Sunday news and Scott's valuable opinions on all of it~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, AI Full-Length Movies, TikTok Deal, Factory Robots Production, AGI Timeline Prediction, Denmark Mystery Drones, FBI Whistleblowers Flood, Michael Cohen, James Cohen, John Brennan, Bernie Sanders Anti-ICE, Mike Benz, Epstein Hypothesis, Bill Clinton, Stephen Miller, Antifa Insurrectionists, Bill Maher, Mastermind Obama Allegations, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, Unarmed Trespassing Insurrection, Kamala Harris, Uninformed Mark Ruffalo, Thin Veil Civility, Dunning-Kruger Far-Left, David Khait, Unionized Professional Protesters, Mamdani Paid Supporters, Corey DeAngelis, Randi Weingarten's Assistant Email, Autism School Fraud, ICE Doxxing Arrests, Cop-Killer Assata Shakur, Silicon Valley China Silence, Israel Hamas War, Tucker Carlson, PM Netanyahu, Ukraine War, Pavel Durov, Columbia President's VISA, 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.
Do you like it where I put my cartoons on the back?
All right.
Let me do that.
Makes it look more official.
There we go.
There we go!
That didn't work.
Hold on.
Apparently, when you knock your papers, it knocks your camera right off of your computer.
So now I know not to do that so vigorously.
Don't be so vigorous when you pound your papers.
You know, I don't, for the life of me, I don't understand why the camera thing that's supposed to attach to your screen has the tiniest, tiniest little edge to catch the edge.
Of course, it's going to fucking.
Sorry.
Of course it's going to fall off.
It's designed so it should fall off with the slightest movement.
God.
Let's try this again.
Ah, better.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization and skull coffee with Scott Adams.
You've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass of tanker, Chelsea stein, a canteen jug of Laska vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope meeting day of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called, hold on, hold on.
I'm getting some kind of ESP message.
Something from, I believe, Canada, Winnipeg.
Winnipeg.
Is there somebody in Winnipeg who has a birthday today?
Ellie?
Ellie?
Are you 12 years old today in Winnipeg?
I'm getting some kind of weird ESP message.
Well, happy birthday, Ellie.
This one's to you.
That's just in case you were not aware that my show is mostly magic.
It's mostly magic.
Well, did you know there's a study according to Mass General Brigham that cocoa cocoa supplements have surprising anti-aging potential.
So if you eat cocoa, your inflammation markers will drop and you'll be happy.
And if you're smart enough to combine your cocoa with your coffee, you could live forever.
I think that's what science says.
You will live forever.
All right.
Science.
Well, I wonder if there's any science that they didn't need to do.
They could have just asked me.
Oh, in SciPost, Eric Nolan.
You must recognize his name by now.
I wonder if he knows that I talk about him almost every other show.
Eric Nolan is writing.
The scientists have discovered what they call a surprising link between your gut and your brain.
So if your gut is right, it makes you less depressed and more happy and stuff.
Now, who could tell you that the state of your gut would influence how you feel mentally?
Well, they could have just asked Scott because I've been saying this twice a week in public for years.
Surprising Gut-Brain Link00:08:28
Your body is your brain.
Your body is your brain.
They're not different.
To imagine that, hey, the gut is influencing the brain.
No, it's not.
No, the gut is not influencing the brain.
The gut is part of your brain.
It just is distributed, right?
So once you realize that, everything makes sense.
Your body is your brain.
Well, the movie studio Lionsgate, you know, one of the big ones, looks like they've decided that they can't use AI to make a feature-length movie after all, according to an article in Futurism.
So I guess they've been trying for a year, and they were working with the AI startup Runway.
And you probably have seen all kinds of examples of a 10-second or a 30-second clip where it looks like they made a movie-like thing.
And you said to yourself, Hey, if they can make a 30-second perfect movie, well, all they have to do is just keep doing that until you've added enough 30 seconds together to, hey, got a two-hour movie.
But it turns out that nobody's been able to do that.
The technology just sort of doesn't look like it will, honestly, it doesn't look like it'll ever be there.
So maybe it will.
You know, he hate to bet against technology, but maybe.
So, but they have problems with copyrights and all kinds of things.
And then they're trying to overlay the AI on top of the regular human jobs that they already are associated with.
Can you imagine all the people who knew that if the AI made a proper movie, that they and all their friends that work with them would lose their jobs?
How hard are they going to work to make sure that the AI can make a good movie?
It seems to me that all the people who have a job that would lose their job if AI could make a movie are not the ones who should be implementing it.
But I'll bet they were because, you know, big organization, you know, you don't fire everybody to do the new thing.
You see if you can get the people that you have working there to implement the new thing.
How excited do you think they were about doing that?
And how capable were they to implement AI?
Not excited, not capable.
So not too surprised that after one year, they might give up on that.
Well, do you know how I keep telling you that I don't really believe there's a TikTok deal?
Even though it's announced, even though we've heard details, I'm not so sure there's really a TikTok deal because China.
You've heard of China?
Well, now CNBC Dylan Butts is writing that Beijing has been, what he says, is conspicuously quiet about the TikTok deal.
In other words, we don't have confirmation from China, really, that there's a deal.
Now, do you think that China will just decide to be quiet about it?
Does that make sense to you?
Or is it more likely that they're going to yank that football away from Trump yet again after he's announced the deal so that he looks weak and pathetic and it looks like he doesn't know what he's doing?
I don't know.
Maybe the deal will happen.
But at the moment, I'd say it's a coin flip.
It's probably a 50-50.
So don't get too excited about a TikTok deal.
May or may not happen.
According to interesting engineering, China has created quite a few robots in the last year.
Now, mostly these would be factory robots, you know, the big one-arm robot, not a humanoid robot.
But guess how many robots China has built and implemented in one year?
Before you guess how many China has done, I'll tell you how many the United States has done.
So these are just factory robots.
Again, just the big one-arm thing usually.
So American factories have installed 34,000 of these robots in the past year.
Now that's impressive.
34,000 robots implemented.
Yeah, they're actually in action right now.
Let's see how China did.
300,000.
Oh, well, suddenly that 34,000 doesn't sound so big, does it?
Yep, 300,000 robots they've rolled out.
Now, I feel like China has a bigger problem than we do because doesn't that mean that 300,000 people don't have a job?
That's kind of what that means, right?
At least, I mean, it's not one-to-one, but I don't know how China survives because they have to go robotic to be competitive.
But where does everybody go to work?
Well, they'll figure it out.
Well, Google's deep mind, the meta chief, Jan Lacon, he thinks that AGI, the really super general intelligence version, which would be way different than the current AI.
It would be the good one where it can actually think and it doesn't hallucinate and all that stuff.
Thinks that might be five to ten years away.
Now, those of you who have spent even one minute in the real world, what does it really mean when somebody says something might be five to ten years away?
What's the way to interpret that?
Well, let me tell you.
Let's take a page out of the fusion, nuclear fusion.
How long has nuclear fusion been five to ten years away?
30 or 50 years, maybe 50 years.
It's been five years away.
Now, it might actually be five years away now because they've actually greenlit some fusion plants.
But if you look at the total history of how long they've been saying it's five years away, it's about 50 years, right?
Some saying in the comments, some say 60 years, something like that.
So when Meta says, and this is somebody who is in the middle of it, so he would know, when they say five to 10 years, I hear we don't know how to do it, and nobody has any idea when we'll figure out how to do it.
It's one thing if it's just an engineering problem or where they just have to train it more.
But that's not anything that has to do with what's holding up AGI.
