Episode 2799 CWSA 04/04/25

check the stock market, but we all expected that.

So, no big news.

We knew it was not going to be a good week for the stock market.

Let's get my comments going here.

And then we've got the show that you deserve.

If you've been good, and I'll bet you have been.

I'll bet you've been good.

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better day.

But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need is a copper mug or a glass of tanker chalice canine jug or flask a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.

And it happens now.

So good.

Well, I guess it's going to be up to me to explain tariffs and everything else because it's all terribly complicated.

But first, let's see if there's any science that didn't need to be done.

Oh, here we go.

According to Pedipixel, which sounds like a weird name, Matt Grokoot.

How could that be a real name?

Grooot.

Poor guy.

Matt Grokoot.

Anyway, uh there's a study and the study finds that if you smile in your profile picture, uh more people will want to do business with you and you'll make more money.

Now, that's quite a surprise, isn't it?

Do you know what they could have done instead of this study?

They could have just asked me, "Scott, is it good if people smile in their profile picture?" Yes.

Yes, it is.

Well, we were thinking of doing a big expensive study.

Don't bother.

People like it when you smile in your profile picture, but will they be more willing to do work with you and, you know, maybe buy things from you?

Yes.

Yes.

Smiling can do all of that for you.

So next time just talk to Scott.

I can save you a lot of time.

Well, the Trump administration is freezing $510 million um from Brown University according to the Daily Caller.

Reagan Ree is writing and uh it's because Brown University has been accused of not doing enough about anti-semitism and uh their DEI program is a little problematic as well.

Uh but more than that, I think they need to change the name of their university to something more inclusive.

I mean, the name of the college is Brown University.

I mean, seriously, you're going to have to change the name.

I think something like rainbow university or all the colors university or be they black, be they white, be they any other color university, but you just can't call it Brown University.

If DEI is your problem, change that name.

Okay, it's certainly named after a person named Brown, but that doesn't matter to the joke.

Well, there's yet another day, this is the millionth day in a row, in which uh somebody has breathlessly um posted on X that some new AI app can create people who are doing what you want them to do.

So, if you dance, it makes it look like a celebrity that you selected is dancing.

And you can make them do all kinds of things.

You can make them Marilyn Monroe.

And does it matter which app it is?

No.

Because nobody's ever going to do anything useful with that.

How many times have you seen an AI app that promises to make Oh my god, with this kind of tool, I could make my own fulllength movie.

Has anybody made a full-length AI movie?

Nope.

Is anybody close to making a fulllength AI movie?

Nope.

Because I've tried a little bit um you know image generation stuff just to see what's going on.

I think I use Gros and maybe Chad GBTS.

And so I thought to myself, okay, I'm I'm already a visual artist kind of.

And so I'll tell the AI to make and then if it's not exactly what I want, how great will this be?

Because I can just tell it to change it.

I can say, "Change the color of that shirt and put it in a tropical setting and pretty soon with very little effort, I'm gonna have like a piece of art." It took me about 10 minutes of messing around to say to myself, I have no interest in doing this whatsoever.

And it never got close to what I wanted cuz it turns out that the thing in my mind uh just couldn't be re reproduced by AI.

There was just always something that wasn't close.

And I think all of these image generation things where you think, ah, we must be five minutes away from Hollywood being able to make a full-length movie with this technology.

Nope.

Nope.

You're not even close.

uh you would not get anywhere close.

Um I'm going to double down on my prediction or triple down or quadruple down because I keep saying it that art pretty much all art forms are only attractive to us as consumers if we know that it was made by a human.

And it's not because we're anti- AI or something.

It's because it's related to our mating instinct.

So when you see an artist who does something that you can't do, you say to yourself, you don't maybe you don't say it consciously, but your instinct is to want to mate with the artist because the artist has some kind of genetic thing you don't have.

If you see somebody who can play the piano like Beethoven and even write write the music like Beethoven, you are automatically triggered to say, "Really?

If I mated with that, maybe I'd have a child who is super skilled.

All right, bring it on.

So, I don't think AI will ever produce any art that anybody cares about.

That's what I think.

Uh, but it might be the end of drawing.

I was doing some drawing yesterday uh for you know my job and I realized that a child born today will never even learn to draw because it wouldn't have any utility.

