That's just it out of town good morning, everybody and welcome, the highlight of human civilization. It's called cws a coffee was got arabs as the best thing that a rapid here, if you would like your experience now streaming on multiple platforms, I think rumbles working today, we've got the the x platform and youtube and locals for my beloved subscribers and here's what you need to

essential experience up to levels which you could even imagine were possible. All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tanker jealous, assign accounting, jug or flask of vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine the other day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip that happens now go easy for years. what types of sips aren't perfect, but it's pretty good. Well, here's a good news. I found a movie that I can watch. Oh well, have you noticed that all movies suck, while it turns out that there is still one person making good movies and I've said it before Tom cruise? Why is it that Tom cruise is the only person who knows how to make a movie? I was just watching the latest mission impossible just came in

Extreme and it is screamingly unwell without being bad in any way. In other words, you don't really pick up on the walker, sir, and I walked as somebody that you just watched the movie. It is so not heavy handed in the wildness that it just feels like a movie from yesterday or something yet at the other thing that Tom cruise does right, and I have to think it's him. I feel sorry for him. The unevenness directors they're so well edited. He doesn't have any moment in the movie where you're like or fast forward as word so every every moment, totally blogs and the movie is very rare, so check it out what may or may not be the best movie you've ever seen, it's all very watchable. So

well today, I'd like to give you another statement from science. Now, here's something that you've heard probably you've heard this before from marriage experts, mostly divorce experts. I think you've heard it from Jordan peterson. Then I just heard it from some other relationship expert on on instagram, don't remember his name, but he was saying that the most predictive variable for divorce he noted is what what is the one thing you look for as most predictive of divorce? That's right contempt! yet money is one of the biggest problems, but if you're going to predict divorce, it's contempt so the first time I heard that it was it was years ago, and I said to myself: holy cow wow. That's like that's like opening up.

Life is whole understanding. My my awareness has been maximized now I know exactly what to look for, not only if I'm in a relationship with other people, and I can totally predict what's going to happen, and I thought why why didn't? I know that before the contempt predicts divorce. Because it backwards science, science lobby. Let me just reward this, so the experts are telling us and who suddenly very smart when they do it. If you see contempt that predicts divorce,

so when one or both of the people who are married to each other, I started thinking the other was a fucking asshole, a biochemist and a moment in the same room that while I didn't see this coming, but that actually predicts divorce wow. Can you believe it that people don't like each other while married are more likely to divorce than people who, like each other, where, where did that come from it's like it came out of nowhere? Why? Why did I think that was profound for years for years? I thought that was telling me something useful, so people who don't like each other are less likely to stay together. Why

I sound profound until today, today, for the first time I heard it, I thought was obviously backwards. You know, what's a better way to say that people who have already decided to divorce treat each other like dicks, it's backward science is not protecting. It's already happened, there's no predicting going on Very important story: we still don't have an american here. We have not elected a speaker of the house. the problems are mounting. For example, ok,. Ex story. You almost who's, trying to kill newspapers. You get a couple of things in that direction this week, so

He he posted this on that axe. He said the articles printed in newspapers are quite literally yesterday's news that newspapers are literally yesterday's news. I thought to myself. Well, if it's printed, yes, I mean they can do a little bit better. Online cars are usually at life as well, but it is a good cut, but I had to correct him. I don't like to correctly. much is usually pretty spotter. They usually agree with them, but here I think he is. Your statement is incomplete here he said articles printed in lisbon, are, are literally literally yesterday's news to correct and, as I said at the washington post is not yesterday's needs the washing boasters, yesterday's veins and that's it.

So's be millionaires the newspapers aside to tweet today than it was so exactly what I ve been thinking: bloom, And so I know the ex platform rob lorenz posted. I wonder if Jeff Bezos is embarrassed by washington, post's incessant lying or does he endorse it or not realize it, and I thought to myself. I spent a full hour yesterday, Wondering about that you are, I don't spend all of my time thinking about the roman empire. Sometimes I think about just business.