They just don't know how to do it at all.
Nobody knows how to do it.
So why would you even be able to guess that you'd be able to do a thing that you don't know how to do and you don't even know the path to get there?
How could you predict it would be five to ten years?
On what basis would you predict that?
Yeah, it would be like saying we're going to have an anti-gravity car in five to ten years.
No, we don't have any idea how to do it.
No, nobody has any idea how to do it.
But five to ten years, because they're working on it real hard.
Yeah, that's what it sounds like.
Meanwhile, in other AI news, Elon Musk's AI, the ex-AI, is accusing OpenAI, their big competitor, of stealing trade secrets by hiring away their staff.
Now, if you were one of these real high-end AI experts, wouldn't you take a job and then make sure you got poached away for way more money?
Why Quitting Jobs Makes Sense00:02:18
It feels like nobody should take a job and then just keep it because they're all being poached, you know, the good ones.
So no matter what salary you negotiated or compensation, you should go there.
You should work one year until you know all their secrets.
And then you should let yourself get poached because you're probably talking about $100 million.
You know, who in the world is going to say, oh, I think I'll use my corporate loyalty instead of taking $100 million?
Well, let me give you some advice that I've given many people, young people usually, when they're trying to figure out, I wonder if I should quit my current job.
I've got this great offer, but I feel like, you know, I told my current employer that I would stay here and not be a job hopper.
So I don't know.
I think I can't take that promotion and raise that other company.
And then they say to me, but that's the right decision, right?
Because I want to be a good person.
You know, I want to be true to my word.
If I said I would stay here for a few years, I don't want to leave for money.
And I look at them and say, you don't owe them a fucking thing.
Do you think they wouldn't fire you in a heartbeat if they had any good reason, as in it would make more money if they fire you?
Of course they would.
You owe them nothing.
If it's good for you to quit that job and take another job, you should quit that job and take another job every time.
There's no ambiguity there.
You are working for you.
You're not working for your boss.
You're working for your next job.
I put that in one of my books: that your job is not your job.
Your job is to get a better job.
The moment you think your job is your job, you're trapped.
As soon as you go, oh, this is a stepping stone, and I'm going to step as fast as I can step, just as fast as I can.
So that's the advice I give to people.
It's good advice.
All right.
Whistleblowers and Drone Vendettas00:10:54
Sam Altman in an interview recently said he thinks that just because AI will become incredibly intelligent and have all these abilities, he says it will not become the center of the human story.
Now, what he means by that, he said, quote, we're wired to care about people, not machines.
Now, I saw a quote from Naval the other day that seemed to be, I think, I'm not sure, I can't read either of their minds, but I think it's in the same direction, which is to say that we will care about art that comes from people, but we won't really care about what AI does.
AI will just be a tool.
So people will always be the thing that absolutely lights us up, gives us our oxytocin, our dopamine, gives us all our meaning in life.
It's the only thing we're interested in, mostly because it's an extension of our mating impulse.
And I think that AI is exciting because it's new, but eventually will sink into the background of our experience as just a tool.
And it sounds like that's pretty close to what Sam Altman is saying.
And I would, I mean, it's just a prediction.
You don't know for sure.
But I think that prediction is right on.
I think he's got that.
Well, a Danish airport, according to AFP, is closed again because they got a suspicious new drone sighting.
And apparently they're going to close their entire airspace from Monday to Friday next week because they're hosting some European summits and they don't have control of their own airspace.
Do you know how embarrassing that would be as a nation?
It's as embarrassing as all those drones that were over New Jersey.
Why don't you go up and take a look and see what they are?
What?
You can't do that?
We don't have any way to just go look at them.
Well, how about shooting one down?
Shoot one down.
You know, they're drones.
There's nobody in it.
And, you know, if they're not, if they're somehow, I don't know, they don't have transponders or they're not acting totally legally and we don't know what they are, shoot one down.
We'll find out what it is.
Nope, can't do that.
Well, is there anything we can do?
Nope.
We just wait and they just fly around our restricted airspace.
And that's where Denmark's at.
Nope.
They apparently don't have anything like an air defense.
Now, who do you think would do this?
On one hand, I feel like it could be just some private drone operators with unusually large drones.
Because I doubt these are the small ones, right?
I assume that these are pretty sizable drones.
They're not, you know, not the ones you hold in your hand.
I haven't heard either way.
But it could be something domestic where somebody's just playing with the government.
Could be Russian.
But do you think Russia has enough upside benefit for doing that?
What would exactly be the play?
What would Putin be trying to do?
Just sowing, I don't know, sowing doubt about their ability to defend themselves if World War III breaks out.
Would that be it?
No.
You think it's a false flag maybe to generate an excuse for war?
That's not a bad idea.
That's not bad.
Maybe it's somebody who's, you know, at least on paper is on our side, just trying to make sure that we really know we got to take care of this Putin problem.
Maybe.
It's not a terrible hypothesis, but it feels like all of the hypotheses are sort of in the category of, well, maybe, but that doesn't feel like a good plot.
If the most you can get out of it is, well, maybe it's something bad.
Does that really affect the world too much?
I don't know.
It's a good mystery.
At the same time, Poland shuts some airports, and NATO's on high alert because in this case, they think that there's some Russian drone activity.
Now, if you knew that Russia was definitely behind the drones that are sort of plaguing the airspace over Poland, a NATO country, would that tell you, well, if they're doing it to Poland, you know, probably they're doing it to Denmark.
But why would they just pick Denmark of all places?
Like, why not?
Sergio, you're so right.
Apparently, somebody in the comments, I saw somebody said that I don't understand the Islamic risk.
And somebody had to point out that I have a popular book that's very much, I mean, it's fiction, but it certainly explains the risk.
So, yeah, I'm quite tuned into that.
All right.
So, drones of plenty.
According to General Flynn, he says that a bunch of whistleblowers from the FBI are coming forward and that he says that we're being flooded with whistleblowers.
Now, I don't know what a flood would be.
A flood of FBI whistleblowers?
Would that be three?
I mean, three would be a lot.
Would it be five?
So it makes you wonder what is this flood of whistleblowers.
And it has something to do with, you know, Comey being indicted seems to have opened some kind of floodgate.
Speaking of floods.
And Flynn says that Comey should probably hurry up and flip to get a lighter sentence because every day that goes by, there's going to be a new whistleblower.
So it could be that Comey's future depends on how long he waits.
If he waits too long, maybe more whistleblowers will come in with information that would increase the charges.
But if he flipped today, could he make a deal that says you hold me guiltless even from things you don't know about yet?
You know, as long as it was during my job as the FBI director.
So that's an interesting prospect.
Do you think that Comey would flip with or without the whistleblowers?
But the whistleblowers do add some pressure to the potential flipping.
I'm going to say that it would be too dangerous to flip on these people.
The people that he could flip on are the people that can kill you.
Doesn't mean they've ever killed anybody, but definitely the people who have had the jobs where you decide who gets to live or die.
So I don't know.
I'm not sure the whistleblowers are going to have any goods, but I don't think that Comey is going to flip.
What do you think?
I feel like he would go to jail before he would flip.
If he had anything to flip on, we don't know that.
Well, Michael Cowen, you all know him, the disgraced ex-lawyer handler fixer for Trump, who went to jail himself.
So because he was so anti-Trump, after his legal problem started, especially, he's been a regular guest on MSNBC.
But MSNBC may be having a little second thoughts about that.
Because Cowen is not only somebody who knows everything about the situation, but a lawyer.
So he's not just some guy.
He's a lawyer as well.
