My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Santiago Paredes, Boeing Whistleblower, Spirit AeroSystems, Axios Fake News Nikki Haley, TikTok Ban, October 7 Impact, President Trump, President Biden, Election Integrity, Trump Trials Hypocrisy, The Young Turks, Joy Behar, Criminal Based Governments, Cancel Culture Popularity Decline, Iron Fist Policies, The Economist, Narco South American Gangs, Arab Nations Sanction Relief, PM Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's Hamas Policy, 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
I spend a lot of time at Starbucks just working and I get to watch all the orders that people are putting in and picking up and at some point I realized that Starbucks is basically a liquid candy store for women.
Now men do buy things at Starbucks.
Do you know what the men buy at Starbucks?
Coffee.
Do you know what the women buy?
A big ol' cup of sugar that has, you know, any variety of names.
But the women are just coming in for liquid candy.
And the men are coming in for probably something closer to coffee.
Anyway, it's a pretty big difference.
The Ninth Circuit has ruled, according to Breitbart, they have a story here about That even a felon has the right to possess a firearm for self-defense.
So a three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, said that this guy, Stephen Duarte, has a right.
Now, I was not terribly interested in this specific case, but you know how everything is related to everything?
And I'm trying to figure out, is the Ninth Circuit the one that is famously liberal?
Can you give me a fact check on that?
In the back of my mind, I'm thinking, is that true?
That the Ninth Circuit is famously considered a liberal court, or do I have that wrong?
I'm seeing some confirmation of that.
Now, why would you, why would you expect a liberal leading court to say that a felon could have the right to own a gun?
That's, you'd typically expect it to go the other way, wouldn't you?
Is there anything that would make you think that maybe there's something else going on with this story?
Is there a case of a certain son of a president who was also a felon who also wanted a gun?
Do you think it's a coincidence that this famously liberal court just decided that the very specific crime that Hunter Biden seems to be guilty of, it's the one time they go against their liberal bias?
I guess they're pretty pro-gun when there's a felon who's a Democrat that has one.
I don't know, that's just my own conspiracy theory, but it does stand out as sort of a flag, doesn't it?
Doesn't it make you think maybe that's just all about Hunter?
It's hard not to have that connection in your head, even if it's unrelated.
Now, I think the answer is right, by the way.
I don't disagree with the ruling.
It's hard for me to say that just because you're a convicted felon that you shouldn't have a gun.
I think it should depend on what you got convicted for, maybe.
If you were using a gun to shoot people or rob them, well, maybe that would be a case that you've given up your rights to have a gun.
But if you were a felon for something that wasn't violent, maybe you just, I don't know, stole some money or something, Or in the case of Hunter, I feel like that's a little bit too much infringement of their rights to take away the right to bear arms.
Who agrees with me?
Are you on the same page?
If he did a violent crime with a gun, or even a violent crime I suppose, You can imagine how the court would take your right away?
Because it takes your other rights away.
They can put you in jail.
All right.
Well, all right.
There's a, uh, there's a Boeing whistleblower.
Another one has come forward.
There's a, and, uh, Oh, update.
He's been killed.
He's been killed.
No, I'm just kidding.
I'm just kidding.
That's not funny.
It's not funny that whistleblowers get killed all the time.
But Mario Lawful is reporting that Santiago Paredes, who worked for Spirit Aerosystems, he's Boeing's largest supplier, and he was a quality control person they called the showstopper, were always slowing down production because he tried to address safety concerns.
And he says things like, quote, I was finding a lot of missing fasteners, a lot of bent parts, sometimes even missing parts.
And I'll never fly again.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Air travel is no longer in part of my life.
Now that the person in charge of quality says that bad parts were just marching out of the factory like crazy.
But he's still alive.
He might be the bravest person in the history of whistleblowers.
Do you know what I don't do?
Let me write something down here.
Take care of business later.
Let me just do this.
All right.
Taking care of a little business there.
Anyway, he's a pretty brave whistleblower.
Personally, if the first two whistleblowers die in suspicious circumstances, if it's me, I don't really blow any whistles after the first two go down.
Well, what's your number of whistleblowers before you'll be disappointed, you know, you'll decide not to do it?
I'm like, two is my maximum.
Now some people will be like, okay, the last 27 whistleblowers were slaughtered.
I think I like my chances.
But not me.
