e modern landscape of news and information than it does with a double standard. So that's my first comment. Analogies don't work as arguments.

The second thing is that Scott Galloway likes to use the argument that if you looked at it as a percentage, the percentage of Israelis that were killed on October 7th, and you applied that percentage to let's say the United States, it would be some big number like 35,000 people. And I think he used the example of the hostages would be like I don't know the size of a whole college or something like that. And he points out if that happened to us, 35,000 people and that many hostages as a percentage, that we would basically just turn it into a parking lot. He used Mexico as an example. He said if Mexico did that to us we would just level Mexico. You know there wouldn't be any bit left.

Now maybe yes or maybe because it's the modern world and everybody would be watching we wouldn't be able to level Mexico because there would be too much pushback, too much watching. However I would argue that in this domain percentage is a propaganda number. That's not an information number. The information number is the number of people. Remember I always tell you that if somebody concentrates on either the percentage of a thing or the raw number and they try to minimize the other, that's propaganda every time. If you're not willing to say cleanly and clearly here's both numbers, let's look at them and see what's important. In my opinion the number of people who died is all that matters. In what world am I supposed to respect the percentage? If one person dies anywhere that's one person dead. If one American dies that's a tragedy. If one Israeli dies that's a tragedy. If a hundred Israelis died that's a tragedy of a hundred people. If a hundred Americans die that's a tragedy of exactly the same size. It's a hundred people.

The only reason you could say that Israel losing their percentage is somehow worse than if that same number of people died in the United States, the only way you could say that is if you thought the Israelis were the special people, that their lives were worth more than American lives. No. A hundred dead Israelis is worth a hundred dead Americans because they're all the same in terms of the value of life. So now don't give me this about higher percentage. I mean I understand it. I understand how they feel the way they feel. So if the argument is people would feel worse, I get that. But how they feel is not how they should prosecute a war. That's not the basis upon which you run your business. So I think the analogy is propaganda and I think using that percentage argument is propaganda and neither of those seem to me as reasonable arguments.

Speaking of imaginary Democrat problems, Scott Galloway also on his podcast said he thinks that Trump will gin up a fake crisis before 2028 so that he can use that as an example to gain power. And also Madeleine Dean, she's a Democrat from Pennsylvania, she went on CNN recently to claim that Donald Trump is aging and in cognitive decline. What do those two stories have in common? They are imaginary problems. The Democrats are focusing extraordinarily on imaginary problems. Well we imagine there's something wrong with his brain even though we're not seeing any evidence. We imagine he might try to gin up this problem in the future so they can remain in power but there's no evidence of that. So once you realize that the Democrats are focusing on imaginary problems you realize that the reason they do that is they don't have any solutions for real problems. That's why. Do you think that they would focus on imaginary problems if they had any kind of idea what to do about a real problem? I don't think so.

Anyway Gavin Newsom found a way to make things worse. So I guess Breitbart News is writing about this. Paul Bois has found a way to create a new problem where there was none. So the federal government has provided standards to colleges to say if you sign this contract and you agree to this kind of behavior that you know what Trump would ask for, right? Less DEI and less men wearing dresses in sports and stuff like that. So you know what Trump is going to ask for. But if the colleges sign that then they would have full access to their government funding. But if they're not willing to they might have some of their government federal funding withheld.

Well Governor Newsom, never one to let a good situation persist, decided that he would withhold state funds from colleges if they do sign it. So now he's created a situation where colleges will definitely lose. That's a Democrat plan. So the college will lose if it doesn't sign the federal contract. And now because of Newsom they have a second way to lose which is if they do sign the contract. What exactly did the Democrats add to the world? They remove the only escape path because it's not as if the colleges couldn't agree to stop discriminating and being anti-Semitic. How hard is it to sign a contract that says yeah we'll try really hard not to be anti-Semitic and we'll stop discriminating. That's not exactly some big problem but Newsom turned it into one. So there's no good news that he can't turn into bad news.

How about that bullet train, huh? So here's a shocker. You won't believe this. I mean this will be the most surprising amazing thing. Can you believe this? Hamas military chief has rejected Trump's ceasefire deal. I was so sure Hamas was going to surrender. No I wasn't. There was no chance that Hamas was ever going to say yes to this deal. There was no chance. They're not going to give up the hostages. They're not going to surrender. They're not going to essentially commit suicide by surrendering. They'll either be in jail forever or they'll get hunted down and murdered separately. And no matter what the agreement is they're going to get hunted down and murdered. Do you think that the Hamas military chief would be alive a year after they surrendered even if Israel said all right we promised you safety if we could get our hostages back we won't go after anybody? Do you think that guy's going to be alive in a year? No. The only way he stays alive is if he stays in his little tunnel or wherever the hell he is and keeps trying to be relevant. Otherwise he'll be very dead and very not relevant.

So of course he's not going to take the deal. However that would be a giant win for Israel because Israel will look like they made a legitimate offer and it was pretty legitimate. I would say it was close enough to legitimate that maybe they could have tweaked it a little bit but Hamas is not in the tweaking mode. They're just turning it down. So that's going to give Israel a free pass to do whatever they need now. So it looks like they'll just clear out Gaza and you can call it whatever you want to call it.

Tucker Carlson has made a video which was quite provocative and his point was that Israel has too much impact on American leadership and American policy. And he wanted four things changed that he thinks would make the situation better. Now I'm just going to say this is Tucker's argument. All right? So don't associate it with me. I'm just telling you an interesting news story that a major voice in the media is saying something that's kind of risky, kind of provocative, but he makes a point. I'll see if I can summarize it. It's a pretty long video but actually worth watching the whole thing 'cause his argument is interesting. There are places where I would have said too far or maybe you should have put that in context better. But that's not the point. The point is not whether I agree with him or not. The point today is he's making the argument at all. So that's what I'm going to be talking about, just the bravery and the risk it takes to make this argument.

His bigger point is that Israel is a tiny little country of 9 million people with an economy less than New Jersey and a physical size less than New Jersey and that we should not consider it our most important thing and that we act as though nothing's more important than Israel. And he is trying to put that back in context and say actually they don't matter to us at all. Now I know what you're going to say but yes Scott they do matter. Why didn't he mention that there are they give us some purchase in the Middle East and it allows us to fight them over there before the bad guys come and fight over here and all that. So everybody knows the other argument and he downplayed those. That would be fair to say he was making his points and when you make your point you have that documentary effect where the whole point is that if you listen to a 91-minute video it's pretty long. It's not going to be both sides and when you're done you're going to be pretty persuaded because you listen to one point of view for a long period of time. That's the documentary problem. So be aware of the documentary problem on that. But you should be aware of the argument.

So he doesn't want the US to be ordered around by a client state. He's heard stories of Mossad marching into the Pentagon and giving orders to the American military. I don't know if I believe those stories. That sounds exaggerated to me. Here's what seems more likely true. So that the story is that Mossad could just walk into the Pentagon and walk into a meeting and tell people what to do.