And he believes that James Comey did, in fact, weaponize the government against Trump and that the evidence will show it.
And President Trump will be proven right.
And that Comey will be will be convicted.
And that the evidence will, quote, validate the vendetta of Trump, validate the vendetta.
Because it's not really a vendetta if they show that he was trying to overthrow the government, Comey.
It's not a vendetta, then it's just justice.
So I love the fact that Michael Cohen got all this credibility on MSNBC and then goes on and just pisses in their punch bowl and they have to sit there and just take it.
It's like, yeah, this punch is delicious now.
All right, that was too visual.
John Brennan has done a deep dive into his own, the accusations against him.
And he's decided that I just don't see any case against me.
Now, I'd like to give you my impression of John Brennan saying that there doesn't seem to be a case against him because I don't know what drugs he's on or because I've seen him talk a lot of times.
I've never seen him talk that way.
Here's him just talking about his own charges.
Well, I'll tell you, the things about me are, well, there doesn't seem to be anything about me.
It looks like I'm completely innocent and no evidence whatsoever that anything is going to get me in trouble.
Did you see it?
Did you see the video live?
There's something going on with that man.
In the comments, somebody says cocaine.
I'm not going to accuse him of that because I have no reason to believe he's on cocaine.
But if he said, can you describe what it looked like?
Something Going On00:14:43
Yeah, it looked like he was on cocaine.
He had the Gavin Newsom, a little bit too much jumpiness.
Now, it sticks out if you've watched this same person for years and he's not always like that.
If he was always like that, you would either say, well, that's just the way he is, or maybe every single time he goes on TV, he does cocaine, but that seems unlikely.
Adderall, I know a lot of people on Adderall.
I've never seen them act like that.
They just have a lot of energy.
What he was doing was a different thing.
He was like fidgeting uncontrollably.
Yeah.
All right.
Bernie Sanders saying in a speech, he says, we've got to figure out a way to stop ICE from what they're doing as soon as possible.
Is it my imagination, or is the entire Democrat Party dedicated to find out what works and then stopping it?
Am I just making that up?
You're seeing it too, right?
They figure out what works, such as having a police force.
Hey, that looked like that works.
Let's see if we can get rid of that.
Then there's capitalism.
They say, it looks like that capitalism made us the strongest country.
Let's get rid of that.
And then they look at the border.
They say, hmm, closed border seems to be keeping us very safe.
Let's get rid of that.
Let's get rid of that.
Then they know that homeschooling would be very helpful, make a little more competitive situation, improve everything.
Let's get rid of that.
Yeah, let's get rid of that.
How about high school sports?
High school sports seems to be working really well.
You got the boys playing with boys.
You got the women playing with women.
Let's get rid of that.
Yeah, let's get rid of that.
Right?
Am I making this up?
That literally they just look at what is working best to keep us safe and prosperous.
And then they go, hmm, hmm, I think we should get rid of that right away, soon as possible.
Well, Mike Benz has a take on the Epstein situation that is fairly complete.
Now, I don't know, we don't know how accurate it is because there's still some mysteries about Epstein.
But if Mike Benz has, let's say he's landed on a point of view on this, I would take that very seriously because he's very credible.
And he believes that Epstein brokered deals between the U.S., Israeli, British, and Saudi intelligence, probably secretly financed some political activities, and thinks that Israeli prime minister, ex-prime minister, Ehud Barak, visited his island without security.
Now, does that seem like a good idea?
On one hand, you could say you don't need security on Epstein Island because it's such a controlled environment.
You know, the odds of somehow some terrorist knowing he was there and getting all the way there and getting to him, you know, pretty low.
So on one hand, you wouldn't really need any security if you went to the island.
You know, you could imagine that you'd feel that way if you were an ex-prime minister, not a current prime minister.
But the other reason that you might want to have no security would be you don't want them to be witnesses, whatever it is you're up to, maybe.
Now, there's no evidence that Ehud Barak did anything illegal or did anything with women.
There's no evidence of that.
But he does look like, given the vast number of contacts, it does seem that he might have been a handler of some kind, or possibly Israel's contact with him, but not the only contact.
The thinking here is that Epstein probably worked with whoever had money and wherever it made sense, as long as they were allies of the U.S., it looks like.
So what do you think?
So I guess Bill Clinton, oh, Epstein visited the Bill Clinton White House at least 17 times.
So here's the, I guess the picture that's emerging.
The emerging picture is that Trump did not do anything illegal, at least in front of anybody who's, you know, who would have been a witness.
But that Bill Clinton probably was on the plane when there was a rape.
I think that they would call rape in this context specifically underage females.
It doesn't necessarily mean that it was against their will, but the argument is that under a certain age, it doesn't mean anything to say that you're willing.
It's still a crime.
All right.
So it looks like certainly the Clintons have something to explain.
Probably a dozen other important people have something to explain, but probably Trump doesn't.
And that Epstein was certainly connected to some intelligence agencies and Israel was almost certainly one of them because of Ehud Barak, of course.
So I don't know.
We don't know this.
These are not confirmed things.
But the thinking now is that what Trump is doing is protecting other powerful people.
You know what would be the most interesting if you had to write the movie and you had to figure out what's the most interesting thing that we don't know about yet.
To me, the most interesting thing would be if Trump is protecting Bill Clinton.
I don't think you could beat that for an interesting movie.
Now, why?
Bill Clinton might be worth protecting.
Like he might have some secrets of his own.
And it's entirely possible that Trump doesn't hate Bill Clinton.
He might have a different opinion about Hillary, but he might just say, you know what?
I can't take down an ex-president.
Maybe.
Or I can't take down an ex-president who wasn't acting against me.
Obama was acting against Trump.
But Bill Clinton wasn't acting against Trump.
And even his words are not nearly the kinds of things that Hillary says.
So it could be, at one time, I think Bill Clinton and Trump were kind of friendly, right?
It could be that that's who he's protecting, which would be wild, wouldn't it?
That would be absolutely wild.
Would it make you like Trump more or dislike him?
I can't decide.
It might make me like him more because if the reason he's doing it is that he doesn't want to take down a president who wasn't acting against him directly, that's not the worst impulse in the world, even if he's guilty of something.
You know, because that would at least establish some kind of a boundary, some kind of a precedent.
You might not like it, but it would establish a precedent.
Well, Stephen Miller was talking about all the, let's call them the Trump enemy list that included Kobe Clapper, Brandon, Obama, Lisa Monaco, etc.
He said that they all conspired together to try to sabotage the democratic institutions of this country.
This is Stephen Miller again saying this.
He says, I cannot find words harsh enough to condemn the conduct of these conspirators, these insurrectionists.
And I said, oh, there it is.
You need to call them insurrectionists.
If you have the goods, if the evidence shows that that's what they were doing, you need to call them insurrectionists all day long.
You need to take that word away from them so that it makes it a little bit easier to debunk the January 6th thing.
By the way, I think that Bill Maher is one hoax away, and it's the January 6th hoax.
He's one hoax away from completely giving up on Democrats.
Once he realized that he's been hoaxed and he goes in public once a week and acts like somebody who's been bamboozled by his own team, I don't know if he's going to put up with that.
Once he realizes that, number one, give me a fact check on this.
Number one, the Republicans more or less didn't bring weapons to an insurrection.
Number two, there is no known way that anybody has ever suggested that you can take over the United States by trespassing in one building.
Nobody has an idea how you could make that turn into overcoming the country.
And number three, and I need to fact check on this: is it true that nobody involved was charged with the crime of insurrection?
