e is either. So the question of whether a foreign entity can kill somebody on your soil, get caught, and still not cause any major problems has been answered. We already have the answer. You can kill people on foreign soil.

And here's the key part. The other people are killing people that we think should not be killed. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that we kill people that even the Chinese government thinks should be killed. In other words they would kill them themselves if their government was functioning properly and nobody was bribed. If the government of China worked properly they would execute these exact same people. It's against their law but probably there's corruption and things and inefficiencies and whatnot so maybe their government doesn't work so well.

The odds of starting a war because we killed Chinese fentanyl dealers in China I believe is zero. Approximately zero. That's my opinion. But you could kill a few and find out. Just kill a few and find out. See what the reaction is because they're not going to go to war over one and they're probably not going to go to war over two or three. We could probably kill dozens. And if it became a national headline, what then? Suppose it became a national headline, my god China is accusing the United States of killing somebody on their soil. And then we have to report why. Why did we kill somebody on their soil? Well same reason we killed bin Laden in Pakistan. Do you remember when Pakistan went to war with the United States because we killed bin Laden on their territory? No you don't remember that because it didn't happen. Why? Because even Pakistan didn't want bin Laden. Sure they complained. They're supposed to complain to keep their sovereignty. It's good form to complain about it but they're not going to war about it. And they got nukes.

All right so China, the last thing China wants is a headline that says we're killing their fentanyl dealers because they can't get it done. They don't want that headline. China is going to cover this up faster than we would. Even if a Chinese public, let's say a Chinese newspaper wanted to report that story, the Chinese government would stop it. They don't want a story that says the US is killing their citizens because they're responsible for the death of 30,000 Americans a year. No chance of war. None. Not even the smallest chance. And even if they threatened it you'd have so much time to climb down from it. It just is no risk.

All right, who's going to fund the op? Good question. I'm not sure it needs to be the American government. Two people. It could be other people. Could be mercenaries. Could be paying Chinese nationalists to do it themselves. Could be lots of ways to get it done.

But now the argument that people have said is that well Scott if you say that you can blame China for supplying this deadly stuff shouldn't you also be in favor of killing alcohol makers in the United States? Shouldn't you be in favor of killing car manufacturers because they know that their cars kill people? Oh Scott, shouldn't you be in favor of killing gun manufacturers in the United States because guns are killing people? Isn't it the same reasoning? Well here's my answer to that. Those are different situations. What can a different situation tell you about your situation? Nothing. Nothing. There's something wrong with your brain if you're asking yourself about gun makers and cars and American products which are, wait for it, legal. They're completely legal.

Now if those things were illegal, if let's say guns were banned and some manufacturer was making them anyway, or here's a better example, it's illegal to make a bazooka or an automatic weapon and sell it to the public, right? You can't do that in the United States. If we found that there was a company, an underground company, making fully automatic weapons and let's say they were making drones that spray toxic chemicals to kill people, let's say they were making IEDs for terrorist attacks, so in other words illegal companies, what I advocate killing the operators of those illegal companies who were making terrorist bombs and terrorist equipment that can only be used for illegal terrorist stuff? Yes, absolutely. And if the United States government for whatever reason wouldn't or couldn't kill those terrorists operating on our own soil, would I be upset if China killed them for us? Well I would certainly raise an eyebrow about that. I would certainly wonder why that's happening. But if the Chinese government, and this is a ridiculous thought experiment but that's the point, whenever you're talking about give me your opinion on this because something completely different was something played it completely different, you know, yeah. So yes, analogies are not persuasive.

But I'm making a point that if the Chinese government came and killed somebody in this country who was a known terrorist it wouldn't start a war with China. So my point is that I'll take it out of the analogy. Countries don't go to war because you solved their problem. And if we kill some of the owners of their fentanyl labs because for whatever reason they're not doing it, we're solving their problem too. So you don't go to war because you solved another country's problem. You just leave all the analogies out of it and you can't compare that to any kind of legal industry in another country. There's no comparison there.

All right, tariffs on all Chinese drugs, I'm okay with that. I'm okay on any kind of maximum pressure on China under the circumstances. Should fentanyl be illegal? So and other people are arguing that you're not going to change the supply of fentanyl by killing the dealers. I agree with that. Let me say it as clearly as possible. No matter how many fentanyl labs you close, no matter how many you execute, you won't change the supply because it's too easy for another one to pop up and fill in the gap. That's not the reason I'm advocating killing them. I'm advocating killing them to size the problem. It needs to be treated as a war. And one of the ways to get people to understand the size of it so that they'll put the right priority on it, so that they'll put resources on it, so that they'll stop thinking of other things and think about this because it's so critical. It's like a big bleeding wound. You got to put the tourniquet on it. All I want is to kill enough people that we understand that what the labs are doing is so bad that it has to be treated as mass murder. If we treat it as a drug problem we completely lose the magnitude of it.

Let me use an analogy to make my point. A handgun is a weapon used to kill people, right? A nuclear weapon is a weapon used to kill people. Should our laws about handguns be the same as our laws about nuclear weapons? Answer: no. Because even though they're both a weapon to kill people, the size and scale of a nuclear weapon makes it an entirely different situation from a handgun. Likewise if you're looking at our laws that we have for heroin, laws about cocaine, laws about marijuana, those are like a handgun. They can kill, well not so much marijuana, but the lower level opioids, you know the heroines and the cocaines and stuff, they can kill people like a handgun can kill people. But fentanyl is a nuclear weapon. And if you're treating the nuclear weapon the same as you're treating the handgun you're in the wrong conversation.

So everybody who says to me hey why don't we legalize fentanyl because somebody did something with heroin, you're using handgun laws to make decisions about nuclear weapons. Now that said I am in favor, I am totally in favor of anything that can be tried small. So if you can do a trial in a city or a state where you relax the laws and somehow you protect people and you treat them instead of putting them in jail. So I mean I'm in favor of trying every small thing you can try that has any potential whatsoever as long as it's reasonably constructed.

Let's talk about George Soros. So I feel bad about this. So I asked on Periscope a few times for somebody to explain to me or send me a link to something that would describe why people think George Soros is the devil. Now it's not because I haven't read things about him. I have. But every time I read it I keep looking for the part where I'm supposed to understand that he wants open borders or no borders or something that's something that would make him as evil as he is portrayed by the right. And then I read the article and it doesn't really quite sell it. So I think okay it wasn't that article. Obviously I'm just not reading the right articles. And so I kept thinking I would at least accidentally just run into something about Soros that would tell me his open society or whatever was a menace to the world and that there would be an explanation and