Not me.
If two whistleblowers die, I just shut up.
I just say shut up.
Well, President, former President Trump came out and said he was not suggesting or not considering Nikki Haley as a vice presidential running mate.
Now, I would like to mock everybody who believed Axios reporting about the two anonymous sources that said he was considering Nikki Haley.
How many of you believed that when you read it?
Because I'd be disappointed that I taught you nothing.
Two anonymous sources that are going to say something bad about a Republican that's coming from a Democrat source, and on its surface looks ridiculous.
Put all that together.
On its surface it sounds ridiculous that he would consider Nikki Haley, right?
Just on the surface it sounds ridiculous.
Comes from a well-known, you know, very Democrat source, and there are two anonymous people talking about it.
That is every signal for fake news.
That's every one.
You got them all right there.
And sure enough, I told you it was fake news, and it took about a minute and a half to confirm it.
So the only thing about that that's interesting is if you fell for that ever, then you missed the really big signals.
That one was glaringly obviously fake.
Well, apparently President Biden has signed the TikTok ban bill, which is more of a divestment bill, divested from China.
But China says they don't want to divest it and they're going to fight it in court, so we don't know what will really happen.
I would say that it is far too soon.
I'm going to cover up the comments with just the locals.
Oh, that's perfect.
If I put my, uh, on my phone separately, I look at the comments just from locals.
So I can, and it covers up perfectly the, uh, the trolls because I don't have the trolls on locals.
Perfect.
So if you want me to see your comments, uh, then you should be a member of, uh, locals.
If you like the comment just so other people can see it, then you can be in there with the trolls.
I don't have a way to stop the trolls with this setup.
Anyway, TikTok Bill got banned.
So I went to Grok, the AI on X, and I said, who was the first public figure who recommended banning TikTok?
Do you know what he said?
He said me.
Now, it may have been prompted by that by some tweets.
I don't know if I was really the first one.
But, it did.
It looks like something's going to happen.
I think it's too early to celebrate anything, because first of all, it's just taking it out of China's control and putting it in our CIA's control, I think.
I mean, that seems like the plan.
So it's not like you got more freedom, but at least it's not an adversary who's controlling it.
Now you're being brainwashed by your own people who are trying to rob you.
Completely different.
I feel much better when I get mugged by a family member.
All right.
But let me see, how many things do you think that the situation in Israel changed?
In my opinion, and let's see if you agree, I don't think there's any way that would have been the TikTok ban would have succeeded.
Except for TikTok favoring the Palestinian cause over Israel.
Do you all agree that that was decisive?
And obviously so, right?
Wouldn't you say?
Because it went from, wow, this TikTok ban is kind of crazy, anti-free speech, and it went to, oh, let's get rid of this right away.
That was entirely because of the October 7th and so much Palestinian support on TikTok, right?
So I would say that the TikTok ban, which is a really big deal, you know, should it actually happen, and that was entirely Israel's influence.
Now, when I say Israel's influence, I don't mean that there weren't Americans who wanted it, too, and for the same reason.
There were plenty.
And I don't mean that it was only people who were citizens of Israel, because there had to be, you know, a ton of Jewish Americans who said, Maybe this isn't good for us.
Maybe we should do something different.
So I'm in favor of it, but we should note that the October 7th thing probably was a big push there.
How about the presidential elections of 2024?
In my opinion, the TikTok situation and the protests and really the whole Gaza situation largely guarantees that Trump's going to get elected.
Do you disagree?
Because I think Trump just screwed the pooch so hard that the pro-Israel base in America has just changed his mind.
I mean, even the news looks like it changed on a dime.
The news went from, you know, Trump is the worst monster in the world to, well, you know he had a point about the border.
And, you know, it does seem that His numbers are looking really good, and it does seem that, you know, it seems like the entire tone of everything changed.
As soon as Biden was not completely on board with everything Israel wanted, the news coverage really changed.
I mean, it seemed to, to me.
So I think that Israel will be the driver of who wins the 2024 election.
Lots of variables there, but that seems like the biggest one at the moment.
But what about this?
What about Ukraine funding?
Do you think Ukraine would have been funded if they hadn't tied it to Israel?
To Israel's funding?
I say no.
I'm not sure that Ukraine would have been funded.
So, the October 7th probably got rid of TikTok, probably determined our next president, and probably determined the fate of the war in Ukraine.