Right?
As far as I know, nobody was even charged.
And given that they were looking for every charge you could throw at them, they were looking at charges that you wouldn't even think were charges.
So if they had anything that could go to insurrection, don't you think they'd be charged?
At least one person?
Nothing.
There is no, I believe there's no documentation, no email, no messages, no testimony that says anybody was thinking in those terms.
Now, there might have been some, you know, a few crazies that who knows what they were saying.
But in terms of the general crowd, the 95% of them, I don't believe there's any evidence of any planning, any planning, that would look like an insurrection.
And then lastly, the dog not barking is that why don't we see every day a new January 6th person telling us why they were there?
Because it's not an insurrection if the people there don't think it is, right?
It doesn't matter if you think it's an insurrection.
If the people involved had no intention, or not even the thought, of overthrowing the country, then that's how can you call that an insurrection?
They have to be thinking it.
I think I will do this thing that will result in overthrowing the country.
If nobody had that thought, and as far as I know, there's no evidence that anybody had that thought.
Again, there might have been a couple of crazies in the crowd, but in terms of the larger nature of the crowd, no.
Now, if I had 60 seconds to just say those things to Bill Maher, I could reprogram him.
Because unlike most people, he actually listens to arguments.
This is my best compliment I could ever give anybody.
He's actually able to find the door, but sometimes you have to shine on flashlight on the doorknob.
But with just the smallest amount of help, I believe he's fully capable of escaping that hoax.
And when he does, I think he'll be done with Democrats.
I think you'll just be done with them at that point.
And I think he also knows the whole Trump is stealing your democracy.
It's not really describing anything that's going on in the real world.
And at some point, he's going to see, you know, presumably Trump leave the office, peaceful turnover.
And that'll change everything.
Although if I'll tell you what's going to happen, if J.D. Vance wins the presidency, The Democrats are going to say, well, it's another term of Trump.
So really, it's just Trump staying in office, but he's doing it in this way that technically he's not staying in office.
But damn it, it's still just Trump running everything.
So Trump will be the back door to J.D. Vance, and J.D. Vance will know he's got to do what Trump wants, even though Trump's out of office, because Trump will have so much influence that he could take down the sitting president if he wanted to, which he could, which he could.
So it doesn't matter if Trump leaves or not, if J.D. backfills, or even Marco Rubio, if anybody who is seemingly loyal to Trump backfills and is the next president, Democrats will say, see, I told you, you stole our democracy.
We just got more Trump, no matter what we do.
So that's happening.
Anyway, let's call all of the Russia hoaxers insurrectionists because that name actually fits.
That's not persuasion.
It's not brainwashing.
It's what they were doing.
It's exactly what they're doing.
And it's exactly not what January 6th people were doing.
So let's use that word right.
Dunning-Kruger Divide00:15:32
Well, the gateway pundit, Jim Hoft, is writing about how Tulsi Gabbard, DNI director, is apparently uncovered yet more documents that seem to go to proving that Obama was behind doctoring the intel to make it look as though Trump and Putin stole the election.
Now, we already had indications that Obama was the mastermind there, but apparently there's more.
I haven't seen them, so I can't judge how credible they are.
But there's now irrefutable evidence, says Jim Hoff, that detail how Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment, a document, that they knew was false.
I believe that is probably proven at this point.
Now, as far as I know, Obama probably would still not be prosecuted even if we had the goods on him.
Is that right?
Because he was a sitting president and we don't go after them for what they did in office.
Maybe, although you could argue that that precedent's been violated.
So if Trump violates it, well, well, maybe he didn't start it.
Maybe.
All right.
And I also think that if Tulsi Gabbard and all the Republicans say, hey, this document is proof, it doesn't mean it's proof because I haven't seen it.
But you can imagine if it's like everything else in the world, the Democrats will read it differently.
And they'll say, oh, no, look at this sentence.
This sentence, the way he worded it, gets him out of trouble.
And then the Republicans will say, that's obviously he's just saying that to stay out of trouble.
It's clear that what he meant.
So I don't believe there is such a thing as a document that everybody would look at and say, oh, yeah, yep.
If that document's real, that Obama's an insurrectionist.
I don't think that's ever going to happen.
We'll just disagree with what we see.
Well, meanwhile, in Portland, the governor of Portland is trying to get Trump not to send the military in for the violence that's happening in the streets and the rioting, etc.
So the governor of Oregon says there's no insurrection.
There's no threat to national security.
No need for military troops in our major city, which would be Portland.
But correct me if I'm wrong.
Those people that are doing the protesting, are they unarmed?
They don't have guns, or they're not brandishing, right?
And are they trespassing in any situations?
Are they trespassing?
Because I was taught by the Democrats that if you are protesting in a way that is unarmed and also trespassing, that that's called an insurrection, an insurrection.
You've heard of that, right?
If you simply walk around without weapons in a building that you're not supposed to be in, that's an insurrection.
Apparently the Democrats think that's how you overtake a country, because that's why they think the January 6s are insurrectionists, because they wandered around without weapons inside a building where they didn't belong.
So I would say Portland is experiencing an insurrection as defined by Democrats.
Republicans, not so much.
But yeah.
Well, it's yet another day of pretending that we can't tell that Kamala Harris is a sloppy drunk.
There are two more videos came out where she's just drunk as a skunk.
Now, it might be prescribed medication.
I mean, it might be Xanax or something like that.
But I've seen drunks.
And I'm pretty sure I've seen people on Xanax.
And this looks drunk.
I mean, I could be wrong, but it just looks so drunk.
It doesn't look stoned.
It looks drunk.
I can tell the difference.
All right.
Here's a reframe for you.
This will change your life.
All I'm going to do is reframe something you've been looking at, and you'll never be able to see it the same again.
You know Mark Ruffalo, so actor Mark Ruffalo.
He's very associated with Democrats and the more left-leaning Democrats.
And he was complaining about why we need the Second Amendment and these, what he calls weapons of war.
I think he means the rifles.
And he acts with whoever he's talking to like he's smart enough that he knows what Republicans don't know and that he knows that these weapons would be useless if the government turned on the people or a dictator started to form.
Now, does that sound like he's right?
No.
No, he is someone who doesn't understand war or guns or anything.
Doesn't understand Republicans.
As I've said many times, I promote no violence whatsoever.
I'm just describing.
I'm not recommending.
I'm not predicting.
I'm just describing.
If some dictator tried to take over the United States, the plan would not be to go shoot the dictator, although we've seen recently that a leader can't be protected outside.
If you put a leader outside, somebody's going to get out of building with one of these, quote, weapons of war, which is literally what was used against Trump and used against Charlie Kirk.
So does the dictator want to live in a world where he can never go outdoors?
Because somebody's going to be on a roof with one of these.
Does the dictator want to live in a world where on day one, all of that dictator's relatives will be rounded up and kept as prisoners for negotiating?
All of their relatives, all of their friends will be rounded up by armed men.
Now, Mark Ruffalo, did you really think that the people with the guns were going to go up directly against the military?
No.
No, that wouldn't work at all.
No, they're going to use those guns to kill every single person or kidnap them that would have any leverage with the dictator.
Do you think the dictator wants to lose every single person in their family and all their friends?
Probably not.
Probably not.
So there would be massive assassinations, massive assassinations.
Every person associated with the regime, when they walked out the door, they'd get clipped.
Not necessarily the top five people in the government, but once you got past the top five, they can't really protect them that well.
We would know where they lived.
We would know their schedule pretty quickly, and they would get clipped as soon as they walked outdoors.
