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, Amazon Car Zoox, Kristi Noem Dog Story, Joshua Lisec, Democrat Mental Illness, Reid Hoffman, Abigail Shrier, Shrier Book Bad Therapy, President Trump Grocery Store, irrational Democrat Fears, Jen Psaki, Fareed Zakaria Economy, Bill Ackman, Election Landslide, Jonathan Turley, Michael Cohen, Economy Trust Polls, Trump-Biden Contrast, Gold Bar Bob Menendez, Dr. Peter McCullough, Covid Vaccination Payments, TikTok Ban, Brendan Carr, Rigged Inflation Stats, Corrupt Zombie Wars, Antony Blinken Gaza, Israel Hamas War, 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
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
I'm pretty sure if you refresh your feed on locals, you'll get the video.
Bye.
But I will test that myself by doing it on my own to see if that does make a difference.
All right.
Locals, let's see if we can get video on you.
Boom!
Yes.
Restarting your locals will give you video and you will be happy.
Well, there's a new study.
Ellen Wan in the Epoch Times is talking about the health benefits of coffee.
It just keeps coming.
You've heard about the health benefits of coffee, but oh my goodness, it just can't stop.
It just can't stop.
So now we found that numerous health benefits.
One is that it Does something with your trigonoline and your things and your sarcopenia and your muscle loss.
And that's scientific talk for it's good for your muscles, especially as you age.
Now, I hope I didn't bog you down in all the technical details, but if you missed it, it's like, uh, we added the trigonoline and then your sarcopenia.
And so that's, that's for those of you who wanted a more detailed, uh, study.
But also, drinking three to five cups per day, 65% lower risk of developing dementia.
And that's either totally true or I already have dementia.
One of those things is true.
I'm going to bet on my coffee is keeping me sharp.
And then there's another study that says coffee drinking was associated with the reduced risk of chronic diseases.
Several of them.
All right.
So, do we finally understand the mystery that we've all been wondering about?
I know.
You've been wondering, Scott, what makes you look so sexy and vital and young and strong and smart?
It's the coffee, right?
And I was wondering the same thing about all of you.
Because every time I see a picture or hear about one of you, you're just killing it.
You're so sexy and smart and strong.
It's the coffee.
And if you're just watching us drink coffee because you don't drink coffee, and I like to say coffee a lot, coffee, coffee, well, you're probably getting stronger and smarter just by associating with us.
Yeah, sort of a halo effect.
There's no science to back that up, but I'll bet my life on it.
All right, Unitree, it's a Japanese company, has developed a A robot that you can, I think it's available now.
So $16,000 will get you a robot that's four foot two and can do all kinds of things.
And it's got zillions of motors on it and can run around your house and keep you company, I guess.
I am so getting a robot.
Now, I don't know how, uh, I don't know how Tesla is going to compete with a $16,000 robot.
Cause I can't imagine.
That you could beat that price point.
Unless it's maybe they're trying to lose money and gain market share or something.
That seems too cheap.
But we'll see.
So you'll have a robot.
I would expect to have a robot certainly in 2025.
By 2025, I think there's a very high chance that you'll see me on this live stream and right over my shoulder will be my house robot.
And I might use it for, you know, interacting with the audience.
I think that's, I think that's one year from now.
Actual robot sidekick.
Well, Amazon has a self-driving taxi, robo-taxi thing called Zoox.
And they're getting investigated by the U.S.
government because apparently two of its vehicles break suddenly and were rear-ended by motorcyclists.
So two of them rear-ended by motorcyclists.
You know what's interesting is if the executives of the company are found guilty of some crimes and they go to jail for this, they too had a good chance of being rear-ended by two motorcyclists.
That's all I have to say about that.
But I do wonder if Amazon's self-driving car is using LiDAR?
Or is it using vision?
I heard Elon Musk talking the other day that all the self-driving cars using LiDAR are losers because LiDAR is expensive and not nearly as good as vision.
It's just really, really, really, really hard to get to vision unless you're a massive, highly scaled-up company.
So Elon Musk is all in on the car just seeing and understanding its environment.
So, LIDAR?
Maybe it's the best.
There's a story that actor Steve Buscemi was punched in the face by a maniac in New York City.
There are reports that the ambulance crew, when they were taking him to the hospital, that he was screaming the whole time all the way to the hospital.
That's terrible.
Now, what was he screaming?
Oh, he was screaming, nobody punched me!
My face always looks like this!
Let me go!
Release me!
That's what he was screaming.
No, that's not true.
He was actually attacked by an assailant, and there's nothing funny about violence.
There's nothing funny about that.
Ghost writer Joshua Lysak has an interesting take on the Kristi Noem shooting the dog story.
You may or may not know that I'm working with Joshua Lysak on republishing my books that got cancelled.
He's helping me edit and put that publication deal, well, the process all together.
And very soon you're going to see God's Debris, the trilogy.
That will be a one book with a new short story that I added.
So the God's Debris and the Religion of War and a new short story called Lucky House are all going to be in one book and should be available real real soon.
I've got the sample copy that I'm doing a final pass on and soon as that soon as that makes me happy I'll push the button or Joshua will push the button and it will be available.
I'll let you know about that.
It's not ready yet.
Anyway, here's Joshua's take as a professional, highly experienced, famous ghost writer himself.
He says, the story about Kristi Noem's dog might be totally made up.
Now, I have to admit, that did occur to me as well.
Now, how could that possibly be true, you might ask?
How could it possibly be true?
That a story with such specifics would be totally made up.
Well, Joshua explains.
Now, we don't know that this is true, right?
But as he explains it, the way a ghostwriter works with a famous person is that the famous person doesn't have a ton of time.
So they're going to do stuff like, all right, here's a link to all my interviews.
And here's my social media account.
Go check that.
And I've got two hours to, you know, dump my opinions on you, but I want to see you again for three months, you know, or something like that.
So the ghostwriter ends up trying to build a story that really is the ghostwriter story, because they don't have access to continuous interaction with the subject they're writing about.
And so Joshua puts forth the speculative hypothetical.
That the conversation might have gone something like this.
When you write the book, say something about how hard it is to be, you know, a farmer or work a farm, and that it's sort of a tough environment and you got to be a tough person.
Make me look like I'm a tough person.
And then, next thing you know, she's shooting a dog.
And so Joshua challenges the story, I guess, to prove that the dog ever existed.
So the question is not whether she shot a dog, but whether there was ever a dog.
And I think that that is actually the right question.
I would say the odds that the dog actually ever existed... 50 to 75 percent?
There's a solid 25% that's just made up.
And I think that's a good addition to the story.
So whether or not the dog is made up or not, she wouldn't really be able to deny it, could she?
Because if it was made up, she'd have to say that she didn't read her own story.
And there was one part of her story that was in there about her meeting Kim Jong-un.
How does a ghostwriter say that you met Kim Jong-un and stared him down?