Am I wrong?
Which of those things were not very much influenced by the October 7th and all the blowback after that?
I'm seeing some disagreement in the comments, but I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with.
All right. Yeah, I mean, Israel, obviously Israel's not the only influence on these things, but to me they look like they were decisive, meaning that these were all issues that were very, they're very evenly split, but as soon as October 7th happened, boom, three issues went in the direction that you'd expect.
or Well, I would like to say that my best predictions Are the ones that seemed impossible when I made them.
Here are some, now I don't make any claim that I'm good at predicting things that are sort of ordinary.
An ordinary thing would be a president decides on a vice president for a running mate.
That's sort of an ordinary thing.
I'm not really good at predicting who the vice president will be.
So if it's ordinary business, I'm no better than anybody else guessing what's going to happen.
But I've had some really weird ones where I predicted the impossible.
Right?
Not really impossible, but listen to some of these predictions.
So the famous one, of course, was that in 2016 Trump would win.
So, you know, that kind of put me on the predicting map a little bit, but not, not long after that, I also predicted that, or I was advocating that During the pandemic, when it first started, that we should shut down travel to China.
Do you remember when you, if you did, if you first heard me say that we should shut travel from China just until we figure out what's going on?
Did you think that was impossible?
I kind of thought it might be impossible because we'd never done it before, but we did.
Banning TikTok looked impossible in 2018 when I said I was going to get it banned.
Here it is.
Did you think that was going to happen?
I don't think there's anybody who thought I was going to get TikTok banned.
But did I?
Well, no.
In the end, you know, in the final decision, I had no influence at all.
However, here's a little influence trick.
You can't decide to do something or not to do something until the something is in the air.
Let me say it again.
You can't decide to do or not do a thing until you're thinking about it.
It has to be in your head.
And I think that what I did was make it possible to think about banning TikTok, where it wasn't really possible to think about it until somebody talked about it enough.
I think if you talk about it enough, it moves it from the unthinkable to the thinkable.
And once it becomes thinkable, then other people can decide on their own, maybe for their own reasons, that they want to ban it.
But they won't do it until it's thinkable, right?
It has to be on the option set.
So I believe that what I did was I put it on the option set.
One of the people did that.
There were others.
What about the idea of attacking the cartels with the military?
That's another example.
I don't know if that's going to happen, but we have reports that Trump was asking questions about special forces.
I think that we have a working arrangement with the cartels, with our military and intelligence, so I don't think there will be any military action against them.
And I don't think that Trump has been fully briefed that the United States uses the cartels for our own interests.
We'll talk more about that as we get to it.
But now it's being considered.
So once again, it was something that you couldn't really decide to do or not do, because it wasn't even a thing.
But I'm one of the people who kept saying it and saying it and saying it, until you could at least think that it was thinkable, and it had to become thinkable.
It had to become thinkable.
Now, you can think it.
Um, how about the, uh, remember the embassy secret weapon?
And when the CIA said, Oh, it's definitely a secret weapon.
And everybody in the news said it's a secret weapon.
And a hundred percent of the world said it's a secret weapon.
And I said, that's not a secret weapon.
And it turned out, as far as we know at the moment, no secret weapon.
So those were, those are my weirdest predictions because all of them seemed impossible when I made them.
And we'll see if I can do any more of that.
Let's see.
Well, Trump was in Wildwood, New Jersey, a perfect name for a place to have the biggest rally in all of history.
His supporters say it could be 100,000 people.
Democrats, of course, are going to say it's far less than that.
But suppose it's 50,000.
Right?
Suppose it's 50,000.
Might be.
But 100,000 would be crazy.
Trump said that Biden is a total moron and the whole world is laughing at him.
Correct.
Do you think there's anybody, any of the leaders of the other countries who are not laughing at Biden?
And don't you think that every single leader thinks Trump is a more capable leader than Biden?
I'll bet.
I'll bet there's not a single world leader Who thinks Biden is a better leader than Trump.
And you remember when everybody thought, Oh no, they're going to laugh at that clown.
They're going to laugh at that clown.
Well, look who's getting the last laugh now.
Well, Trump in his classic Trump way, um, that I always tell you he gets right.
He can summarize better than anybody can summarize.
He can brand better than brand.
He has exactly the right nicknames and words.