They'll just they'll just learn to use AI to make images.

Why would you learn to draw if you were a child born today?

No real reason.

I I'm almost wondering if children born today will learn to write because you could just talk to the computer and it'll write it perfectly for you.

At what point is it just useless to learn how to do it yourself?

I don't know.

We're getting close.

All right.

Uh, apparently, according to Zero Hedge, Republicans, the Trump administration, uh, are looking at raising a new, well, creating a new tax bracket for those over earning over a million dollars a year.

Uh, does that sound like something that Trump would be okay with?

It doesn't to me.

Um, you know, I I suppose it would be popular or help him sell the tax package if he does it, but uh not a big fan.

Not a big fan of that.

If you had any idea what the tax burden is for people who make over a million dollars a year and let's say they don't have any fancy ways to hide it.

They're not they're not in real estate or they don't own a you know gigantic company with lots of ways to hide your taxable income.

If you're just making a lot of money because you're a surgeon or something, the tax burden is insane.

It's insane.

And then when you die, the government takes 40% of what's left.

There's there's really no hope.

Well, let me put it another way.

If you made a if you were so good at your job that you made a million dollars a year every year that you worked and then you retired, you would not be leaving your children much of anything at all because what it would cost you to live would be about the same.

your taxes would take most of it and then your estate tax would take 40% of what's left and then if you had three kids and you divided by three, not much left.

So, uh really the the government in its current form has made it kind of impossible to build wealth in a realistic way, you know, unless you're just killing it and then you can do it.

But but you'd have to get so lucky.

But people who are making a million dollars a year, just like clearing a million dollars a year, they're not they're not creating a dynasty.

That's just that's just living a pretty good life while you're alive.

Pretty good life.

Well, meanwhile, Klaus Schwab is stepping down for the World Economic Forum.

We knew this was coming.

But is it my imagination or did the people who were quite worried that the World Economic Forum was going to be like a shadow government and you really running the whole world and all that, did we just stop thinking and talking about it?

Because I never bought into that, you know, I was just sort of observing it from the outside.

But to me, it just looked like what Elon Musk said once, a rich people club.

And they had some preferences, you know, they wanted some climate change and maybe they wanted you to eat bugs and not own as many things and, you know, rent them instead.

But did any of it make any difference?

I don't know.

It It doesn't seem like it really did.

And now that Clouse is gone, you wonder if all the clout the Klouse clout will be gone.

So uh but I also wonder did we think that the WF World Economic Forum was the shadow government until Doge discovered that USA was a shadow government at least for the United States and and for a lot of countries it affected.

So maybe we just like having the idea there's a shadow government, but as soon as you see that uh as soon as you see that what USID was doing, that looks like the real one and then the World Economic Forum again just looks like a rich person's club.

So Klouse is uh stepping down.

Uh Trump called the uh situation in France where Marine Leen who was the front runner for the presidency uh got taken out by lawfare or at least that's what it looks like from you know this this part of the world and Trump called it a witch hunt and said it was the same playbook that was used against Trump to take him out.

Now do you buy that?

Do you buy that it it wasn't a legitimate prosecution?

It maybe wouldn't have happened to anybody else and that it was completely political and it was for the purpose of taking a round of the election.

I do I do now could be wrong maybe but we live in a world where unfortunately that would be the most obvious and routine thing that would happen because we're seeing in other places.

You know, it seems to me that remember when the first time you learned that George Soros had figured out that the best way to control the country is to control the prosecutors and maybe some judges.

Because if you get the attorney generals and the prosecutors on your side, you can kind of control the legal system.

And if you control the legal system, you are the government because you can take out a candidate.

If you can take out a candidate like Trump or you can take out Marine Le Pen, you're kind of the government.

And remember how clever that seemed?

We thought, man, this Soros guy is so clever.

He figured out the least expensive way to control a country.

Then he was, you know, controlling the United States, it felt like.

And then we learned that USAID has been doing exactly that to other countries massively and for decades.

So apparently one of the first things we do when we want to control another country is we look to control their courts.

We try to get a try to get a judge and a you know prosecutors that we can control or bribe or you know somehow have some influence over.