When it never happened.
That's pretty specific, isn't it?
So it does sound like the ghostwriter might have left the reservation a little bit there.
And maybe the ghostwriter was working for the competition.
By the way, have we heard who the ghostwriter is yet?
Isn't that an important question?
Wouldn't you like to know if the ghostwriter maybe worked with some people who were not her friend?
I'd like to know a little bit more about the Ghostwriter, thank you.
Anyway, here's another I should have asked Scott.
There's a study that said nearly half of all master's degrees have a negative ROI, meaning that you don't make enough money to make it worthwhile to get it.
Now, more than, let's see, 77% of bachelor degrees make people happy.
So, nearly 80% of the time, if somebody gets a bachelor's degree, they make more money than if they didn't, and they're happy about it.
But, if you go on to get a master's, it goes down to 57% of those people say they made more money and they're happy about it.
Now, this is a definite could-have-asked-Scott situation.
When I worked for a big bank, I also was going to school at night to get my MBA.
Would my MBA Have helped me in my career at the big bank.
Yes, totally.
It's the difference between senior management and not senior management.
Yeah.
And they made it very clear that you needed to have a little extra going on.
If you're going to get to senior management, you know, you either had a PhD in something or an MBA from a good school or something.
So it depends.
So I could have told you if you got a master's degree in some weird social science and you weren't even going to work in that field, probably didn't make any difference at all and you wasted your time.
Unless you got married or something.
Because of your college experience.
But I would say that the study itself is garbage at the same time I agree with it.
Here's why it's garbage.
It doesn't tell you anything you can act on.
Because we all recognize the situation when getting a master's degree makes sense, don't we?
Don't you?
Don't you think you would know when getting a master's degree would matter?
It matters, and you know, if you're probably a doctor, you know, a high-end professional, and it's directly, you know, in, it's right down the alley of your job, probably.
Now here's the thing it doesn't measure.
Doesn't measure how you feel about yourself.
Let me tell you something, if you haven't experienced this yourself.
For me, getting an MBA from Berkeley, which I did at night, and I did it at the same time I was working full-time, is the hardest thing I've ever done.
By far.
It just takes everything.
And it takes about three years of your life, because I did it at night, so it's a little longer.
Normally it'd be two years.
It just...
I mean, the sacrifice level to get that thing was pretty extreme.
But when I had it, I had something that nobody could ever take away.
And I gotta tell you that how it felt to have accomplished it was worth the money even if I never made a penny.
If I never made a penny, it was totally worth it.
Changed how I saw the world.
It gave me a whole bunch of skills that come in handy for all kinds of situations, not just, you know, getting a raise.
So for me, there are all these intangibles.
Next, I would say that your odds of marrying well probably improve with every degree.
If you've got a, if you've got a college degree, you're more likely to marry somebody who went to college.
If you have an advanced degree, you're even a little bit more likely.
To marry somebody who went to college and maybe also has an advanced degree.
So how do you pick that up?
What happens if you get your advanced degree and that helps you meet somebody with another advanced degree and the other person's advanced degree is so good that you say, wow, I can stay home and raise our kids and with my advanced degree, I'll do a great job being a parent and don't really have to work.
So I don't think, I don't think a study like this picks up any of that stuff.
All the intangibles, you know, even the effect on your children.
If your children have a role model that two parents got advanced degrees, that's a lot of pressure on the kid to get an advanced degree, but ideally a good one, not a not a dumb one.
So I would ignore the study and just say it's kind of obvious when it makes sense and when it doesn't.
There's an important new study that says that Lesbians are more likely to have orgasms when they're with each other than a man is likely to give a woman an orgasm in a hetero situation.
So apparently much, much more likely for a lesbian to have an orgasm or to give an orgasm to another lesbian.
Now the most shocking thing about this is I was not expecting to wake up this morning to learn that I'm a lesbian.
But there it is.
I mean, probably.
Now, the only thing I'd add to that is that it doesn't apply to hypnotists.
I'm just going to drop this to drive you crazy.
There's no such thing as a male hypnotist whose partner is not having an orgasm.
That's not really a thing.
Now, maybe if the woman has like a physical problem, then yes.
But if she's capable, if she's ever had an orgasm, and her partner's a hypnotist, yeah, she's gonna have all the orgasms that either of them want her to have.
Do you believe that?
Here's why you should believe it.
Because sex and orgasms are, if your body is healthy, there's nothing organically wrong.
It's a mental situation.
And the hypnotist knows how to connect the mental parts in your brain just to build a little structure that causes a fire to be lit.
Now, that just happens to be one of our skills.
Now, they don't tell you about that one, do they?
When you hear about hypnosis, you're like, oh, maybe you can cure somebody's smoking.
It doesn't really work very well for that.
Oh, maybe you can help somebody lose weight.
You can.
But it's not like the greatest thing for that.
Almost anything works for smoking and losing weight, if you've decided you want to do it.
It's the deciding that's the hard part.
Once you decide, then every method you use works.
If you don't decide, nothing works.
So yeah, hypnosis is a little more powerful than you thought.
I saw there's a meme going around that says, what scares me most It's not the fact that the media is lying to us.
It's the fact that some people still believe them.
And Elon Musk reposted that with a yup.
Now, I would go further.
I would say the problem is not just that people believe the media.
The problem is that the media is giving them a mental illness.
That's how they get you to vote for their preferred candidate.
That's how they get anything.
And so everything the news does is designed to make you crazy.
Now, could you see signs of it?
Are there any signs that the news is making you crazy?
Yes, because the people who are the, let's say, the most likely to be affected by it have a massive mental illness problem that's not affecting the people you would know would be least affected by it.
The people most affected?
Young women.
And sure enough, we look at the protests and we see the craziness in the world, and it does seem to be that there is a massive problem of mental illness
Youngish women and single women and it is definitely the news getting them all worked up now Remind me to say something about Joe Rogan after I make this next point because I'll forget otherwise Have you noticed that the Democrats are ramping up the fear persuasion for in favor of Biden Why are they doing that?
There's a Democrat group It's got a $140 million campaign with testimonial ads.
Now, the testimonial ads means that it's a citizen who's going to be talking to the camera and saying, oh, if Trump is elected, horrible things will happen.
Here's some examples.
Now that is meant specifically to scare you.
It is not going to be a bunch of people talking about how much they like Joe Biden.
It's a commercial, which will not, which will not mention the benefits of Joe Biden.
It's a, it's a pro Biden commercial that isn't even going to try to talk about what's good about him.
It's merely going to show you a bunch of people who are scared to death of Trump.
And one thing that will make you scared is seeing other people like you who look scared.
That's really scary.
You're not as scared as if you see somebody who has nothing to do with you looking afraid.
But if somebody who looks and talks like you is scared to death of something, you're going to pick that up just automatically.
Somebody said Reid Hoffman's behind that.