And here he says again, just listen to the sentence.
He supports Israel's right to win its war on terror.
And we're done.
That's perfect.
That's just perfect.
He supports their right to win its war on terror.
How in the world do you argue with that statement?
How in the world do you argue with it? Now, of course, you know, Biden might say the same thing.
You know, if asked, you might say, of course, I support the right to win. But then he would add lots of caveats like, oh, but we don't want to pay for the big bombs. And, you know, yes, but only if you do it the way we think is approved. And yes, but if you do it at the greater loss of life of the IDF to save some civilians, which I'm not saying is a bad idea, I'm just describing.
Um, yeah.
It gets all murky, and it doesn't sound like you quite support them, does it?
But if you just say, boom.
I support Israel's right to win its war on terror.
Any questions?
No, that pretty much clears everything up.
Now, why can't we have a president who can be that clear?
You know, why does it have to be a gray area with Biden?
We could have no gray areas.
We could just have clarity.
He's offering that.
Well, Zero Hedge is reporting that consumers' sentiment About Bidenomics is cratered, going through the floor.
So the University of Michigan has this latest report card on Bidenomics, and it's really, really super, super unpopular.
Total disaster, unexpectedly plunged from 77 to 67.
However, they did also change their method of polling.
So, here's why you can't really trust any news report.
So you start reading the thing, and it sounds like, wow, there's this sudden, tremendous drop in support for Biden.
But by the time you get to the end, they talk about how they moved from phone polls to online polls.
And then they got a big different answer.
That's the story.
Duh.
No, the story is you polled differently.
This story is not people change their minds.
This story should say, a difference in how they polled got a different answer.
It shouldn't say there's some kind of cratering or plunging of people's opinions.
No, they just changed how they polled.
You should say nothing about it.
You should just not even report it.
It actually becomes non-newsworthy because there's nothing to compare it to.
If you had a comparison, it'd be newsworthy, but if they get rid of their own ability to compare it to their last poll, I think you gotta wait for the one after that and the one after that.
All right, North Carolina's, this is in the Federalist, North Carolina's early voting locations illegally favor Democrats.
Well, how would you do that?
Suppose you had a law that says you can put all these early voting, I guess they're ballot pickup places?
You can put them around your state, and that was all legal, and the law said that you can't put them in places that would be super biased.
In other words, you can't only put them in the Republican areas, or only put them in the Democrat areas.
Obviously, that would bias the outcome.
So, what did the Democrats do?
They put them all in college campuses.
The exact thing you don't want anybody to do.
Now, because the college campuses are overwhelmingly Democrat, and if they have most of the ballot boxes, and the students are lazy, they're more likely to vote by, I would imagine, they're more likely to vote by mail.
And so there's a court case to challenge that.
Now, I'm going to put this in the category of if there's any way to make anything cheat in elections, one of the teams is going to do it.
It's not just Democrats, right?
If it's cheat a bull and you have any legal maneuvering or you think you can get away with it, they're all going to do it.
See, the stakes are way too high.
When you have lots of people involved and the stakes are high, rigging is guaranteed.
We act like maybe it happened.
I think that's the funniest thing.
We have a system design that guarantees cheating.
It guarantees it.
We make the outcome super, super valuable.
You know, President of the United States, control of the Congress.
Really, really, really valuable.
Maybe the most valuable thing.
Of all things, because it controls so much money, you know, American money.
So anyway, well, I'm going to bail out of that point because it wasn't important.
So yes, so we've got lots of situations where if you can cheat, people would be expected to cheat.
That's all I'm going to say.
If you've got a design that compensates people and doesn't punish them if they get caught, Or they think they can not get caught.
It's guaranteed.
Guaranteed.
So you don't even need to talk about the details.
You have a system that if you just said, here's my system on paper, and then I'm just going to implement this and then run it year after year, you could predict what would happen.
It's the design.
It guarantees bad outcomes.
All right.
Let's talk about hypocrisy in the news.
So at the Stormy Daniels trial, you know, you've got Trump who's in trouble for not that he did anything with Stormy, but rather the way he recorded the expenses as legal expenses.
And it's being pointed out, I think Jonathan Trolley and others have said this, that when Hillary Clinton paid to fund the Steele dossier, She hid that by calling it a legal expense.
So, as far as I can tell, it's exactly the same accused crime.