And I swear to god. I was working out- and I was just obsessed by that question. Is jeff bezos know what the Washington post us. I mean. How can he not on the other end? Does he approve of it or is at you know, as he say, there's a problem also. What was going on and the my best hypothesis is that he is, and he is under duress that he is being forced to own it for the benefit of some government entity that has some some power over him either, because they they can buy billions of dollars worth of server time on amazon servers, which the cia has.

Or maybe they control whether he could operate yo as freely as he wants in different markets. Maybe gives them some protection there. I know you can you can imagine a number of government entities having some power over amazon and therefore over a basis, but there there's such a disconnect between what we know about bezos and his ownership of the washing Would you break what we know about basis from everything except the washington post? I would describe them as non political at a pragmatist. Meaning that I don't even know if he wins left or right, I couldn't tell you the witches remarkable really And what I mean by that is, he probably decides on each issue individually. Witches wasn't super smart people. Do it's over

Surprise me now unsure he identifies with one side or another, probably more democrat and republican, just a guess, but probably not obsessed with it. You know, probably more more looking at each individual thing is, will be some things that Democrats like that he likes some things they like that would be bad for business, so he's probably he probably picks and chooses by why? Why would he put such a reputational stain on his business by owning the washington post? Is amazon as an amazing reputation? In my opinion, they do software better than anybody's ever done. I mean I could not be more impressed without amazon as a technology works, that the fact that you don't think about it every day, like some problem because of it.

it tells you how amazing it is. I mean my god, the complexity of that thing and that it actually delivers me stuff the next day, I'm just blown away by it every day, so I think he's under dress, but that's just speculation. Alright, speaking of a speculation and billionaires, did you see the news yesterday that Peter teal is has been an f b I informant for years? Did you see that it wasn't the biggest news,

but it was all over the internet, so apparently is confirmed, as confirmed from the f b I handler himself, which is pretty good confirmation. I think the handlers retired or something they said. Oh yeah, it was one of mine. Now, just so you don't get too excited about it. The the confirmation is a here's, an informant strictly for international foreign stuff, which I do much much you. If he is F b, I informant specifically excluding domestic staff, so he was excluded for talking about trump or domestic politics. He was just as informant if he learned something about other countries that was relevant to the. U s, I've got a prediction or maybe an observation. How could anybody who's a billionaire not be talking to the f b, I or maybe other intelligence groups? I would think, is universal. You don't you don't think that government entities have approached.

elon musk it it's impossible to imagine that has happened impossible to imagine, but now that doesn't mean he has agreed to do anything or your days. Working with him. That doesn't mean is not. If I were a billionaire. The way I would handle it is. I would work with the government when it made sense and I wear resistant when it didn't make sense where it violated some moral ethical boundary. My guess is this was happening with every billionaire who has any influence already right. If somebody like basis, somebody like elon musk, I feel like the government has to be in one pocket, which doesn't mean they're. Controlling him mean that it could be an interplay where, where basil him for their own benefits, but don't be naive and imagine that we have important influential billionaires who are dealing with other countries, china in particular, and that are,

not being taught to by the government of course here how much impact caused by depends on each issue individually, while the vague promise why you said something that I agree with completely, he said: the post is not nineteen. Eighty anymore, which a great framing by the way is a snub nightingale, even more the real threat to free speech. Today,

the government is using a combination of carrots and sticks to get private companies to censor speech that the government cannot censor directly. He says if it stay action in disguise. The constitution still applies, oh that rhymes. If it stayed action and surprise, the constitution still applies period then realize he had arrived there. I think it was accidental. That was pretty good, and this is precisely my point of view precisely that that in fact, you've probably seen me say that was a good argument in the eighties. If you see me say that a line, I actually say the same thing, it's a good argument, the eighties back and the reason is that, if you don't, if you don't pay, somebody you're never going to change their mind. So if somebody says blah blah blah free speech, the government's not doing it, it's private companies. So it's okay. The correct answer is you're absolutely right in the eighties and thus was evicted, because if, if you don't grant them that they have a proper review, you're a well constructed opinion,

it just doesn't apply anymore, though something's changed that that's a much gentler way to say, you're wrong, say you are totally right until recently, and then things changed now. You should reassess a very, very good persuasion, alright, how many of you have heard at at owen