Is that true?
That would be really scary.
Reid Hoffman is their hypnotist, by the way.
Oh, did you know that?
Reid Hoffman is the Democrats' hypnotist.
Oh, they have one.
He's the one who can tell you if something's going to affect somebody psychologically.
And make a difference.
They don't have a smarter guy.
I think Reid Hoffman would be, I'm pretty sure, their smartest guy, in terms of how anything works in the real world.
So I would expect it to be pretty effective.
So you should not be surprised that Democrats have more, the young Democrats especially, and the women especially, have more mental illness.
What is being told to Republicans?
Well, Republicans are also told that the country is going to hell, except the Republican belief system is almost entirely, you know, optimism-based, at least the Trump part of it.
The Trump part of Republicanism is optimism-based.
So you should imagine that there would be a greater chance that people who have an optimistic mindset are less crazy.
And sure enough, So let me mention the Joe Rogan thing.
I was watching a clip, and he had a guest on, Abigail Schrier.
She has a book out called Bad Therapy, and the main point of it, I understand, is that she says rumination is bad for you.
Meaning that thinking about your problems makes them worse.
Thinking about your problems makes them worse.
Now, I'm going to add this to, you should have asked Scott.
I can't tell you how many conversations I've had with people who insist that they must solve their internal psychological problems by thinking about them really, really hard until they can, you know, make them go away.
And I would say, okay, I'm no psychologist and I'm no psychiatrist, but I did learn in hypnosis class That the more you repeat something, the deeper the circuitry gets.
That is the opposite of what you're trying to do.
What you're trying to do is weaken the disruptive thoughts, not strengthen them so they're permanent.
If you live inside your head, and you just keep thinking about your problem, because you're trying to make it, like, go away, because you thought about it so much, or you worked through it, and you worked out your childhood trauma, in my opinion, There's only one way that can go.
It will make it worse.
Apparently, and I'll take a fact check in case I'm getting this wrong, but it looks like that's the main takeaway from Abigail Schreier's book of bad therapy.
There's probably other things in it too, but that seems to be one of the interesting ones.
Now, Joe Rogan was saying that he was shocked by that, like that didn't seem true, that you should run away from your problems.
I've been saying this for a very long time.
It's not just true.
It should be really obvious.
Why is that not obvious to everybody?
I guess that confuses me.
Is it only because I studied it and I know that repetition is persuasion?
So repetition is the thing you want to run away from, not the thing you want to run toward.
Let me give you a little trick.
And this is based on Abigail Shrier's advice, I believe.
But also I'm going to add it to my own.
So yesterday, I was sitting there thinking of stuff, as I often do.
It's hard to turn my brain off.
And suddenly a very bad thought entered my mind.
It's the kind that if you spend much time thinking about it, it would put you in a terrible, terrible mood.
And it wasn't anything I could do anything about.
It was just a thought.
And the thought comes into my mind and I realized that I had created an inner world.
In other words, when I was thinking about this thing, I imagined a world that doesn't exist, or maybe it was one that used to exist, but it's imaginary.
It doesn't exist now.
And I felt myself going into the world.
And as soon as I was in the world, I said, oh shit, I don't want to be in this world.
And then I said, I got to get out of this world.
Here's how you do it wrong.
Try to get out of your thoughts about that world to enter thoughts of a different world.
That's not going to work.
Try it.
It doesn't work.
If your brain really, really wants to think of a thing, it's going to do it.
You can't just say, Oh, think about kittens, kittens, hugging dogs.
Oh, it'll last about a minute.
And you'll be right back to your thing.
So here's what I did instead.
I left my inner world.
And I actually felt like I was, it was the damnedest thing.
I've never done this before.
I went from my inner world and I just said, outer world, like go to the outer world.
And suddenly I was looking at the world through my eyes and my ears and my senses, not my sense of smell, because I don't have that one.
And immediately I was in a different world.
I was no longer in the world of my mind.
And then I said, go do something.
Go do something.
Get up.
So I got up.
And I did something.
And then I interacted in the external world.
And you know that thought?
That bothersome thought?
The one that I'm talking about?
The horrible thought that was in my mind that I didn't want to repeat?
Do you know what it was?
I don't either.
I don't remember it.
I remember the experience, and I remember escaping from it, but I escaped so fast, it didn't leave a memory.
I don't even know what it was.
It's so gone, it could not be more gone.
Like, I left that fucking thing in the dust.
I just jumped out of my brain, and I felt it.
So, I'm going to recommend this.
Next time you've got a depressive thought, just tell yourself, I'm in my imaginary world in my brain.
Get out.
Just get out.
Get out.
Get into the world.
Do a chore.
Exercise.
Walk around the block.
Pet a dog.
Hug a person.
Get out.
And stay out.
If you find yourself getting back in, get out.
Get out again.
Get out of the world, open your eyes, look at the light, feel the sheets, whatever you're going to do, but just get out.
And that's advice I've been trying to give people for 30 years, probably.
And I didn't have a book to back it until now.
So thank you, Abigail Schreier.
I think we're on the same page on that, but I haven't read the book.
So if I got anything wrong, I apologize.
All right.
Axios.
Well, the reason the Democrats are ramping up the fear persuasion is that they don't have anything for policy.
And I think that Trump needs to call them out for that.
If I were Trump and I had a whole bunch of policies that the polling says are overwhelmingly preferred, you know, the economy, immigration, overwhelmingly preferred.
You need to call out the other side for having nothing but fear.
Call them out.
Just call the balls and strikes.
I'm offering you policies that the polling says are highly popular.
And you've seen me in action before, so you know what I do.
I'll do what I did before.
And the reason that the Democrats are giving the fear-mongering is because they don't have an argument on a policy level.
Say it directly.
Say they're trying to scare you because they don't have an argument, and you can see that the polling supports my point.
You have to put that frame in their head that the fear is not real.
The fear is not real.
You have to say it directly.
The fear you're feeling is not real.
It's an election year phenomenon.
They have given up on policy.
And so beware, they're going to come for your mental health.
They're coming for your mental health.
Because if you're thinking clearly, You're probably going to be with the majority of the country and want to close the border and maybe do something about energy and inflation and those things.
So here is the best suggestion for the Trump campaign you've ever heard.
You ready?
This is my challenge to myself.
I'm going to say something to make every one of you agree, which is largely impossible, wouldn't you say?
To say something that every one of you would say, oh shoot, that's a good idea.
You ready?
Trump should do his campaigning in a grocery store while he's bagging groceries.
And that's it.
How much are you paying for your groceries?
How do you feel about it?
Yes, I am Donald Trump.
You want your eggs at the bottom?
All right, here's this one.
How do you feel right now?
You think you're paying too much?
Yeah.
Now, this would be highly compatible with the lawfare situation, because he can't do big things, you know, everywhere, but he can do little things like visit a bodega, visit a, you know, visit a store and buy some milkshakes.