So it does seem that all governments that you would call part of the democratic world, they all seem fake because I believe that if your if your court system has been corrupted and that certainly is the case in the United States, seems to be the case in France, probably the case in every country that USID was working in.

I'm not sure any of the democracies are real.

I think that they might all be pretend and that the real government is whoever put in the corrupt judges.

You know, remember Joe Biden and the uh the prosecutor, he said, "Well, we won't release your billion dollars to Ukraine unless you get rid of that prosecutor." That was just this.

It looks like it it was just another case where we couldn't control Ukraine unless we could control, you know, their judges and prosecutors.

So it looks like that's what he was doing.

So once you learn that the governments all look fake, they all look fake.

If you look at let's say an election in the United States, do you think it will be determined by the candidates and the voters or will it be determined by whatever corrupt judges decide is going to be legal today?

I think the judges can change the rules.

They'll decide what's in do you need voter ID?

Are you going to reortion the district so that you get, you know, more representatives?

I think the courts kind of control democracy and so to me everything looks fake as long as the courts and the judges don't look credible and they don't look credible at this point.

So there's that.

So Laura Loomer made some news by apparently she had identified some uh what Glenn Greenwald calls three pro-war members of the National Security Council and she talked to Trump and Trump fired them immediately.

Now how do you interpret that if you're an anti-Trumper?

You say to yourself, "What?

This Laura Loomer conspiracy theory lady um is is so powerful.

She's she's causing policy to happen in the White House.

Is that what's happening?" Let me give you my frame on this.

U I've I've said this a number of times about Trump.

One of his superpowers, one of one of his strengths is that he's really good at listening to everybody.

He you'll listen to Bill Maher.

He listened to me when I visited.

You'll listen to uh Rock, you'll listen to Laura Loomer, but you will also listen to Scott Bessent and you know all the top economists and uh you'll listen to other world leaders.

and he's really good at scanning the room and listening.

Now, the other thing I teach you is that the person with the best ideas is always in charge.

So, Laura Loomer must have done some research or had some information that Trump was not aware of and she had credibility from other interactions.

So, he was willing to, you know, give her a listen.

She described these people and why she thinks that they were dangerous to keep on because they're kind of pro-war, you know, maybe not as pro.

Trump as they could be.

And uh he decided cuz he's the decider.

Uh that's a good point.

I didn't know about that.

They're gone.

I don't have any problem with that at all.

To me, that all looks positive.

positive part is that Trump is always scanning uh his his base to find out what they think and and listening to suggestions.

I I can't tell you how many times I've heard that somebody made a suggestion to the Trump White House and then when it got to Trump, he said, "Huh, pretty good idea.

Let's do that." It's very common and I don't think any other president has has had the confidence or or just the vision to see what everybody wants and to be able to decide, oh, I like that one.

I don't like this one.

I like this one.

I don't like that one.

So, I love the fact that Loomer could come in with some some information of value because otherwise Trump wouldn't have acted if it had no value and uh he acted on it.

So, I I don't think that story is about Loomer.

Uh but she's she's doing a hell of a job of of making herself relevant in the uh entire political process.

So, hats off to that.

Um, but this is a Trump story and Trump doing the thing I like best about him, listening, taking people seriously and then acting, you know, without any hesitation.

Um, so I saw a uh there's going around on X there's a video of Chuck Schumer in 1996 and he's uh Chuck Schumer is basically sounding exactly like Elon Musk talking about immigration and Schumer in 1996 he's arguing in the Congress and he says the number one reason that illegals come to the US is so they can defraud programs like social security.

Does that sound familiar?

It's 1996 and it's Chuck Schumer.

Now, today he would say exactly the opposite.

Oh, stop accusing those illegals.

Uh there's nothing going on completely opposite.

Now, that's not the only person who's on video doing things that look sort of opposite based today.

Uh, according to the Wall Street Apes account, uh, in 1996, Pelosi was encouraging, um, Congress to back reciprocal tariffs.

Do you think she's doing it today?

Probably not.

In 2008, Bernie Sanders wanted tariffs uh because he says jobs are going overseas.

Uh, actually, Bernie might be consistent.

I think he might I I'll have to check on that, but I think Bernie might be consistent because I think he agreed with Trump on some tariff stuff.