let me say: let me make the statement. The free speech is gone there. There is not free speech in the united states, I don't know if any country has it, but we definitely don't have it and I'm getting more and more pissed off. When I hear people say we do because it's it's gone beyond just a thing. We disagree about whether the definition has been that of free speech or someone is not really just words. It's like you're part of the problem. If you don't know that free speech is gone, don't be part of the problem or I dunno. If there is a solution, but if you're acting like you still have free speech, you only have the freedom to be uninteresting to the government. That's it. The moment you're interesting or you can make a difference. People listen to you.

you're your speeches, god as a practical matter now, I'd like the anti seems to take a moment to say but scarred the gaza. Tunisia only applies to the government to private that arise in the small point there, and this is the sole point, every word of identity got news guard. I may have heard of this news guard apparently it some eu organization of young volunteers. mostly who are in the business of censoring people and

It turns out that one of the people on that organization of looking to censor people is a jimmy wales, one of the founders of Wikipedia. Are you comfortable with that? Are you comfortable with Jimmy wales, the Wikipedia guy being on a censorship board. I would like to give you my inciter view here.

Now normally, I would not tell you about a private conversation, so I'm not going to give you any details, but I have had extensive private conversations with Jimmy wales about the information on Wikipedia and some other trump related stuff. I was just. I was just reviewing them because there were like twenty nineteen, twenty twenty. We have some extensive back and forth, so one of them was about the fine people hoax, and I brought it to his attention a wikipedia saying that the fine, fine people hoax, is a real thing that needs to be fixed as like one of the biggest problems of the country that you need to fix it. Now, to his credit, he looked at all my information. I showed him the transcript and I showed him what was being reported that was different and he looked into it. They actually dug into dug into the conversation,

am going and got back to me said that it looked like the people who are sort of fighting it out for supremacy, had all the right arguments, meaning he didn't know how it was going to end up, but the process was working there. There were the people who are questioning the narrative were loud enough so that the other people were hearing them. They were showing their work right. There was transparency involved, and so he has here is a summary. Was that that would work out now? Has anybody looked at Wikipedia lately see if the fine people hoax is covered correctly, because you know sometimes it'll get there the little drift, often

if back and just off, so I dunno if it is mine, but I'm so so yours will I'll say just to support Jimmy wales. In my private conversations he was very interested in getting it right. That was my take that he actually would just want Get it right, so I didn't. I didn't see you. I can see bias for sure so that there is no question which way he leaned politically. But he was fully engaged in listening to the counter argument and making sure that the system included the countering of it and then let the system do what the system was going to do. So I wouldn't I wouldn't ahead on em too hard. I do think that a lot of good people get dragged into the into the world of censorship.

Then don't realize maybe don't realize the full implications of what could go wrong. I think they. Actually a number of them are designed to make the information better, but I just put that out there and would you? Let me ask you a question: do you think the suburbs are less safe since tromp was present, the seems like an unrelated question. one possible, though your sense of the suburbs, less safe, hello. This is got atoms and now is your chance to reply to questions. Take some calls for feedback from myself and all of your favorite broadcasters. Spotify. Every new episode could have q and a report with a topic for you the way alone. So your voice be heard. Personally, I plan to use these tools to get you to, and

the gaunt and even more so that over to respond, if I search for It was got atoms or your favorite broadcasts in view of the latest episodes and risk ambiguity and polls on spotify? Only because one of the conversations I had with Jimmy was he wasn't she he he and I don't. I don't think he'd mind this, because his question was completely reasonable. So this is nothing bad about him. Those round twenty twenty trump said in a tweet that, if Biden got elected, the suburbs yeah would start getting dangerous and I retweeted it, and it had already had a number of conversations with your Jimmy wales. So he was curious and I was just reminding myself

cause. I looked at our rough past conversation this morning and he was curious. If I really believe that, because I re tweeted it did, I really believe that if Biden got elected, the suburbs will become less safe. I am sure that it was a reasonable

reasonable protection, even if the purpose of the production was to prevent it. Does your predictions have two purposes, and you should probably know this when I make predictions, some of my predictions are just trying to get it right and just seeing, if you can predict so some of it is about, is it possible even know what's going to happen and we do it for fun? I predict this. Then you get to compare, but I'm going to turn off the the speed. If you stop, if you don't stop bitching about the sound now the people the people are locals, I've already train them, but I don't want to seem like a dick, but I can't do the show if every fucking minute europe you're complaining about the south, so stop watching the platform you're watching. If the sound is not sufficient, you can watch it on youtube, rumble for the ex platform live or you can go to Scott Adams that locals dot com.