But he could definitely walk into a grocery store and say, do you mind if I bag?
Who's going to say no?
Who's going to tell him he can't bag some groceries?
You'd want a friendly manager of the store, of course.
But I want to see him talking to Democrats.
I don't want to see Trump talking to Republicans.
I want to see him talking Democrats out of their irrational fear.
I want him to say, you saw me for four years.
What exactly was scary about that?
Or I want him to say, you know, I'd love to, I'd love to hear him say this.
Did they tell you I'm going to try to take over the country and keep it?
And just ask this question.
How do you think that would work out for me?
Do you think anybody could just decide they want to be dictator and the whole country is just going to let them do it?
No.
The only way that I win, Donald Trump, is if the country does really well and we remain a democratic republic, if, you know, to the extent we are.
And the only way, that's the only way I win.
I only win if you win.
That's what the presidency is good for.
It's full, it's full of exposure.
You're going to see everything I do, just like you did the first four years, except for the fake news, of course.
And you get to watch it all.
I can't win unless you do.
I am intentionally tying my reputation and my fate to the performance of my presidency.
And I don't want to be known as Trump the Hiller.
Nobody does.
That's the last thing I want.
I wanted April, I wanted January 6th to get the right answer and I wasn't sure that they did.
Don't you want the right answer?
Don't believe the fake news I was trying to take over the country.
I wanted the right answer, same as you did, because it didn't look right to me, and I still don't think it's right.
But we move on, and we'll do it again, and we've got to win by a victory by a margin that's, you know, too big to rig.
So that's what I want to see.
Grocery store Trump.
And the thing is that if you add Trump to a grocery store, you can't not think about grocery prices.
All right.
Jen Psaki claims in her new book that Biden never looked at his watch during the ceremony for the soldiers that were killed during the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Now, accompanying the story of Jen Psaki saying he never looked at his watch is a photograph of him looking down at his watch.
Now, what level of gaslighting is that?
Where there's a public photo of the thing she says didn't happen.
But, I would like to, and I know you don't see this coming, I'm going to back Genesaki on this.
I don't think he was looking at his watch.
I looked at the picture myself, and I think she's right.
I don't think he's looking at his watch.
I think he's looking at the time, but that he thinks the time appears on his hand and he's waiting for it.
I don't think he's smart enough to know that his watch is a few inches to the left.
I think he was looking at his hand.
And he's probably thinking, why is my hand not telling me what time it is?
I've been here for a long time.
Hand, tell me!
Come on, hand.
Now, if he just looked a little bit to the left, he would have known the time, but I agree with Jen.
I don't think he was looking at his watch.
Fareed Zakario of CNN.
I was making some news, because he's saying in a full-throated way, well, I wasn't expecting things to go this way, but it's pretty obvious Trump is going to win.
And he says that's despite the great economic news of the good employment and, well, it's mostly that, right?
Just good employment.
But here's what Fareed, and maybe he doesn't know.
The economy isn't good.
But how could somebody as smart as Fareed Zakaria say that all the signals on the economy are good?
The only reason that we even have an economy is that we're on the edge of a debt collapse and we're not over the edge yet.
We're like standing with our toes over a deadly ledge that nobody knows how to stop us from going over.
But until you go over it, you're in perfect health.
I think that's his argument.
What's that movie?
Somebody and Louise?
What's the movie with the two women who drove the car over the ledge?
Somebody and Louise?
It was a terrible movie.
What was the name of that?
You're going to tell me in the comments in a moment.
All right.
So it feels like that.
It's like, yeah, until you hit the ground, you're in perfect health.
So he's basically saying the economy is like a skydiver.
Oh, Thelma and Louise.
Yeah.
So he's saying that the economy is like Thelma and Louise while they went over the cliff in the car, but before they hit the ground.
So the entire time down, perfect health.
Things are going great.
I don't see the problem.
So it's really weird to see somebody as smart as Farid, and there's no doubt he's unusually smart.
I mean, let's give him that for sure.
He went so far as to be honest, he even said that the New York trial wouldn't have happened if it had not been a defendant named Trump.
So he's basically saying the lawfare is illegitimate lawfare.
But he needs to go a little further.
Everything that they've been saying on CNN about the economy is bullshit.
He doesn't know that?
He doesn't know that the debt is the only thing that matters?
And that's why we have the inflation and everything else?
I don't know.
It's weird.
It's sort of a partial win, but he couldn't release in that last bit of non-reality.
Well, speaking of Democrats saying things you weren't expecting, Bill Ackman, famous investor, he's been making a lot of news, he keeps doing it, and he says the polls say that Biden's going to lose to Trump, and he says the polls always understate Trump's support, as Biden voters are not shy about their support for him, whereas Trump voters are more cagey when talking to pollsters.
It's interesting that he knows that.
Do you think that's still true?
I feel like the shy Trump supporter might be lessened.
Well, I guess it still would be true of Democrats who are trying to switch over or Independents.
It's definitely not true for pure Republicans.
I think the MAGA people are going to say exactly what they think.
I think the Independents might be cagey.
They're like, well, You know, least worst choice, but I don't want to say it out loud.
So I guess he's right on that, that the polling might be not picking up the full level of support.
But he points us to Fareed Zakaria.
But here's the more surprising thing.
In Bill Ackman's post on X, he closes it by saying, quote, I would not be surprised for it to be a landslide.
Landslide.
Well, everything is heading toward landslide.
But everybody smart will tell you the same thing.
A lot is going to change between now and the election.
It could be a lot.
It might not even be Biden running by Election Day.
So anything could change.
All right.
I love watching Jonathan Turley.
Using Michael Cohen as a piñata.
It's so funny.
So Cohen is the most famous liar in the news.
You know, there are a lot of people who lie.
A lot of people lie.
But he's the most famous one.
So he's lied in every context in which we've ever heard of him or seen him.
He's like the most pervasive and complete liar.
Like, he'll lie in every context, everywhere, all the time.
It's just impressive.
But this is what Jonathan Turley says.
He says, for most people, Bragg's cynical calculation, which is to put Cohen on the stand, Will be immaterial when Michael Cohen is called.
Calling a convicted, disbarred, serial perjurer to any court is a spectacle in itself.
Cohen seems like he has never met an oath that he does not want to break.
He's such a good piñata.
You know, the longer this lawfare stuff goes, the better it is.
Because the mistake that the Democrats made in 2016, which is now famously part of the historical record, is they gave Trump too much attention, too much oxygen.
They covered him too much.
And they all admit that.
Our big problem was we gave him too much attention, covered him too much, and turned him into the president.
So what did they do?
Did they start from first principles and reason Up to what they should be doing this time?
No.
This time they decided they were going to try to gag him and take him off the campaign trail and not give him any attention.
How's that working?
It's too late!
No!
The first time is when you wanted to starve him from attention.