And it's all established facts.
Isn't it all completely the same?
Hiding your expenses as a legal expense when it was really something else?
I heard, who is the dumb person arguing this?
Oh, I made the mistake of turning on the TV and The Young Turks was on, and one of the guests on The Young Turks, or maybe he's a host, I don't know, it wasn't Cenk, but it was somebody else, he was saying, oh, what was it?
He was saying it was different, anyway, he was doing an analysis of the case, That was so pathetically irrational that I wondered if his viewers knew it.
But I'll remember in a minute.
So we've got the, Hillary did basically the same thing that Trump's on trial for.
Will anybody mention that on the left?
No.
The left has no idea.
Do you think, how many Democrats would know that Hillary even had paid for the Steele dossier and that it was all fake?
And that it was a legal expense.
How many people even know that on the left?
Probably nobody.
I'll bet you can't even find anybody who knows that.
Even one person.
So they can get away with hypocrisy if nobody knows it.
And now we've got the situation of Boxgate.
So that was the Stormy trial.
But on the Boxgate trial, the Mar-a-Lago boxes, Jack Smith apparently has admitted to altering some Uh, evidence, some documentary evidence.
So, you know, that story that some things were, some, uh, cover sheets were added in that makes it look like it was more classified than it was.
And maybe some stuff came from the, from the, uh, GSA.
And so this whole story is getting muddled, but turns out that, uh, if you really look at some of the charges that were given the January six people, There were the same charges that Jack Smith has admitted to doing, which is altering evidence in a government process.
So that's pretty sketchy.
Oh, so the young Turk was arguing that Trump was guilty Because the only reason he was trying to hide his expenses were for legal reasons.
No, for personal reasons.
And that there was some other case and a Democrat was only doing it... So somehow he imagined that Republicans only do things for personal reasons.
No, only do it for political reasons.
The Democrats were doing it for other reasons.
I mean, it was just completely not as confused as my explanation of it.
But let's just say if you're watching the Young Turks to figure out what's going on, you'd be pretty confused.
So I guess there were some famous people attended the Stormy trial, the last day of it on Friday, I think.
Judge Jeanine was there, and Joy Behar.
I think they were there at the same time.
Imagine being in the same room with Judge Jeanine and Joy Behar.
I think if they touched, there would be like an explosion.
It would be like matter and antimatter kind of thing.
Joy Behar manages to go to this and her only take, her takeaway was that Trump is more orange in person.
That's really all they have.
Have you noticed that they've completely given up on policy arguments?
There's total capitulation.
They're down to, he scares me and he's more orange than I thought.
That's all they have.
He scares me for reasons I can't articulate.
And he's much more orange than I imagined.
And he's selfish.
Here's also the dumbest thing that Democrats say.
They say that Trump is only in it for himself.
Well, first of all, how could you possibly know that?
That's mind-reading.
Secondly, it doesn't matter.
Because the presidency is the only job where you could be in it completely for yourself, but it's all transparent.
What did you do?
Did you build a wall just for yourself?
Well, maybe it was good for you politically, but a lot of us people, a lot of us wanted a wall.
So how in the world does the president do something completely selfish and make it work?
I don't know how you could do that.
If the president isn't doing public things for the public good, that are obviously for the public good, then that That president loses.
They get a bad reputation.
They get impeached.
They don't get a second term.
The only way a president can do a good job for themselves is to do an amazing job for the public.
So if you put a big old narcissist in the job whose main interest is looking good, that person is going to do the best job.
Because they really, really want to look good.
And the only way you can do it is by doing a good job.
There's no other way to do it.
So there's just complete nonsense in terms of the complaints about Trump at this point.
Ed Wolkness was showing a list of different countries and showing that a new survey says 7 out of 10 Europeans believe that their country is accepting too many migrants.
So these are the numbers of countries who By over 70% say their own country is accepting too many migrants.
Over 70%.
70%.
There are very few topics where you can get the public to be 70% or more on one side.
And in Greece it's 90%.
In Ireland it's 78%, right?
But these are all over 70.
Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Austria, Germany, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, France, Spain and Sweden.
So every one of them has a major incentive to stop the immigration and it's not happening.
So does democracy work anywhere?
If you've got a 70 plus majority in a really simple issue, let in more people, don't let in more people.
You know, everybody can understand the entire issue.