and at the moment it's a lock for non subscribers, but would could you please shut the fuck up about the sound if you do that? For me, this is because this is life. If you yell at me all day long from the comments while I'm live, I can't do this is not possible. I just have to turn you off. You think he has settled down a little bit. There's always a few people on the spectrum who just can't stop yelling. I have to have to give them a little bit of social programming. Socially, you shouldn't be doing it right is not a technical problem. It's a social problem, so calm the fuck down alright, anyway,.

I do think the you think the suburbs gallup look more dangerous and let's talk about sidney powell taking a deal so, as you know, said the panels that the cracking was coming and she was going to find out some issues. about the election which never bailed out. There were no brackened sound, yet.

But yeah do a bunch of felonies that were dropped? She had to plead guilty to six misdemeanors that small fines and didn't seem to be anything that would affect her too much have to make an apology or something no big deals, but then she also had agreed to testify honestly, in the rico case, against trump that charges him with allegedly a conspiracy to take over the government. Now, how do you think this has been reported on the left and the right completely different right is completely different. The the left and the right. So the left is masturbating to it. I may I swear to god. I think people were typing with one hand and it was like. Oh, oh, so the powell says the vowel. She is going to talk

it's going to get dropped by hall and it was like it was actually creepy, maybe not as creepy as my as my acting out, but it was pretty creepy like it actually just made me feel dirty watching these people and it was a port cause. There's no doubt about it. They're getting a dopamine hit from the thought that trump could be hurt and jailed they're actually getting pleasure from. It is weird, but here's the weirdest part. Why are they getting any pleasure from that? What makes them think that's going to go their way. Their assumption is that it's obvious that trump was guilty. Obviously he colluded to overthrow the government and therefore, if it's obvious he's guilty say the left, all you need is one person who says they'll tell the truth. Who's also an insider and boom trump goes to jail problem solved right, I'm not so sure. That's the way it's gonna go. I don't think that's true at all. If I had to bet I'd pirate I'd put a pretty healthy bet on the fact that she's going to destroy the prosecution's rico case by saying she knew that she was there and saw every part of it and at no point did anything illegal happen. That's what I think is a member. She did not say she would testify a quote against trump. That is not the news she had

we need to tell the truth. If she testified. Is that actually a compromise, let me say you're a famous attorney and you might have to testify: do you think that that they might try to tell the truth? I've got a feeling that a famous attorney isn't going to do a lot of lying on. The you know on the witness chair or they decide,

have a lot. I don't see how there could possibly be good for him, so this is one of those situations where both sides get a little dopamine. When I heard it, I said to myself I'll. Basically, the charges against one of the main players have that have been now seen as bullshit, because the felonies were all dropped. In other words, they were probably bullshit anyway, and then

She used to talk, I'm very interested in what she has to say. So I think I told you this. I had a conversation with me who had called by a smart democrat from you. Smart, because went to a very good school pays attention to the news series first. So if you're in a every kind of conversation with them about anything, serious, he is going to bring the goods like is paying attention he's got her argument is going to is going to whip it out on him. He believes still. I think that trump's advisers or aides have testified that

trump knew he had lost the election, but was doing his protests anyway and tried to take over the country. Now, when I heard that I said to myself that possible, is it possible? I missed that story. What was her story in the news in which there was somebody who was actually in the room?