Now he's the person that everybody knows.
And we already know the trick.
You know the trick.
If Trump goes out in public and talks, they will take out of context everything he says and turn it into fear persuasion.
So the less he talks in public, outside of his rallies, because the rallies are a little bit more controllable, but if they take him out of the wild and put him in the two most controlled situations, which are he's in charge of the rally or the courts in charge of him, It takes away a lot of the spontaneity, which gets him in trouble.
So they've eliminated the only thing that could stop him, which is if he says something, they can turn into something else.
And they've way reduced the amount of talking he does, spontaneously, to the point where they just don't have their greatest target, which is what he said yesterday.
They just don't have it.
Because all he said yesterday is the trial is rigged.
Over and over and over again, until it's all you hear.
Is he persuasive?
Well, Fareed Zakaria thinks he is, because even Fareed thinks the New York case is BS.
That's the Stormy case.
All right.
Caitlin Collins said, Financial Times poll 80% of voters say high prices are one of the biggest financial challenges and That's why putting Trump in front of a grocery store is the kill shot of all kill shots All right Rasmussen has a poll that says 39% of likely U.S.
voters said yes to the question, are you better off than you were four years ago?
But far more, 54% said no, they're not better off than they were four years ago.
So that's the famous Ronald Reagan question he asked about Jimmy Carter's presidency.
Now, and voters rank the economy and immigration as sort of the top things.
So, 51% of Republicans, well, 51% of voters trust Republicans more to handle the economy, while only 39% trust Democrats.
And on the issue of immigration, the GOP's margin is even wider, with 54% trusting Republicans versus 35 for Democrats.
But it gets better.
Basically, all of the news is leading in one direction.
It's looking like the landslide of all landslides.
I don't think this will even be a normal landslide.
I think it might be the biggest margin of victory of any presidential race, and I think it will stand as the largest victory margin of all time.
That's what I think.
But here's some more news that could make that happen.
So you remember Senator Bob Menendez got caught with all those gold bars, uh, sewed into, weren't they sewed into the, into the lining of his suit or something?
Anyway, in the worst timing the Democrats could ever have, he's going to have his trial starting soon before the election.
So you're going to see the following contrast.
By the way, here's your, here's your lesson on, um, Your lesson on persuasion.
Persuasion lesson goes like this.
Contrast is persuasion.
It's the reason that the real estate agent shows you the terrible house that's within your budget.
So when they show you the good house that you wish you could afford, but maybe you can make it if you stretch, you feel, Oh, I love it.
I love it.
This house, even though it's more than I want to spend, I'll buy it right now.
So that's contrast.
So everything is only compared to other things.
Now imagine the contrast when you've got Trump in trial for some kind of accounting irregularity.
That's first of all the same thing that Hillary Clinton did with the Steele dossier, just saying something was legal expense when it clearly was something else.
And the entire public doesn't even know that it should be a crime.
And even CNN's Fareed Zakaria is saying that it's lawfare and nobody would be in charge of this unless they were named Trump.
All right, so hold that.
That's your contrast.
Now at the same time that this trial over literally nothing is being held, a trial over literally gold bars sewed into your jacket, but it gets better.
He's a Democrat, but it gets better.
He was in the job when he took the bribes.
He was in Joe Biden's old job, the most bribe-able job of all jobs, because he was, what was he, head of some kind of foreign relations thing.
So the contrast is showing a real Democrat criminal with real gold bars who really was in the same job that Biden was in for years.
Do you think Biden didn't take anything when he was in the most bribe-able job of all jobs?
It's going to be hard for the public to believe he didn't take a little something.
So, the Gold Bar Bob Trial is the most perfect, delightful twist.
It gives you exactly the contrast that's the kill shot on all the lawfare, and it could not be timed more perfectly.
Bill Ackman challenged people to a little experiment.
Boy, he's getting a lot of attention in the political forum, and I'm here for it.
I don't agree with everything that Bill Ackman says, but He does start from what makes sense, and he doesn't depart from there.
He might get an answer different than I would get.
I might have different context, for example.
But I like the fact that he does not depart from what are the facts, what's the most reasonable way to interpret it.
You need more of him.
You need a lot more of him.
So here's another thing he's doing.
To me, this is just a public good.
I mean, there's nothing in it for him.
It's just a public good.
He says that, um, as an experiment, he points us toward a Time Magazine article that summarizes an interview with Trump.
And they says, look at how they summarize the interview, but then look at the full transcript.
And his contention is, if you look at the full transcript, it will be real obvious how biased the summary is.
Now I haven't done the experiment, but I trust him, you know, and other people were commenting that they could see it right away.
And I think that's really, really valuable.
That's the sort of thing I want our smartest people to be telling the public.
Tell them that you can see it yourself.
Here's a real live experiment of real live news that's fresh.
Look at the transcript.
Look what they said about it.
Now that's the same technique used to kill Trump on the bleach hoax and the fine people hoax.
Now, Ackman doesn't mention those two hoaxes, but once he teaches you that the transcript can be different from somebody's bad summary of it, well, then you're primed to understand the other things that you've been fooled about.
So that's good.
However, he goes a little too far, in my opinion, and he says that this is why he prefers podcasts and long-form interviews.
To which I say, oh, Bill, you're so close.
And I had to add in my repost the documentary effect.
The worst way you could be fooled, meaning most effective way, is a long form anything.
If you listen to one person on a podcast tell you a bunch of truths, you're going to believe it's true.
And the longer it goes, the more you're going to believe it.
If you get three hours of Joe Rogan with one guest saying something's true, you're going to think it's true when they're done.
The only thing that works is long form, so you don't leave anything out, a host who is strong, who can shut people down and say, all right, you know, let's keep this on track, and people on opposite sides who are both capable.
So that if somebody makes a claim, the other person can say, well, you know, that source is bad or whatever.
And then also it can't be timed.
It can't have a hard stop, because somebody will just try to talk over the other person.
So, that's the model that works.
I saw Lex Friedman tried that model recently with something, and I didn't watch it, but it was in the right direction.
So, Bill Ackman, I would just add that if you don't have both sides showing, you get the documentary effect, and it's not going to help you as much as you think.
All right.
Following in the good role model form of Bill Ackman, who is clearly trying to do what's good for the world here, I'm going to try to model that a little bit right now.
And there's something that I can say that not all of you can say yet.
So if I say it, I'll prime the room and get it ready for you so you can come in after.
Now, I've been saying it for a while, but the more I say it, the better it is.
We're never going to solve our problems unless we can say what they are out loud and with reality.
You can't solve the problem if you're pretending it's something that it isn't.
And our biggest problem right now is batshit crazy women, mostly on the super progressive side.
Now you might say, but, but, but Scott, there's tons of people who agree with them and so it's not just women.
No, it's mostly the women because if they lost If the women were not a unified bloc, the Democrats wouldn't have any power.