So that's what it would look like.
Now, I'm not recommending it.
I don't want to make that sound like it's noble or anything like that.
I'm just saying, if you didn't know that the way it would work would be not a direct confrontation with the military, if you didn't understand what the most likely outcome of that situation would be, you're not really qualified to talk about it because his opinion is based on his opinion.
Somebody says, Scott's a monster.
Well, in this context, I simply am understanding monsters because there is something that will turn every man into a monster, including me.
All right.
I don't feel like I'm a monster at the moment, but do you think you could do something to me that would turn me into one?
Oh, yeah.
It wouldn't take long.
It would just depend on what you did.
You know, if you heard somebody, let's say, you know, a loved one or something, how long would it take me to turn into a monster?
Immediate.
It would be immediate.
And I think that's most men.
Most men would turn monster if you give them a reason.
We just need a reason.
The difference between a murderer and a law-abiding man.
Now, this is just men.
I can't speak for a woman.
But the difference between a man who's a murderer and a man who's law-abiding is a good reason.
That's it.
Just a good reason.
We all can become monsters immediately.
If you didn't know that, maybe you feel better not knowing it.
But you're always surrounded by monsters.
They just happen to be in check.
They just don't have a reason.
That's it.
They just don't have a reason.
Give them a reason.
Find out what happens.
I can tell you what happens.
So here's my reframe.
I haven't gotten it to it yet.
The reframe is this.
You think that the left have a different political point of view.
I say the left, the far left, we're not talking about ordinary Democrats now.
Ordinary Democrats have nothing to do with what I'm about to say.
The far left are all Dunning-Kruger people.
Now, Dunning-Kruger, most of you know what that is, but that's the observation that there are some people who believe, and it's very common, that they know a lot more than they know.
So if there's something they don't know, they think it's unknown.
Because if they don't know it, probably nobody else knows it either.
So that explains Mark Rufflow.
He's simply somebody who doesn't know the weapons culture, doesn't know probably anything about guerrilla warfare or revolutions.
Maybe just uninformed.
But he has that weird quality that you see on the far left.
Again, not regular normal people like Bill Maher.
So Bill Maher is not in this category.
I'm talking about the people who have that weird smug look on their face when they say things that are completely stupid.
Have you ever seen a 20-something with green hair explain how their ideas are better and how you should open the border and let the people out of jail?
And they've got this look on their face like, I'm so smart.
You know, I'm talking to some dummy, some dumb Republican, but look how smart I am.
I mean, look at my face.
I'm smug.
Why don't they understand that if they just all gave their weapons away, there would be no violence?
And look how smart I am.
Can you tell how smart I am by my smug smile?
Now, that's my reframe.
The reframe is that the far left are nothing but, just nothing but, Dunning-Kruger sufferers.
Nothing but.
Now, are there also some Dunning-Kruger people on the right?
Of course.
Of course.
It's not limited to one side.
But the entire far left, every one of them, believes they know more than they know.
Oh, I took this course in college that said that socialism was good, so Mamdami must be a good choice.
And they would feel confident in that.
Not just confident, but they'd be sure that you're wrong.
Oh, are you still sticking to that capitalism idea?
I can barely contain my smile at your stupidity when socialism is obviously the best solution that's worked every time it's been tried as far as I know.
Yeah.
It's that stupid, damn, smug smile that gives it away.
And then, on top of that, there's a bunch of people who are just, you know, in it for power and whatever.
And that's different.
The ones who are just in it for the power, you know, the Nancy Pelosi's, et cetera, that's completely different.
But the ordinary voters, yeah, that's Dunning-Kruger.
Total Dunning-Kruger.
Wall Street Apes is reporting on X that there's a, I guess there's an investigation by a gentleman named David.
I don't know how to say his last name.
It's spelled K-H-A-I-T.
Would that be Kite or Jite or Kite?
Kite?
I don't know.
Kate.
But apparently he has exposed some Democrat protesters.
And did you know there's a union?
Apparently, there's an appropriate union so that some of the protesters are getting union pay.
They join the union and then they accept the assignment and they get union pay.
So apparently they can make 80 to 110,000 per year as professional protesters.
And so a lot of the protesters you see don't care.
They're not there because they care about the issue.
It rhymes with what?
Somebody was telling me what it was, so I missed it.
So, and then he, the one of them that this David Kate exposed, he apparently is a prominent member with the Democrat Socialists of America Atlanta chapter.
And I guess there's a lot of them who do this kind of work.
So never trust the protests.
They're just paid protesters.
Now we know it.
We know the whole structure of it, etc.
And so he's backing Mom Dami.
So if a paid protester backs Mom Dami, do you think that he actually backs him?
It looks like he might because they're both socialists.
But I wouldn't trust the paid protesters.
Leaked Email Revelations00:03:21
Oops.
So in other news, Corey DeAngelis, who's a very successful activist for his school choice, he came into possession of a leaked email from, I guess it was the assistant to Randy Weingarten.
So Randy Weingarten is the head of the biggest teachers' union, and they're very political.
And I don't believe that the Democrats could win anything without them, the teachers' union funding and being on their side.
Apparently, the assistant wrote an email that was warning people about backing Mom Donnie.
And he said that Mom Dani has no experience in city government.
And he points as an analog, the mayor of Chicago is at a 14% favorability rating.
I've never even heard of that.
Have you even heard of anybody at 14% approval of a politician?
I've never even heard it.
I feel like Hitler was higher than that.
And he points out, the assistant to Randy Warngarten, he points out that winning an election does not necessarily translate into the ability to govern.
And then it gets better.
He says, it is important to face it squarely what has happened in Chicago.
It has not gone well.
But here's the kill shot.
But something has clearly gone wrong and it can't just be attributed to our enemies.
There it is.
There it is.
Don't you wonder, and haven't you wondered, if let's say the teachers union, do they not recognize that they're backing the worst people in the world, like Mom Donnie?
Do they not know it?
Are they actually clueless?
And the answer is, no, they know it.
They know it and they're doing it anyway.
They know it and they're doing it anyway.
Why?
Power.
What would be the other reason?
What would be the other reason you would back horrible candidates?
Well, some might say if they run against Trump, you could always say, well, anything's better than Trump, in my opinion.
But that's not true for every politician everywhere all the time, mayors included.
No.
Apparently, Democrats know that the Chicago mayor is a disaster and that Mom Dami will be another disaster.
Do you think that the fact that the assistant to Weingarten knows that, and I'm pretty sure the rest of the people know it too.
Do you think that will change who they back?
I'm going to say no.
Nope.
Even being caught, understanding that he would be a disaster, even with that.
Nope.
Nope.
The power predictor says they'll just keep doing what they're doing.
So Democrats are not serious.
They're not trying to make the country better.
Let's not kid ourselves.
They're not in it for that.
Chicago Teachers Jailbreak?00:06:56
Well, there's a Somali woman who lives in Minnesota who was charged for stealing, you know, fraudulently doing a scheme, an autism site, where she stole $14 million by pretending to treat children who, in most cases, probably didn't have autism.
So apparently she was doing a $1,000 per child kickback to parents who would be willing to pretend that their children were autistic and enroll them.
Oh my God.
What happens to the child who gets enrolled in the urine autist school so that the parents can make $1,000 and then they're trained as though they're autistic?
What does that do to your education path?
It feels like that would limit you a little bit, wouldn't it?
So this might be one of the worst crimes you'll ever hear of in your whole life, if it's as bad as it sounds to me.
And the question is: do you think this is rare?