is claiming that trump said. Oh, I know I lost fair and square, but I'm going to pretend I didn't because I'll overthrow the country- and I said to myself: how would I miss that story, and so I I googled what I could think of to Google, and there is no story like that. I mean. Obviously, if such a story existed, it would be at the top of the feed right. That's how search works. If it's anti trump is going to be the first. It was nothing like it. There were things around it. For example, there were stories that said that trump's advisers believe the election was fair and they told him so somehow I think that got morphed into he knew it wasn't that he knew it was fair. Why would why would trump suddenly start believing his advisers on something

The advisers couldn't possibly know one where the other after they now those who make sense, and then it goes further to that that that of new he lost now. I dont know what trouble said or didn't say to any any people at the time, but I do know this. Nobody could have known if they won or lost it wasn't no above all right. You can't. You only know what people told you. I know that the experts said that the election was there. I didn't do it. Do you remember recalling the ballot yourself The only thing we know is what people tell us and what people tell us is reliable,

Are unreliable? It's a multiple choice, question or both is unreliable. Anything that comes from humans is sketchy as hell, so that too, so you think about think about the level of tds. You would have to have to imagine that you could read the president's mind and that somehow he could read the minds of all the people involved with the election. So it's like a double mind. Reading thing, you first must assume that trump can read the minds of all the people involved in the elections in every state to know that they had pure thought was and did nothing wrong as if you couldn't read their minds, you'd have no way of out. If somebody found a way to cheat, there wasn't picked up. I would you know the only person who would know as a person who did it properly, so he would have to read their minds and know that none of them existed and then we would have to read trump's mind to know that he'd read their minds at how deeply broken. Does your brain have to be to believe in double mind, reading one that trump read all the minds of all the people who ran the election everywhere and also that we can read his mind and see that he read those other the mites, that's actually the claim I mean if you work it out, that's where the ends are big. It is amazing that smart people are not immune from persuasion. If there's one thing, I can teach you, they really really need to understand. Intelligence does not protect you from bullshit, and in fact there are people would say the intelligent are more easily fooled because they are more confident in their opinions that

Was being smart, so the smart people are saying yep. I looked at all the evidence, and this is the way it is the less smart people say you know up. I looked at the evidence I can find, but they could probably fool me so no way to know for sure right. So there are people who don't know much will quite often get the right answer. Weight off alright to Biden did his alert address last night to mixed reviews. The brit hume thought it was a tour de force of values. His words he said to quote after the speech brit hume said on Fox. I think it may be remembered as one of the best, if not the best speeches of his presidency, he was from. He was unequivocal

Honey quivered go you're wrong, as he has been, particularly in recent days before he went to Israel and while he was over there, so really have a hero in the way the leadership we ve been waiting for us. What I say Not everybody agreed data. Prima was unearthed on the shots in time.

and though he was bouncing around from ukraine to Israel to taiwan, and there was a little bit disjointed. Other people said he read one of the one of the instructions on the teleprompter. That was not to be read, so there was one part where the teleprompter said make it clear. I think it was talking to him, not something you were supposed to read, so he just said make it clear in the middle of his sentence. Now I dunno you know that the that's something you could see Joe Biden Biden doing when he was fifty. I dunno that that's exactly dementia, but maybe who knows and that the part that made me disgusted is that he said that funding for your to help. Israel have also ukraine first of all, the fact that he tied the two together so that nobody can say no to all of it. As long as as long as he says that the funding is one package, you would have to say either no to ukraine funding or no to you, Israel, fuck and there's. Probably nobody in congress who has a notable set. Maybe a few rogues. So they've got this track to figure out how to screw the american public using procedure but they're doing right in front of us. He is screwing the american people by right in front of you and to deny your popular opinion, because you might have a different opinion: the funding ukraine, then you might have.