It's the unified bloc of women.
And every time you see a story of batshit liberal white women doing batshit crazy things, you have to tell yourself, these are not opinions.
These are people who have been driven to madness by the news, because the news has to get you frightened.
And so the people who are most easily frightened, the ones who are Mentally the least stable, which tends to be people under 25, and in this case it looks like liberal women, are being driven crazy.
And we're treating it like it's an opinion.
We don't have different opinions, there's just some people have been driven crazy by the news.
And by the way, there's nothing I'm saying that you can't observe.
You can turn on the news, And you can watch them say, climate change is going to kill you all, and Trump's a dictator, and he's going to take your freedom, and you know, your bodily autonomy will be lost.
Right?
None of that shit's true.
It's just that if you get people to believe it, you will drive a certain percentage of the public literally crazy.
And that's what's happened.
So to imagine that we have some kind of debate over the policies, It's like pretending you're in the imaginary world.
No.
We have a news which is driving crazy a portion of our public intentionally, very intentionally, and to make them crazy gives somebody else, not the people who are crazy, but somebody above them, somebody in power, it gives them power.
And that's why they do it.
Yeah.
So we need to treat it as mental illness and not as opinion.
All right.
Uh, Elon Musk had a victory over Australia's censorship.
I guess they were trying to punish, uh, well, I don't know.
I don't know the details of this case, but, um, there was something that X couldn't do a video of, uh, one of the, the Sydney church stabbing incident, I guess.
And, uh, they took it to court and they won.
Now that might be a small victory.
It might be a small victory, but at least it's an indication you can win.
And it's an indication that, at least in Musk's case, he's not going to go cheap.
If it matters, he's going to put the money behind it.
And, oh my God, is that useful.
Have you noticed that the most useful people in the news are all Democrats who have wised up?
Fareed Zakaria, very useful.
Wised up.
Bill Ackman.
Very useful.
Wised up.
Elon Musk?
Very useful.
Wised up.
Scott Adams?
Well, make your own opinion.
But I don't identify as a Republican, and never have.
Have I?
I don't think I have.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't think I have.
Yeah, oh, and Bill Maher would be another one.
It's not a coincidence.
It's not a coincidence that the adults in the room are starting to find the same place.
All right.
Dr. Peter McCullough, you know him as one of the famous doctors in the pandemic.
And he's saying now that he's discovered That there's a document that came out that showed that Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield was paying doctors a lot for getting their people vaccinated.
Meaning that, and the claim is that a doctor could make as much as a quarter of a million dollars a year if they injected a substantial portion of their patients.
Now, it could be more, it could be less, depending on the doctor and the situation, but you could make a quarter of a million dollars more.
Let me ask you this.
How many of you know what the income of a doctor is?
What's the average income of a doctor?
I want to see if you know that.
Now, of course, if you're a surgeon or a cardiologist or something, you know, you could be a million dollars a year or more.
If you're a plastic surgeon, it could be millions per year.
But what if you're a general practitioner?
You're a general practitioner.
What do you think you make per year?
You're lucky if you make $250.
This would double your income.
If this is true, it would double the income of the doctor.
Now, do you think that would cause doctors to be, let's say, not as objective as they might have been about whether or not you should get the vaccination?
Well, the claim is that if this is true, and the document is accurate, and there's no context we're missing, That a big explanation of why doctors were not, let's say, complaining as much as you thought that they would, is because they were doubling their income to give vaccinations.
Now, I will give you a little bit of a warning on this one.
I do not consider Dr. McCullough to be a credible source.
So I just have to say that directly.
And that's based on I think he's still clinging to the sudden deaths of the athletes, which has been the most debunked claim of all time.
Now, I'm not saying that the vaccinations are good for you.
I'm not saying that he didn't get some stuff right.
I'm just saying that's a really big one to get wrong.
So, just no matter what he got right, just know that he got a really big one wrong.
Like, really wrong.
So, put it in context.
If the things he got right are right, you've got to give him full credit for anything he got right right.
All right.
TikTok.
Apparently, they've spent $7 million trying to beat the ban that Biden has now signed.
Ban or divestment, I guess.
And The big mistake, according to insiders, DC insiders, the mistake that TikTok made was ignoring the elephant in the room, which was the concerns that the Chinese Communist Party could leverage the user data for nefarious purposes and even, here's the important part, and even sway public opinion, especially ahead of the election.
Sway public opinion.
There's still people on Rumble who believe my husband apology.
You fell for two pranks.
The prank about what my beliefs were about vaccinations, and then the further prank that I apologized for it.
Neither of those things happened.
But you're double pranked.
All right, talk among yourselves about that, because it's a stupid conversation.
But back to TikTok.
So, do you remember how many times I was screaming into the microphone, it's not about the secure data, it's about the persuasion, about TikTok?
Do you all remember that?
It's not the data.
I mean, that's important too.
It's the persuasion.
And nobody believed it, I think, until Gaza.
And then you could see the persuasion.
And then everybody was like, whoa, whoa, it's a persuasion problem.
Yeah, like I've been screaming at you for two, what, since 2018?
Since 2018, I've been screaming, it's persuasion, it's persuasion!
And now the news says that the major mistake was that TikTok did not take seriously the persuasion complaint.
Well, according to Brendan Carr, who's a Republican FCC commissioner, And a big TikTok critic.
Now, Brendan Carr has been on the right side of this issue from the jump.
So if you want to know one of the good guys, Brendan Carr, FCC Commissioner, has been very much totally right from the start on everything and pushed it hard and got to this place.
So that's one of the most impressive Wins that you'll see in politics.
So Brendan Carr, he's the real deal.
And what he said was that TikTok's DC advocacy never addressed those concerns head-on, the persuasion concern, as well as the data.
What they continued to do was to provide non-responsive answers to obfuscate and to focus on how popular the app was.
That's right.
They never addressed, really, The main concern.
So it turns out there wasn't really an argument.
Because some people said, hey, it's too influential.
And then TikTok said, yeah, but a lot of people like it.
Okay, but the problem is, it could change our politics and change the country in a terrible negative way.
And TikTok would say, have you seen our commercials?
A lot of people love TikTok.
Okay, but you're not even addressing it.
So here we are.
All right.
The Gateway Pundits reporting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is going to take coffee prices out of the inflation index.
Why would they do that?
Why would you take the price of coffee out of inflation?
Oh, let's see.
Since September 2023, coffee prices are up 78%.
So I guess that would be the reason you're taking it out of the numbers.
Do you remember a little prediction I made not too long ago that said 100% of the economic data in an election year is fake?
It's all fake.
Because the government that's in charge of the data doesn't want you to see any negative data.
So guess what?
You're not going to see it.
All right, I'm going to say this again because I think it's fun to say.
How could Trump end the fighting in Ukraine on day one if he gets elected?
How many of you believe he could stop the fighting literally on day one?