Do you think there's only one of these people who said, huh, all I have to do is pretend I'm treating autistic people and I can make millions of dollars?
Do you think just the one woman had an idea like that?
No.
I think there are tons of them.
It could be that the entire run-up of costs on healthcare, it might be that 100% of it is crime.
Might be.
I mean, I wouldn't bet on 100% of it being crime, but it could be.
It's that size.
We're probably talking about hundreds of billions a year in pure crime.
Not even a gray area, just pure theft.
Probably hundreds of billions a year.
All right.
The feds have indicted three women who were involved with tracking down some ICE agents and following them home and doxing their home address on Instagram so that people could arrest them or bother them.
And a federal grand jury has indicted them.
Now they're just indicted.
They're not convicted.
But here's my question.
The women who were doing that were doing it public, publicly.
So they weren't trying to hide.
Did they believe that because they were young women, they just don't get arrested?
Like, at what point would they not know that they were breaking a law and that it was obvious it was them and they would be on social media and did they not think that the law applied to them?
I'm feeling like that might be some of our problem, that women don't see themselves as ever going to jail.
As a man, I imagine myself in jail, unfortunately, far too often and far too easily.
How hard is it for a man to imagine that something would go wrong, whether you actually did something illegal or not, and you would end up in jail?
To me, your mileage might differ, but even though I go out of my way not to break a law, I try as hard as I can not to break any laws because I don't need to.
Why would I need to?
I don't have any, there's no gain.
So, but yet, I still have a perpetual never goes away.
I can be thrown in jail.
For what?
I don't know.
Somebody would come up with something.
But I don't think that women think that way, do they?
Here I'm just speculating.
I can't read any minds.
But if you're a 20-year-old, attractive woman, you've seen a lot of videos where young women are stopped by the police and they act like they can resist arrest as much as they want and that they won't be beaten up and they look like they think they'll never go to jail.
So is that part of the problem?
That protesters are often female and they just haven't been raised with the mindset that, you know, if you take one wrong step, you're in jail.
Let's see from the men.
From the men, can you confirm that you've always been trained and/or just knew that you were only one wrong step away from jail?
It's not just me, right?
I would think that's a male universal feeling.
Because when you see a prison, it's all men, right?
And all day long, all the stories that I read today, how many of them were about somebody had legal problems and was going to go to jail?
And they were all men.
You know, there's this Lisa Monaco who popped up, but mostly it's men.
You know, Obama might go to jail, Comey might go to jail, Brennan, Clapper, Schiff might go to jail.
You can't not notice that men are going to jail like crazy.
And it doesn't seem like women do.
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't.
It just is what it feels like.
Yeah, it makes me wonder.
Well, there's a story about a woman named Asada Shakur, Asada.
Her first name is spelled ASSATA.
And apparently, she became some kind of either a revolutionary fighter for justice or a cop killer.
Apparently, she was a little bit of both of those things.
So she was involved with the execution of a cop.
I don't think she pulled the trigger, but she was part of the group.
So she went to jail and then she was broken out of jail.
There was some massive jailbreak with help from the outside.
And they broke her in a jail some years ago in the 1970s, it looks like it was.
And then she escaped to Cuba in 1979, where she recently died.
But the reason that it's a big story is how it's being treated in the news.
The left-leaning news, and indeed the Chicago's Teachers' Union, say things like this.
So this is the Chicago Teachers' Union.
Today we honor the life and legacy of a revolutionary fighter, a fierce writer, a revered elder of black liberation, and a leader of freedom whose spirit continues to live in our struggle.
Why Context Matters00:05:08
Well, community notes on X decided that it needed to put a little context on that.
So here's what was left out of the Chicago Teachers Union praise for her life and her work.
Sada Shakur was convicted in 1977 of first-degree murder in the 73 killing of a New Jersey state trooper and sentenced to life plus 33 years on other charges.
She escaped to Cuba in 79 and has been a fugitive since listed on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list in 2013.
So as others have pointed out, two movies on one screen, the same person.
She's either being honored for her revolutionary fighting or she's a terrorist, most wanted terrorists.
Same person.
Now, I will point out that if you are in favor of keeping revolutionary Southern general statues, you would also be in favor of somewhat honoring people who might have owned slaves, might have killed some people, might have done some bad things back in the Civil War days.
And you should at least be consistent.
Now, I have said that if a significant number of Black Americans find those statues offensive, that's a good enough reason to move them.
I don't need a better reason.
If some large percentage of a demographic group that is part of my American experience says these are just offensive, and they have a good reason, you know, because it represented slavery or whatever, I would say, you know what?
I'm not going to die on that hill.
If that offends you and it offends you that much that you're willing to get active over it, yeah, I'm open to moving it somewhere.
You know, maybe taking it out of the park, maybe adding a plaque that just puts it in proper context so then you're not honoring them so much.
You're just, it's just history.
So I think that's a perfectly reasonable debate.
And I would be pretty flexible about that.
Because if I had something in my house, let's say a painting of, let's say I really liked a painting that depicted something from the slavery era, and I just thought it was great art.
I had, you know, nothing political, nothing else.
It was just great art.
And I put it on my wall.
And then my black and white friends look at it and go, ah, Scott, do you know what this is about?
And I'd be like, it's just great art.
Don't worry about it.
But let's say a number of people came to my house and they all said the same thing.
This is really, this is gross.
You shouldn't have that in your wall.
I would take it down.
I'm not going to die on that hill and say, oh, but it's great art.
So it shouldn't bother you.
If it does bother you, that's a good enough reason.
It does bother you and you've got a good argument for it.
It's not like you have no argument.
I'd take it down.
Same thing I do with the park.
So while I am not supporting anything about this particular cop killing terrorist lady, you can imagine that if you wait 50 years, that the part about her killing a cop or being part of the people who killed the cop will be diminished over time, much the way the Southern generals exploits would be diminished over time.
And people look at it differently.
Now, I'm not telling you what you should or should not do with statues or what you should or should not do with this one thing.
I'm just making a comparison.
That's all.
I just think it's interesting that people who have done terrible things can sometimes be rehabilitated over time.
Now, I'm not saying that they deserve to be rehabilitated.
I'm just saying it happens.
And I would like to add to this conversation the following.
When Black America decided to honor George Floyd, there were a lot of white Americans who said, ah, that's a terrible idea.
You should not be honoring people who were career criminals and at the very least contributed to his own death by bad habits and bad decisions and all that.
And I'm going to say again, in my experience, every person of every kind, black, white, old, young, just everybody, if they made the decisions that generally work in life, they usually did well.
Four Books, Four Lessons00:07:06
And if they make the kind of decisions that you just shake your hand and say, well, that's a bad decision.
If you keep making bad decisions, you're going to get a bad outcome.
And there's no mystery to it whatsoever.
So if you make bad decisions, like, you know, honoring criminals, well, what do you think is going to happen?
Like, you know, play that forward.
What do you think is going to happen?
Now, I'm going to do something self-serving, but it's not why I'm doing it.
If you wanted to make sure that your child or even yourself had the benefit of, let's say, good mentoring and good advice, good advice on how to be successful and what to avoid to avoid failure.
You can do that.
There are books.
You don't need a human in your life if you read.
You just need to be able to read.
My books, I think, get very close to that.
The ones I would recommend for anyone who wanted to turn somebody who was aimless and didn't have a plan into somebody who understood what to do to be successful.
I would say my book, Loser Think, second edition.
Loser Think will teach you how to avoid bad arguments that other people recognize as bad arguments.
So what you're trying to do is not look like a fool in front of people who actually know how the world works.