The fund the usual instead of letting the public the side of each of them individually, he's gonna, put them together and use a procedure that is available to him to make it impossible to say now so watching. My president screw me in public and then ask for applause is not comfortable to me. Now. You fucking asshole make them to supper things. We can vote independently, don't screw me and then tell me you're doing it and then act like I shall be fucking saluting you for it. Now you should lose your job for that. You should be impeached immediately for tying these do funding requests together. If that's what he's doing so to me, it was a disaster, but the most chilling for where's, where he called out very specifically the number of defence or the same munitions makers in the united states. Who would make a lot of money?

because of the steel. There is nothing I wanted here less than nothing. I wanted here less than he was going to take my money and transfer it to munitions makers. Now I get the we have to do that. Knowing them is not an unprecedented thing, but the fact that you would call it out and then name the states that would benefit like one pennsylvania, you've got this thing. I thought that was gross and disgusting and I was embarrassed by you as a citizen. I'm not really embarrassed by much, but you get the point and I asked myself as much as trump is famous for attorney. Any political issue into a real estate or a business I can reframe, which I kind of like. Actually you I like if he is looking at north korea if he sees it as partly a real estate, question and stuff because it helps he gives them extra variables that other people don't have access to. So I like it, but I don't think that trump would have asked for money for two wars and told you would have been profitable for the weapons makers. I don't see it. I do not see it now as possible.

Because he does layers say he talks about business terms about everything I don't think you'd would have that bad, a judgment that that feels like just terrible terrible judge for for selling the cars he's selling he's not selling economics. When he's selling war, I mean he literally told us. The war would be profitable to people who are not me, Scott. I will take your money, but don't worry it'll be profitable for these other companies, but they are americans. So hey, that's not really good enough Yeah the way I and I saw I think he was a mark warner- said that one of the shows that maybe be talking to brett bearer somebody.

You said that if you don't understand why I'm embarrassed at this, why are you cream is important to taiwan? The you don't understand geopolitics. In other words, he said: if we let you crave for china would see it as weakness. You didn't say if the sea implication and go after taiwan. Let me tell you that I bought this is money. If you think that the only thing stopping china from taking taiwan was widens view grave, because you know it's been decades in decades, where china have a question about a warm and never once was ukraine part of the conversation, and yet it was the same situation. So now you and you pray, and you really think that if we pool our militaries for away from ukraine, which would give us greater military capabilities for other things, that that's the point that they would attack once we stop wasting money somewhere else. We detect

that they that they drive in big trouble. Then that doesn't make any sense to me and- and I thought warner looked hypnotized because he said it like it's so obvious and right in front of you that if you don't see it you're some kind of a political idiot and I'm looking right at it. I'm saying who in the world thinks like that that decades of not having ukraine part of the question but as soon as ukraine gets in here. Thus the key variable is the only thing that matters suddenly that doesn't even sound, doesn't even sound a little bit credible. Now I get the point, but I just can't imagine china saying that's the variable, we'll just wait for that, and then we go out without it. I also don't think that companies or countries that are geographically disadvantaged as much as taiwan. I think they always end up with the mainland. Only you just have to wait one hundred years or two hundred years, but sooner or later they're going to be the same country, and I have to say this cause, I'm very pro israel, but how can Israel survive in the long run? I mean seriously. I wasn't even possible in the long run like in the in the two.

If the years long run how's that even possible, the yeah, it seems like geography is just too important you're the reason that the united states has done well. War wise is as hard to get to us that that big ole ocean, but if we were literally if mexico and canada were filled with people with a growing population that outnumbered us ten to one and wanted us dead and surrounded us, would America last. I doubt it not in two hundred year So yeah worry, I worry about Israel. I feel, like

Israel needs a israel too, I feel like there should be a new israel that we we sort of set aside somewhere in the country. Now you take someplace in new mexico and say alright. This is just the backup there's nothing there. We won't put anything there and just be empty for sunday and two hundred years. Israelis might need an escape plan, it'd be nice to have one set up, but on the other hand, if he had an escape plan, you wouldn't face so hard to keep what you got so it would be demoralizing. So it's a bad idea, but I do worry too, and here's how in the world can it can geography, not and population, not be the primary variables? I guess were foe posted ass, he said. Mass leader of loose talk about a Hamas leader said this quote:

I take this opportunity to remember the racist murder of george floyd. This is the leader of Hamas. This week the leader of Hamas this week decided that a key thing to say for the rest of the world is that we should remember the racist murder of george foyt, the sea, and he says the same type of racism that killed George floyd, his be used by Israel against the pels

Williams and ask Mr Ruffolo points out there who must be a lamb dsl there and decolonization are all the same blood lust, and I agree that hamas and the alarm wearily not the same, but they are of the same, the same philosophy that there is some work and the danger of smaller numbers if there were more people would be alone. Who knows? But yes, I think is important- you pointed out that they all have one lust for the people. Don't look like them. Well, what's happening in your brain.

