybody who doesn't accept that idea probably has to be dealt with.
All right, so, that is my plan.
Now, would that work?
Of course not.
Of course not, because the personalities are such that it wouldn't matter if it was a good offer or a bad offer.
It only matters that they're enemies and they want to stay that way, apparently.
So, I don't think it'd work, but wouldn't it be interesting to have it out there?
Wouldn't it be interesting to just have it out there?
Because then you'd say, look, I've got a plan.
Now, here's the hardest part.
Here's the real payoff.
Two-state solution or one?
How do you solve that?
How in the world do you solve when there are some people who absolutely are never going to give up on the two-state solution, while at the other hand, there are people who absolutely won't give up on one-state solutions?
How do you solve it?
Easily.
Easily.
You create two states that are really one in all the important ways.
That's it.
You just create two states that are really just one in all the important ways.
Now, how do you do that?
A variety of ways.
For example, you could say Israel is going to do the security concerns.
And they're going to do the security, and that includes the school curriculums, because it is literally an existential threat to Israel if the schools in the West Bank are teaching them to kill Jews.
It's an existential homeland threat to them.
So let's say Israel controls the security, but, hold on, What if they offer that the Palestinians don't have to pay for any of it?
Now you've got a country-ish, it's not a full country because it doesn't have their own military and security, but that's being handled for them.
If the Palestinians were smart, they'd say, wait a minute, did we just get a country that doesn't even need to pay for military or school or police?
Do you know what kind of an economic advantage that would be?
If you didn't have to pay for your own security.
That's huge!
And let's say that they now own stock, and let's say that there's enough peace that the Israelis feel confident investing more in the West Bank, and we find ways to work together so that there are enough employees for everything.
There is actually a two-state solution that's really one state that's really one state acting like two states.
It's basically the Taiwan solution.
The reason we don't have a war in Taiwan is that we agreed to pretend it's all part of China, but not really.
Right?
Now, if you'd never seen the Taiwan thing work, it actually works.
I mean, so far.
You wouldn't think that you could do something as stupid as saying that, you know, two countries are really one country.
But you absolutely could do something as stupid as saying two countries are really one country.
Of course you could.
You can sell anything.
It just has to be in the best interest of all the people involved.
Why is it that everybody agrees with the Taiwan situation, which is clearly absurd, that it's two countries in one country at the same time?
Why does everybody agree with that?
Because it's in everybody's best interest.
That's it.
We just like close our eyes and say, okay, I don't want to fight over this, so all right, it's just all China.
And China doesn't want to have a war over it.
So they say, all right, you can treat it like it's a separate country as long as you say it's China.
Right?
So we've agreed to live in absurdity because it just happened to be in everybody's best interest.
Now, you're correct in pointing out that in China you don't have the religious dimension.
I'm seeing that in the comments.
The religious dimension makes everything not work.
However, I do think you have a obligation to offer a solution.
You should at least make people have to struggle with why the practical solution isn't available to them.
If you never do it, it'll just always be this way.
But over time, maybe you could convince people that a practical approach to their own best interest could be achieved in which it doesn't require them to kill each other.
It'll take a while.
But I think you could sell the idea that there's a way to live in peace and both have their separate lives and stuff.
So that, ladies and gentlemen, is my idea for solving the Middle East.
Perfectly impractical, but that's how you start.
Just like the Taiwan situation.
Absurd, impractical, no way it's going to work.
But you've got to start chipping at it.
You've got to start chipping away.
Yeah.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of my insanely great show that you're so happy to have seen.
Thanks for joining on the X-Platform and on YouTube and on Rumble.