There's no complication there whatsoever.
And your citizens can't get that?
Three out of four?
In Germany, 77% of citizens want a stop of immigration or a slowdown.
Can't get that done.
So, do you think that democracy works?
Obviously not.
It couldn't be more obviously.
Now, I know we're, you know, we're not a democracy, we're a republic with democratic principles, etc.
But it seems very clear that if you have a Soros-like bag of money, that you can find the weak spots in the system and then exploit the weaknesses.
And the weaknesses might be you just have to buy X number of politicians.
That's it.
It might be cheap to get.
And then it doesn't matter what the voters think, if you get the right politicians in your pocket.
I will say again that the United States is not any kind of a democracy and not any kind of a republic with democratic principles.
We are a criminal organization, and have been for a long time.
I will say also provocatively, it's the best form of government.
Because democracies don't last.
But a criminal organization might.
So, yeah, we probably need to do something about that.
Well, here's again Jonathan Turley.
He's one of the many people noticing that the New York Times has an editorial in which they're turning against cancel culture.
Oh, finally, they're turning against cancel culture.
How about that?
I wonder if anything happened recently that would cause the New York Times to change their stance on cancel culture.
Yes, turns out that the October 7th and all the Israel stuff, and this is from their editorial, it has not gone unnoticed on campuses, but also by members of Congress that, and by the public writ large, that many of those who are now demanding the right to protest have previously sought to curtail the speech of those whom they declared hateful.
Oh.
Did the New York Times just figure out that curtailing free speech has a downside?
They're just figuring that out.
Oh, oh, so if you curtail the speech of just the people you don't like, that's not going to work out for you in the long run, is it?
Because you're going to end up, you know, just curtailing everybody's free speech pretty quickly.
So is this a case of the New York Times Um, just slowly evolved in their thinking.
No, no, this is because of Israel again, you know, the Israel and October 7th and the protests.
So even, even America's view on cancel culture just changed because of Israel and Israel situation.
Now, uh, in the prior conversation, I was, I'm saying to you it helps to make the unthinkable thinkable.
So, and I saw in your comments some of you were giving me credit for attacking ESG.
ESG did become a dirty word.
And in order for that to happen, and DEI is now a dirty word for at least half the country or more.
And that only happens if somebody goes first.
Because again, it was sort of unthinkable that you would say in public you were opposing those things because you'd get cancelled.
And now, some of us got cancelled, and we're still here.
So now it's thinkable.
So now you see, you know, it's a fairly widespread opinion that DEI is just racism.
And now you can say that.
Well, The Economist, which is a publication, has a report that gangs are gaining ground in Latin America, and this is why Iron Fist policies Won't beat them back.
Huh.
Does El Salvador know that the Iron Fist policies won't work?
Because it seems to be working really well there.
Why do you suppose that The Economist would run an article saying that Iron Fisted policies against the gangs, let's call them the cartels, won't work?
Well, Mike Benz gives us one hypothesis, he says, Once you understand the economist is a blob rag, oh, a blob rag.
In other words, the economist is part of the large, you know, CIA intelligence censorship, you know, blob.
So basically they're not an independent source of news, that they're influenced, according to Mike Benz, by the big influencers who run everything.
And he says, once you understand the economist is a blob rag, And narco gangs are an instrument of blob paramilitary control over Latin America's internal politics.
Headlines like this will make a lot more sense to you.
Oh, there we go.
Yes.
So if you know the players, everything makes sense.
So suddenly a blob publication, according to Mike Menz, Is now a little bit more pro-cartel than you would expect them to be?
Well, that could be because our intelligence people are pro-cartel, in the sense that they need them to control Latin American countries.
And in return, what do you think we do?
Open our borders and let them get away with fentanyl?
Of course.
Once you see it, it's hard to unsee it, because that's got to be the reason that we're not Fighting militarily against the cartels.
They've got to be on our side.
In the worst possible way, they're on our side.
But there's no other explanation for it.
I think it's obvious.
And it explains fentanyl for sure.
All right.
The Biden administration just granted some kind of sanctions relief to several Arab nations to buy military stuff from us at the same time that they were denying some of the military aid to Israel.
Now, I don't think that these things are necessarily a problem or even related, except by coincidental timing, but talk about the worst possible look.