One data, I didn't know the seventy percent of the casualties are from the big guns. I guess that means artillery. Did you know that seventy percent of the or at least recently seventy percent of the casualties were from the big artillery who's? Basically, it just drops on you need to know is coming and it just happens all day long. Sense, but it turns out that the new more modern you tell her artillery that ukraine has been a match for the vast numbering number of.

the guns that the russians have so the year the ukrainians barely have set up a very sophisticated spotting and destruction system, so they'll they'll spots, sometimes with their drones, they'll, put a drawn over the target, so the drunken just watch the target they shoot at it, and then the drone tells him out to adjust you're twenty three short vessel. That should again so they can very much take out a hundred presented. They think they can see how you think about that the euphrates now building to destroy a hundred per cent of anything that can be seen from the air. That's on the front line, so all of it so they're, just going one by one and just taken mount amateur. It is almost it's almost just routine, see it shoot at it just kill it does it

now I don't off. They're gonna, run out of artillery shells before russia does is. One of the things they take out is the local munitions. Depots was harder for russia. They get the munitions to where they live. So it does look to me like a total, laugh at all what you call it. The thai nobody's going anywhere. And I dont know how our leaders to make peace.

in a war where it's obvious, it's not going anywhere the other. It seems to me that sleep, the ultimate way you can make peace. It's like alright, have you been paying attention whatever you do, we're going to matchup we're going to do it forever? While we work this out, I see a comment that says actually scout the russians are advancing rapidly well. Do you believe that I believe it might be report somewhere, but do you believe the russians are advancing rapidly? I don't know, I don't think so, alexander more cores reports, it doesn't matter who reports it. I just doubt it's true now. I do think that there will be places where either side will punch through, but once you punch through you're, just it's just target practice, and so punching through is not is not getting you a lot.

The also the russians giving up, I don't see anybody giving up till they get what they want, but but the russians could get what they want without war. Probably, alright. I've got an idea for a while at la saga, Gaza. The hospitals or failing there, as you might imagine these, what the.

Emergency supplies are having trouble getting in at the rafah crossing, as you would anticipate, and apparently the ground attack is now started so as much later than people thought. Some of it might be that it takes well organised ground assault, but I've got a feeling that they may have changed their tactics and remember what I said didn't make sense to a ground assault. You remember, I said that I said it makes more sense than to a siege, which is what they call that they actually use. The word siege and the siege would be basically starving out. Both the civilian and military

If people until you separate enough of the good people from the bad and then you can do whatever you want with that, so I think time is on their side and maybe the worst thing that Israel could do is create a bunch of casualties that are way beyond the pale. I think several thousand have already died in Gaza

I saw four thousand plus. I don't know how many people would have to die in gaza before our hearts and minds reverse, and it just looks like Israel's the bad guy if you're backing them this point, but there is some number I dunno if that number is, but there's number if we hit it everything reverses. So Israel would be smart to stay away from whatever that mental number is keep keep those losses down to be somewhere in the range of is Israel's own losses and at least the one that too much of an order of magnitude bigger and at just take as long as they need it'd be very expensive, but you are people die. You are to me having your enemy. Living underground is more of a plus than a minus, and if, if you're a guerilla outfit and the other team doesn't want to bomb your city being underground is a very good idea. However, if it's a siege being underground is just the place you die, am I right and you can shoot at people when you're underground, so I think the I think the tunnel networks become the weakest.