You want to look like you also know how the world works.
And then immediately people will say, oh, that guy.
Yeah, we're going to hire that guy.
He knows how the world works.
So that's what that's about.
Loser think is what to avoid so that smart people will want to work with you, want to marry you, want to work with you.
Winn-Begley teaches you persuasion.
There is no career path that isn't way better if you understand how to talk to people and persuade, right?
Do you believe that those of you who have read this book, a lot of you in the comments, if you've read this book, would you back me?
That knowing this book would make you more effective in whatever you're doing in life.
Would you agree?
Just watch the comments if you don't believe me.
Because you should not believe the author.
Don't believe the author.
All authors think their books are great.
But if the people who read it think it's great, well, that's something.
I think you could trust that.
And you'll see in the comments the yeses.
But the most important one by far is how to fail the most everything is to win big because it was written specifically for young people who didn't have a mentor, somebody who could tell them what works, what doesn't work.
So this is a whole book of what works and what doesn't work.
Easy to read, easy to totally grasp.
And I'll ask the same question.
For those of you who have read it, which is a lot of you, would this make a young person who is aimless at the moment make them more successful?
Yes, 100% it would.
There's no grayer there.
These three books, if a young person read them, let's say before the age of 20, their odds of succeeding in life, the only thing that would stop them would be really bad luck or a health problem, or getting murdered and something like that.
But they would have all the tools.
They would literally know everything they needed to succeed.
Now, one of the reasons I wrote this kind of book, all three of them.
Oh, and also the fourth one, Reframe Your Brain.
So the fourth one, this is the newest one, reframe your brain.
It would teach you how to basically navigate all kinds of situations with the right way to look at the situation so you're most productive.
Now, some of you have read all four of these books, right?
If any of you have read all four of them, make yourself known if you'd like to in the comments.
And tell me if it made you more effective.
I already know the answer.
I know the answer.
Now, just to be clear, I'm not the only person who wrote books that would teach you how to be successful.
These are the ones I know the best because I wrote them and I watched the notes coming in.
So a lot of people write to me almost every day, almost every day, somebody says, I read one of these books.
It changed my life for the positive.
So let me get back to George Floyd and this terrorist slash cop killer.
If you did the things in my book, which are designed to make any person, you know, you could be black or white or male or female, it's designed to make any person way more effective and have a way better chance of getting whatever they want in life, whatever they decide is success.
You would be way better situation to get all those things.
That would be a good idea.
So the people who do what makes sense become lifelong learners.
And again, doesn't have to be these books.
I'm a lifetime learner.
Most of what I've ended up putting in books are things that probably I ran into somewhere first, you know, over my lifetime.
And once I'd accumulated enough of these tips, I thought, you know, I'll bet I could write a better book than other people because I have done Kruger myself sometimes.
All right.
So that's the point.
We should get away from race, race, race, race, and we should get toward individual, individual, individual.
If you give me an individual, I know exactly how to make them more successful, as long as I can read and they're willing to put a little work in.
So that's my statement for the day.
Palmer Lucky is talking about how the leaders in Silicon Valley are unwilling to speak out against China or even in favor of Taiwan because they're so afraid of China.
You know, they might need China later as a market.
They might need China as a supplier.
They just might need China.
So apparently in Silicon Valley and wherever there are tech leaders, there are not many people speaking out against China.
So that's why I'm here.
I'll fill in that gap for you.
Israel's Gaza Dilemma00:14:51
The Trump administration says they have plans to end the Gaza war, according to the Washington Post.
And here's their plan.
Now, you tell me if this electric would work.
I may be biasing you a little bit.
Spoiler, this plan could never work.
There's no chance that this plan could work.
All right.
So the plan, according to the Washington Post, there's a 21-point proposal.
I haven't seen all the points.
But it would start with Gaza would give back the hostages, every one of them, and in return, Israel would stop all war.
So the war would be done.
The hostages come back.
And then there would be some post-war governance plan without Hamas.
So they would be disarmed and some kind of international security force would be formed to keep things together.
Now, the reporting says Israel has expressed reservations about some elements.
All right.
So apparently it's a plan that neither Hamas nor Israel wants.
Do you think that the U.S. can force this on them?
I don't think so.
And by the way, as soon as Hamas releases the hostages, aren't they going to be killed?
I mean, it's the only thing keeping them alive, right?
The fact that there might be some hostages in the tunnels.
Otherwise, Israel is just going to say, well, I think there might be a tunnel under here somewhere.
If all of our hostages are home, they're just going to flatten everything that needs to be flattened because they're not going to take a chance that Hamas can reform.
They're not going to take that chance.
So they're going to kill or imprison every single one of the Hamas fighters and leaders.
Why would you surrender if you knew you were going to go to jail or be killed?
If you knew it.
You know it.
Like, even if they came up with a plan that says, all right, Israel has agreed that they will not hurt us if we go public and let the hostages out.
Do you think Israel would keep that deal?
Or would there be a sudden, you know, the brakes don't work on the Hamas leader's car?
Well, not our fault.
No, they're all going to be dead.
Why would they agree to this?
Why would they?
I mean, there's no reason.
So I'm going to go with, I don't think there'll be a peace deal right away, if ever.
And I don't believe that Netanyahu wants a peace deal.
I think he wants.
Oh, the fourth one, Mike Burt, is reframe your brain.
Yeah, reframe your brain.
All right.
Tucker Carlson says that Trump needs to get some distance between himself and B.B. Netanyahu and do it right away.
He thinks Tucker thinks that Netanyahu is hurting Trump's presidency.
And he's careful to say he's not blaming Israel.
He's not blaming Jews.
He's just blaming Nanyahu.
And he thinks Netanyahu is bad for Trump.
And that allegedly he's condescending Netanyahu and talks behind Trump's back and says bad things.
I don't know about that.
Then Tucker says that Netanyahu, quote, only cares about himself.
Well, isn't that what everybody says about any leader they don't like, that they only care about themselves?
I find that the least useful criticism because everybody cares about themselves the most.
But if you're a public leader, don't you have to do a terrific job for your country in order to maximize your own benefit?
I'm pretty sure you do.
So this whole only cares about himself.
How does that actually play out in the real world?
Is he going to do things that are obviously bad for Israel, but only good for him?
He can't get away with that.
Everything he does is public.
So it seems to me that everything he does would have to be for the benefit of his own country, or he just couldn't get away with doing it.
Anyway, so I don't know about that, but that's what Tucker thinks.
I think I've told you that whenever I talk about Israel, I have to give you this little speech to go with it.
I am not supporting Israel and I am not opposing Israel.
It's not my country.
And whether I opposed it or supported it, that should have exactly zero impact on what Israel does.
Israel's job is to maximize the benefit of Israel.
In my opinion, which has nothing to do with what Israel should do.
This is just me sitting in my chair in America.
No impact on Israel.
Israel will do what they do.
I'll observe it and I'll predict it.
But I'm not going to judge it.
It seems to me that if Israel did manage to consolidate Gaza plus the whole West Bank, and that in 100 years from now, we're looking at history and say, wow, it used to be tiny, tiny, and then it got, you know, a multiple figure.
But, you know, maybe it was kind of shady and evil the way they got there.
Don't you think that it would still look like a good deal after about 200 years?
Like eventually, don't you think that Netanyahu would be probably more likely to have a statue built in his honor if he got away with it, only if he got away with it.
But if he actually made Israel, what would it be, 25 times bigger if he absorbed the West Bank in Gaza?
I feel like that would look like some parts of American history where we just sort of don't talk so much about the Native Americans being wiped out or relocated or any of that.