To be the Biden administration, elections coming up, you've denied the bombs to Israel, at the same time you're saying, you know, Lebanon, Yemen, and Qatar, you can buy our defensive weapons, sure, of course you can, no problem.
Yeah, it's not a good look.
It's not a good look.
Now I would like to ask you this provocative question.
Have you seen the opinion, and I think comic Dave Smith is maybe one of the most notable ones of this opinion, but other people have it as well, and the idea is that Israel was playing a clever game in which they were pretending to support Hamas's control of Gaza, but really it was a cynical play To keep them as terrorists so that later they could grab their land.
How many of you subscribe to that view?
That Netanyahu always knew that backing Hamas would lead to more terrorism and that he did it anyway because he knew that at some point it would give Israel cause to act and grab all their land and control everything.
You believe it?
I'm looking at your comments.
I'm seeing no's and yes's.
So, it doesn't look like people are embracing it too hard.
But here's my question.
How would anything look different if what Netanyahu was doing was simply giving them what they asked for?
How would it look different?
Because here's what I think is true.
I think that Netanyahu gave them what they were asking for, which was self-rule, and apparently they wanted Hamas in Gaza.
I think he gave them what they wanted, but at the same time I think he knew it would blow up.
Is that wrong?
Because what was he supposed to do?
Was he supposed to not give them what they wanted?
And that would make everything better?
So I think that the comic Dave Smith view It could be simultaneously true and irrelevant at the same time.
I don't know if I'm saying that right.
It could be true that Netanyahu knew that supporting Hamas would lead to something not exactly October 7, but that it would cause an ongoing situation where they would never have to have a two-stage solution.
Do you believe that he knew that supporting Hamas would make a two-stage solution deeply unlikely?
I think so.
Probably.
But what was he supposed to do?
Was he supposed to not give them what they asked for?
Or was giving them only part of what they asked for and they would have asked for more things like water rights and things like that.
But is it wrong to give them some of what they asked for if you know that in the long run it might give you more power?
I don't know.
I don't know if there's any difference.
If you put me in that situation, do you know what I would have done?
The same thing Netanyahu did, allegedly.
I would have said, look, we can't defeat Hamas, there's no public support for that, like militarily.
We can't change it.
The people in Gaza want this Hamas situation.
So if you can't change it, but you can support it in the sense that maybe there's some financial
Capital or something that allowed them to get a little more freedom or control than they might have had otherwise What was he supposed to do I would have given them that I would have given Hamas a little bit of freedom and I would have waited for it to blow up and Then in chaos, I would take as much as I could of whatever was takeable.
I Would have done that now.
Does that make me a bad person?
I Because basically the situation I see is that the Palestinians, and Hamas in particular, keep doing things to give land to Israel.
I mean, every time they bomb something else, the odds of a two-state solution go down.
So, what are you gonna do?
What are you gonna do?
So, anyway, I don't think comic Dave Smith is wrong That Netanyahu knew what would happen by supporting Hamas.
Will you agree with me that far?
That anybody smart would have known exactly how this would turn out?
Not exactly October 7th-ish, but that it would be a continuous no two-state solution.
Yeah.
So, I'm not sure you can condemn it when there wasn't any choice.
If the thing that's best for Netanyahu and best for Israel is also the only thing you could do, can you blame him for doing the only thing you can do?
What else could he have done?
It wouldn't have helped them to keep their thumb on Gaza forever.
Yeah.
In the end, I think it will be a very different place.
So Israel saying that directly.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, because it's Mother's Day and I know you want to go off and do good things with your mother, I'm going to make this a little bit shorter today.
Yeah, don't prevent your enemies from making mistakes.
That is correct.
That is correct.
Abilities in defending against Gaza.
So I'm saying that they also spent billions in defending against Gaza, and then it looked like there was no defense against Gaza?
No, Scott, because Israel also invested billions in defending against Gaza.
Failure was a complex event.
Well, I think the failure, the defensive failure, probably was just incompetence.
Why would you assume it was more than that?
It doesn't seem to me like you could really close an entire border with Gaza if somebody was really motivated to breach it.
You could close a border against a handful of people trying to get across, maybe.
You're not going to close it if thousands try to go at the same time.
That's not a thing.
So, anyway.
Happy Mother's Day to everybody.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
Let's see if I can get my technology to do what I want, which is to get private with the local supporters only.