Heart of the Hamas military effort to me: that's their weakness and I think we'll just starve them out. Basically, I don't think anybody's going to go down into a tunnel if they don't have to could just send a robot over alright. So here's where things are going and I think there's going to be an israeli decapitation strike on iran because there may it may be no way to avoid it. So here would be the normal sequence of events. If the ground assault starts, then Hezbollah has not just a free pass, but almost a requirement for survival that they have to attack the reason being. If they don't attack them, their supporters will think. Why are we giving you all this money like? This? Is the time you attack. You have all their the cover of Israel going into a civilian population. You can have high numbers of deaths. You know that they're distracted there could be no better time to attack in the history of hezbollah. This would be the time to that, given that they know they're gonna lose no matter when they attack in this matter to them. I guess so. If the ground, the soul, starts as below we'll get a grip,

and if they didn't get aggressive, they would be seen as weak, and why are we funding you sort of silly? After if Hezbollah gets aggressive and ah Israel takes too many hits as there's some there's? Some amount of little annoying hits that Israel will just put up with as a fallout wars too much, but I think Hezbollah will exceed Israel's patience and then what would be Israel's next move an all out war with hezbollah. You'd think that would be the next move. That will be, I think, a mistake to think that would be mistake. I would do a decapitation strike on iran if they can figure out a way to make it work, passengers will probably get killed, no matter what and I'm not saying that cavalierly or you know, without respect to their their dignity of their lives, let's say but realistically, realistically yeah they're they're in a place where there's not much. You can do.

I don't see too many rescues happening, but maybe a few and worth trying certainly worth trying. I wouldn't expect a lot from many rescues, but I think Israel's done talking. I think that they cannot. It would be a waste of time for Israel to destroy Hamas and just fortify their border with hezbollah, as it will just recreate it. As long as iran gives money to the bad guys, the whole situation will just be recreated and I don't think they can put up with it a second time. So if they want to end it, they will probably have to try something bold like taking out the leadership of IRAN as many times as it takes like you know, immediately they get a new hard hardliner. You just go: take health and new hardliner sewage. Again now you may say: it'll be scott. This will create massive terrorism around the world and the lights might go out in the united states. I think they might think the lights might go out in the united states, because I'm sure iran has terrorism teams in the united states. By now they would presumably be activated automatically and they would presumably go after things like the grid. You have to really make sure everybody knew what was going on so obvious.

The lights go out and actually do the next few weeks not permanently but know I'd make sure you've got batteries and candles is what I'm saying is. I think that I think IRAN will hear back if they get hit, and I don't know what would stop them from me. Yet we're we're already seeing that our embassies have been cleared out in the whole area. We see that america barely has a government alright, if you saw, if you are IRAN or even as below ruin that Israel and you look at our leadership and you look at no speaker, Laos, don't you tell yourself you get after kind of do this on your own. Now, the american military being in the gulf. Guess we've got a strike force that they can have pulled up in the area. Do you think that's because of hezbollah? Where do you think that's to keep iran under control in case there's a decapitation strike I could be all of those things could be what a Joe Biden says just a way to keep everybody. You know where they are and not not to get them involved in war. Maybe, but I'm so I'll make this prediction if there's a bloody ground assault, which I think is in question. I think the siege is more likely at this point, but if they go in and there are massive casual.

casualties as below will be active. Israel will say we're done with this and they'll just take out iran at any cost. I think they'll take out the leadership. I remember when solomon he was taken out by trump and people said: oh, no, that's going to create a wave of attacks. Did it. I think it might have done the opposite. So I gotta feeling that the iranian people are not so happy about their leadership, that they wouldn't mind seeing him vaporized. Frankly yeah. That is an unpredictable thing, because if you attack any country, they tend to back their leaders during the attacks or to a dicey proposition, and so do you imagine that Israel or the united states knows where the head of

Iran us, I feel like they might be just waiting to know for sure where he is, and I don't think he'll be able to appear in public. Has he ever not? As the leader of IRAN appeared in public in recent years, whereas louis sort of in a room that you didn't know where he was, I can't I can't imagine him doing outdoor events in the land and the world of drones by the way you you know that in the age of drones, our leaders will no longer be able to do outdoor events.

So that's going to happen, alright, alright, how many on these other platforms want me to turn it and turn it off? You want to talk about the audio problems more now, I'm just saying if they want to want me to turn it off.