Like, not even day two.
Like, literally day one.
How many think he could do it?
Because I do.
I'm going to tell you how he could do it.
It goes like this.
I'm the president now, and Ukraine is a zombie war.
It's a zombie war.
Russia isn't going to win.
Ukraine isn't going to win.
NATO isn't going to win.
China isn't going to win.
Nobody's going to win.
Every single person who dies from this moment on is a mistake.
A waste of beautiful human life.
I would ask the militaries of both sides Even if you don't get the order.
Stop fighting.
Just stop.
Because I'm going to make this go away.
We're going to work it out.
Both sides are going to hate it.
Let me say that again.
We're going to work it out.
Both sides are going to hate it.
That's what's called a good deal.
That's what it looks like.
That's what a good deal looks like.
When both sides hate it, but they're willing to live with it.
And I'm going to make this go away.
Because we don't fight zombie wars.
We don't fight zombie wars.
We don't fight zombie wars, where you have no hope of winning and no hope of losing.
You talk those out.
You negotiate.
Because everybody's on the same side now, which is, this doesn't make sense.
Everybody's on that page.
Only something corrupt could keep this moving forward, and that's not where we're coming from.
We're coming from, let's save some lives, let's make some money, let's have a happy life.
Let's wind down this zombie war and acknowledge what we all see.
It's not going anywhere.
There's no winning to be had.
Let's figure it out.
Now, that's day one.
I believe that he could stop the bullets from flying on day one.
As long as that message got to at least the generals.
And as long as one side stopped fighting.
Like, you know, if one side stopped completely and the other side decided, oh, this is our, this is our, our time.
But I feel if one of the sides literally just said, you know, screw my leader, I'm just going to stop fighting.
And you just tell the other side, look, we're going to stop fighting today because obviously this is just going to be worked out.
There's no point in shooting each other.
If either side sent it to the other, don't you think the other side would stand down?
Or at least test it, you know, maybe stand there for a day.
Just see what happens.
No.
Well, certainly the CIA would not want them to do it.
So there'd be a lot of pressure.
Putin might not want him to do it, so it'd be a lot of pressure.
But I got a feeling if I were a general and I were in the front line, and I knew I was in a zombie war, and I knew it was going to be over in maybe a few weeks, I don't know if I would have any reason to shoot another bullet.
So yes, I'm not going to predict that he could end the war in one day.
I'm saying that if you don't think that's completely possible, I think you're wrong.
We're in a situation where it's completely possible.
Scott, Putin is laughing at this.
Putin is laughing.
You're saying in the comments.
No, you don't know what Putin's thinking.
And if you've been brainwashed into thinking you know what he's thinking.
Cut that out.
Stop doing that.
All right.
Tony Blinken talking about Gaza.
He's doubling down on the Biden idea of stopping the fighting in Rafah and maybe Gaza itself.
And he said on Sunday, in what is being called the strongest rebuke of Israel, he said in a TV interview that the United States wants Israeli forces to, quote, get out of Gaza amid what he described as, quote, a horrible loss of life of innocent civilians.
So, get out of Gaza is a lot different.
Get out of Gaza is a lot different from fight your war, you know, in the south in a way that protects civilians.
He's going full get out.
How do you see this as anything but supporting Iran over the United States or over Israel?
Aren't they saying it directly now?
If you're backing Hamas to be back in power, which everybody knows that's what would happen, if Israel just walked away, Hamas would just rebuild and be right back where they were.
So wouldn't that be a direct case of the Biden administration helping Hamas Now, they would say they're helping the civilians, but the effect would be to help Hamas.
And Hamas is a proxy for Iran, so wouldn't they be just helping Iran?
And aren't they saying it directly and out loud that we're backing Iran?
Because that wouldn't be like the zombie war situation where nobody could win anything.
Hamas actually thinks it can win something.
You know, they actually have a plan that they believe in the long, long run can take over Israel.
So, there's a conversation that I don't quite understand that suggests that Obama, in the Obama days, that Obama had a plan.
Can somebody give me a fact check on this?
That Obama had a plan to Keep Iran strong because it was a good sort of adult situation.
In other words, it would keep the Middle East maybe stable by having some kind of balance of power.
Is that a real thing?
Was it ever a real thing that Obama was, I don't want to say pro-Iran, but not wanting to destroy them because they were some kind of stability there?
Is any of that true?
It was a counterbalance.
Yeah, yeah, getting out of Gaza seems like the problem that caused where we are now.
Yeah, U.S.
pulling out is supporting Iran.
Well, the U.S.
isn't really pulling out.
Yeah, I don't know.
I'm a little confused about this because I guess the main thing I see is that there's no way this could be good for getting re-elected.
Can you make an argument that this would be good for Biden to get re-elected?
Because I don't see it.
Could there possibly be enough pro-Palestinian votes that he would come out ahead By doing something that is so clearly negative for Israel.
Is there anybody who's calculated that that could work for him?
I don't see how.
You think he's doing it for the votes in one state?
Michigan or something?
I just don't see it.
It doesn't look like anybody could think this is a good plan for getting re-elected.
Do you know what that tells me?
What is more important than getting re-elected?
If they think, you know, Trump is the devil and stuff.
It feels to me like there's something that's bigger, something that's bigger than getting reelected, while everything else is smaller than that.
Why would this be the one thing that's more important than getting elected to the point where he would throw away his chances to support it?
Well, I see some of you speculating that, you know, Valerie Jarrett or somebody behind the scenes is the real power.
But if somebody behind the scenes is the real power, they're also Democrats, and they don't want to lose the presidency.
So how do you make that make sense?
You know, here's the weird thing.
The best way it makes sense is if he's operating on principle.
Which I doubt, because it would be like the first time that ever happened.
But how in the world do you make sense of it?
Like it does make sense on principle that you just say we can't be involved in backing something that's going to look to the world like a genocide.
Now let me give you another wild possibility.
Now I remind you that my opinion of what Israel does has no bearing on anything.
So I don't support Israel.
Because the ADL is after me, and so I can't hold those two things in my head at the same time.
I can't support Israel and also have the ADL, which I know doesn't work for Israel directly, but you know they're also an attack dog, and you know they could turn them off if they wanted to.
You know that, right?
ADL can't operate if Israel says they're garbage.
So Israel can turn them off and turn them on anytime they want, even though they don't work for them.
So I can't back Israel.
Because, you know, an Israel entity is after me, and I just can't... I can't be on your side if you're after me.
That just can't happen.
However, I ask the following question.
What's this going to look like in 10 years?
What's this going to look like in 10 years?
I think the world is going to call it a genocide.
What do you think?
No, Israel won't.
Israel won't call it a genocide.
And our American public, you know, probably will be a little split on it.
I don't think the politicians at the top will necessarily call it that.
But do you think that the world will decide in 10 years that this was not a genocide?