And we just sort of glorify the growth of the country.
It's like, whoa, used to be this big.
And then we added some states.
And look at us.
Look how awesome we are at adding states.
And when we talk about the history of the United States, we don't want to say, oh, we sure are losers and jerks and evil bastards because then we might have to give it back.
It's bad enough that we do land acknowledgements.
But I'll just make this prediction.
I won't be around to see how it turns out, probably.
But in 200 years, if Israel expands, either just Gaza or the West Bank plus Gaza, if that happened, it would be treated as an amazing, great thing in Israeli history.
And that would be totally normal.
And I wouldn't judge them for it, because it's probably the way every country treats their own pasts.
Probably they all do that.
There's a point where somebody did something that other people thought was pretty sketchy to increase the size of their nation.
But you wait along.
You just keep waiting years and years and years.
And eventually it just looks like it was a good idea because your country got stronger.
So I think that's where it's going to go.
I will also say that if I had criticisms of Israel, I might not share them because it's not safe.
Would you agree that it's not really safe to criticize Israel?
I mean, I couldn't.
I'd probably, well, I would worry what would happen to me personally.
So in case you're wondering, Scott, do you ever hold back on your criticisms of Israel?
I can't think of anything specific that I'm holding back on.
But no, it's not safe to honestly criticize Israel.
Totally not safe.
So if I had something, you could not trust me that I would risk my entire life to make some criticism of something that wouldn't make any difference anyway.
So just know that, that I would be afraid of criticizing Israel.
But I will say this.
On October 7th, when tragically 1,200 Israelis were slaughtered in the worst possible way, and numerous people injured and raped and captured and everything else, on October 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and so on, Israel had all the moral cover to be brutal if they thought they needed it.
Most of the world said, Yeah, okay.
All right, I see why you're doing it.
I understand.
We would do the same thing, right?
So that's when that's when 1,200 of their people are slaughtered and there's been no response yet.
So it's pretty easy to take a side, right?
But now, 65,000 Gazans reportedly, you know, you could debate the number, but somewhere in that range, you know, above 50,000 probably.
So now it's like 65,000 to 1,200.
How long can you do that, especially as the 65 will continue to climb?
How long can you do that and still have the moral high ground?
I would argue that they've already given up the moral high ground.
They had 100% moral high ground.
And again, let me clarify again.
My sense of morality is not in this conversation.
What I think is moral or ethical has nothing to do with this.
I'm not giving you my personal opinion.
I'm just saying that an observer would say, hmm, 1,200 to zero is definitely a free pass for Israel to get violent.
But once it turns to 65,000 to 1,200, plus you'd add to that how many IDF soldiers got killed.
So it's rounded up to, I don't know, 13, 1,400.
I don't know what the numbers are.
But once you compare that to 65,000, what does the public say about the moral or ethical balance there?
Now, again, I think Israel is doing a tremendous job of pursuing their own self-interest, and everybody gets to do that.
Other countries pursue their self-interest too.
So that part I never criticize, as long as they're wisely and effectively pursuing their own best interests.
They definitely are.
But I think that they're giving up almost all of their moral and ethical armor that has served them so well up to now.
So it's one of the biggest risk-benefit decisions anybody ever made.
And Netanyahu's in the center of that.
If he wins, gets control of Gaza, depopulates it, somehow gets control of the West Bank, maybe officially, not just de facto the way it is, he will be seen as a national hero eventually because that will look like a bigger gain than eventually you forget about all the death and destruction, especially if it didn't happen to you.
So that's what I see.
So if Netanyahu intentionally traded off the Holocaust, traded off the October 7th Goodwill armor, but what he got in return was a much bigger Israel that's stronger for the next hundreds and hundreds of years, it's going to look like a win.
It will look like a win.
And again, not my opinion.
My preferences are not part of the story.
I have nothing to do with Israel.
All right.
Meanwhile, over in Ukraine, apparently one of their big nuclear power plants is on the fifth day of having no power by power lines.
It's got destroyed by Russia.
Newsmax World is reporting on this.
So they're keeping the plant from melting down by running diesel backup generators.
Now, they do have enough fuel, and they do have enough backup generators to prevent it from melting down, unless something happened to the fuel or something happened to the backup generators.
And who knows how dependable those backup generators are.
So apparently they're very close to the edge of a major nuclear meltdown.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
And I guess there's a $90 billion arms agreement with the US, which I hope means that the money will come from Europe to the US, and then the US will sell those weapons to Ukraine, I believe.
So if that's what's happening, Trump gets the win for making $90 billion for America and paying nothing, if that's what it is.
According to Defense Blog, Ukraine has a new generation of robots that look like little tanks.
So they're ground-based robots.
And apparently they can do all kinds of stuff.
They can attack and they can move logistics.
They can move stuff back and forth.
But what I'd like to know is, do we have a sense of the ratio of robots to human fighters on the front line?
Ground-Based Robots00:03:55
Because that ratio is going to change every day to more robots, fewer humans, if only because the humans are dying.
So what do you think is the ratio?
If you have to guess, how many robots to humans are there?
I imagine we're getting close to the point where the robots outnumber the humans.
And then the humans will continue to decrease.
And the robots will continue to get more AI self-guided.
And then it will be an all-robot war.
So we're getting closer and closer to the all-robot war.
I've been telling you, it's coming.
Well, Pavel Durov, you may have heard of him.
He's the founder and CEO of the Telegram app.
So which in theory would be an encrypted app.
In reality, of course, has ways to get in.
But he tells his story.
I'm just going to read it.
So this is in his own words.
He said, about a year ago, I was stuck in Paris.
Remember when the French picked him up and they were holding him and we didn't know why, but obviously they were twisting his arm over something.
He said, well, I was stuck in Paris, which is an interesting way to word it, stuck in Paris, picked up by the authorities, not allowed to leave.
Yeah, stuck in Paris.
He said, the French intelligence services reached out to me through an intermediary asking me to help the Moldovan government censor certain telegraph channels.
And he goes on to say that they looked at him and they were, in fact, violating the standards of telegram.
So no problem.
They were banned.
And then they said that in exchange for this cooperation, French intelligence would, quote, say good things about him to the judge who had ordered his arrests.
Okay.
And he said this was unacceptable on several levels.
If the agency did in fact approach the judge, it constituted an attempt to interfere in the judicial process.
Well, I don't think that's too unusual.
If it did not and merely claim to have done so, then it was exploiting my legal situation in France to influence political developments in Eastern Europe.
A pattern we have also observed in Romania.
I don't know what the Romania story is.
But then it got worse.
He says, shortly thereafter, the Telegram team received a second list of so-called problematic Moldovan channels.
Unlike the first, nearly all of these channels were legitimate and fully compliant with their rules.
Their only commonality was that they voiced political positions disliked by the French and Moldovan governments.
We refused to act on this request.
Well, if you wondered what the real world is like, what's happening in the real world, like behind the curtains, this stuff.
Yeah, this is what the real world looks like, just like this.
Meanwhile, I guess the president of Colombia was in the U.S. recently, and he picked up a bullhorn on the streets in New York and started talking to protesters and urged U.S. soldiers to disobey orders.
And he was apparently inciting violence.
And so Rubio and the State Department decided, you have no visa anymore.
So they yanked his visa.
So he will not be visiting the United States again anytime soon.
He got his visa yanked.
All right, went a little long, but I think it was totally worth it because you enjoy Sundays.
All right.
I'm going to run and say hi to the locals people, my beloved local subscribers.