And by the way, I'm not saying it is or is not, because I'm just observing.
My opinion doesn't matter.
In my opinion, it will obviously be called a genocide, because there's enough anti-Israel juice in the world that I think that will become the dominant narrative.
Do you disagree?
In 10 years, will history say it was a genocide, or will history say, well, they had to do it?
Because whether or not they had to do it probably won't make any difference.
Their motivation will just not be part of the analysis.
Yeah, you disagree?
Now remember, I'm not asking you what your opinion will be in 10 years.
You might be answering the wrong question.
I'm not asking you what your opinion will be in 10 years.
I'm saying what will the world's general opinion be?
I'm quite sure Given the anti-Israel sentiment that's sort of generally in the UN and places like that, that I feel like it will be labeled a genocide.
I think that it will go down in history like that.
And again, this is not my opinion.
I'm predicting that in 10 years how other people will feel.
I'm not telling you how I feel or I will feel.
Because I actually think it's the wrong question.
Yeah, the whole is it a genocide or not is just the wrong question.
The right question is, what would you do if you were in that situation?
If it happened to America, what do you think we would do?
If it happened to Russia, what do you think they would do?
If it happened to China, what do you think they would do?
Right?
And so on and so on and so on.
So if you're watching a country act exactly the way yours would, Exactly the way every other country except, you know, maybe Switzerland, you know, it's hard for me to say, oh, they shouldn't do that.
When you know, your country would have done the same thing in slow motion.
We would have made every decision the same way.
So, so I neither condemn it nor support it because, uh, it just is.
It's like condemning the air.
I can get, I can prove I can condemn the rain, but it won't stop it from raining.
So anyway, I've got a question here and one possibility, a question about why the Biden administration's policy is what it is.
One possibility is this, that the people most deeply involved, the Tony Blinkens, believe that they will be tarred with a genocide.
That's what I think.
I think Tony Blinken, specifically and personally, does not want to have a genocide on his permanent record.
And he knows that if they just go along with everything that Israel asked for, it's going to be on his permanent record.
There's no way around it.
He's going to be genocide blinking for the rest of his life.
But, if they put up a little fight, and the fight doesn't make any difference to the outcome, probably won't, right?
I don't even know if in the real world the weapons are being withheld.
Do you?
It's entirely possible that you're watching Good Cop, Bad Cop, and we've already delivered every single bomb they ever asked for.
You don't think that's possible?
I'm not saying it's happening.
I'm saying that in the real world, you could easily imagine where the United States said to Israel, look, BB, there's no way we can back this, because we'll just become genocide backers.
But at the same time, we also know if we were you, we'd be doing the same thing.
So how about this?
You do what you got to do.
We'll make sure you have the assets to do it.
But in public, we're going to be fighting against you.
Because when it's done, we need to say, yeah, we acted in a moral way, at least a little bit moral.
When it's done, you don't need to answer to that.
Because you're doing what everybody would have done in that situation.
That's completely different.
You get to be moral when you're not there.
Let me say it a better way.
Morality and ethics are a luxury that's provided to the people who are not there.
That's us.
So we have the luxury of being, oh, we're moral people.
We don't believe in any genocides.
There's no good reason for that.
Yeah, that's because we're not there.
Do you remember how you felt after 9-11?
Just think back to how you felt on 9-11.
Do you know how many people said the Middle East should be turned into glass?
A lot.
A lot.
So, let's be a little bit open-minded about what you would feel like if you had been in Israel on October 7th.
Again, I'm not defending anybody, I'm just describing.
It's just a description.
So, I think that morality has to bifurcate.
The people who are there have to deal with reality, which is, we need to make those risks completely go away, or our brains cannot survive.
And that's real too.
Yeah, you can't live there if you know that your government can't protect you.
So there's a psychological element to this that is known only to the people who are there.
If you're not there, you don't have the psychological damage.
And so you're like, oh, in my ethical and moral way, I think there should be no genocides and there should be two nations living in peace.
As if that's an option.
If that were an option, I would be advocating for it.
It's clearly not an option to have two states living next to each other.
That's not going to happen.
All right.
One possibility is that the Gazan residents will be settled somewhere else, permanently.
But maybe somewhere in the West Bank.
Imagine, if you will, That you try to rebuild Gaza at the same time that you're resettling the people back there.
It's not really going to work.
There's going to be so much, you know, was just destroyed.
But how much easier would it be to build a new city on just fresh ground?
Way, way, way easier.
So if you want what's best, For the Palestinians, you would keep them in, you know, Palestinian historical lands, I guess you might say.
Some would argue.
And you just say, how about we give you a new city that's better than Gaza?
Because we don't have to clean everything up first.
Because the cleanup alone, two years?
I'd say two years to clean it up.
But if you start from scratch and say, all right, we're going to buy a couple of farms and turn them into like the best place ever to live.
How fast could you do that?
Kind of fast.
Kind of fast.
And then you could take your time cleaning up Gaza.
And then when you're done, and it's possible that people could live there again, you decide what that looks like then.
But you don't have to decide in advance, because it's going to be years before that place is useful.
So just consider the possibility that you could upgrade the lives of the, let's call them, the innocent guys at residence.
Give them something to look forward to, and it might be the cheaper way to go, too.
Just build from scratch something you know will work.
You could easily imagine spinning up a desalinization plant quickly.
You could easily imagine trying to put in a nuclear facility or a solar panel farm to power it.
You know, it would be easy for me to imagine that the New Gaza, let's call it New Gaza, would be the best place in the world to live.
Generally speaking, I'm going to make this claim, I guarantee you that the future is building new cities from scratch.
100% guarantee you, there's nothing going to stop that from happening.
And it will be the biggest thing.
So in the future, building a new city from scratch will be the biggest economic engine in the world.
And this could be the best case, where you're sort of forced into it.
But let's see what we can do.
You know, if you build from scratch, Your transportation costs would be almost nothing.
Your crime fighting would be almost nothing.
Your energy costs would be almost nothing.
Even your food costs you could cut by 30% if you engineered the town.
And you could get rid of chronic illness because you could just grow your own organic food locally and make sure that nobody had a bunch of preservatives and chemicals in them.
So you could solve almost every big problem in civilization By starting from scratch.
You can solve inflation, you can solve the debt.
Because if you have a lot of debt, the people are going to get taxed, they don't have much money to live.
But if you take their living expense down 90%, and they still get paid the same amount, but their living expense is down 90%, let's take college.
AI is going to make college cost basically nothing.
So the things that used to cost us immense amounts of money are going to go to zero, or close to it, if you design carefully.
So design is the future.
We don't even have to invent, we just have to design better.
And that's where we're heading.
Ladies and gentlemen, this brings me to the close of what is no doubt the best show you've ever seen.
A little bit long today, but worth every bit.
I'm going to say a few words to the locals people only.
If I can make this user interface do what I want it to do.