And in 2018, Barack O Barack Obama Obama uh called for reciprocal tariffs.

Do you think he's doing it today?

So, here's my take on Republicans versus Democrats.

My my observation having spent a lot of time with you know both is that Republicans have core beliefs.

Now I know that sounds funny because you think everybody has core beliefs but I don't think so.

I think Republicans have core beliefs and they don't really change.

Um and Democrats have performances.

So, one has core beliefs and you could predict if if you found a video of a Republican talking 20 years ago, would it look that different from a Republican talking today?

I feel like it would look a essentially the same.

Whereas the Democrats, you can always go back and find them having the opposite opinion.

The indication to me is that one group is performing and one group is acting on their actual core beliefs.

And once you see it, you can't unsee it.

But let me give you another example here.

Um, according to Rasmusen polling, uh, Stephen A.

Smith, you know, you know, uh, would you call him, uh, entertainer or ESPN commentator?

Let's call him Stephen A.

Smith that if you throw him in the mix for potential candidates to be president of the Democrats, he he actually scores pretty well.

Um so let's see, uh 33% of likely US voters view him favorably.

And in a hypothetical matchup, um 31% would vote for Nuome, but 28% for for Stephen A.

Smith.

and he would do about the same against AOC.

So, he's not the leading person, but he's also not running at all.

I mean, I think he's been pretty clear that even being considered a presidential candidate is less about him.

I like the way he says this, by the way.

It's less about him and more about the complete lack of uh good candidates.

He's totally right about that.

But here's the thing.

Stephen A.

Smith is a performer.

Now, he's a commentator, but what makes him like extra good at his job is that he performs.

Like he's he goes big when he comments and that makes him hard to look away.

I I find him totally engaging and very skilled at doing what he does, which is get your attention, hold your attention.

Uh, my experience is if I come across a a clip of Stephen A.

Smith, it's hard to stop watching it because he's just so high energy and, you know, he he makes sense most of the time.

Um, but he's a performer, so that makes sense in the Democrat world.

Find a performer because it's all performance.

Well, there's a study by uh well, Cypost is writing about it.

Um it was published in the personality and social psychology bulletin that says that liberals show less empathy to political opponents than conservatives do.

So, liberals would care less if conservatives had something bad happen to them, whereas conservatives might, you know, deeply disagree with the liberals, but wouldn't find pleasure in seeing something bad happen to them.

Is that surprising?

Nope.

Because I'll tell you my my current view on Democrats besides the fact that they're performing as opposed to operating on core beliefs.

I think Democrats are motivated by jealousy and hate and that's why they perform.

Imagine if your core belief was non-existence, but your your real motivation is a revengey, jealousy, hatred of people who are doing better than you, you would have to perform because you couldn't say the truth.

You couldn't say, you know, honestly, I'm just full of hate.

So, I think I, you know, want Trump to lose.

Uh, not because he's doing a bad job.

I'm just full of hate.

And uh, Doge, even though it sounds like a good idea on paper, Musk is so rich and having so many babies.

And I'm not having any babies, and I'm not rich.

So, I I just like to see him fail.

You couldn't really do that.

You can think it, but you can't say it out loud.

So, you're going to have to put on a performance instead.

you're going to have to pretend that you have normal views and that you're a normal person.

But Republicans seem motivated by um two things.

One is the ick factor.

Now, you've heard this before that um conservatives seem to be more likely to be icked out by anything that's non-standard or just icky.

And you know, I I don't want to give you examples what that is cuz uh cuz that would cause problems.

But there just some things that make conservatives go gh that out of here.

I don't want to be part of that at all.

But that's not the only factor.

I think uh Republicans have a growth mindset which is you know you can you can do well, the country can do well, we can we can create more for everybody.

So, if you have a growth mindset, you don't really need to pretend when you're talking about what you want.

I want to lower taxes.

I want to get rid of regulations.

It's just a growth mindset.

And the Democrats are just literally just putting on performances trying to cover up the fact that their real motivation is just some kind of horrible hatred.

That's what it looks like to me.

Well, here's something I didn't know.

Uh, according to the Amuse account on X, did you know that the person who at one point had been tasked with determining whether or not Dr.

Fouch's gain of function research was ethical or not was, who do you think it was?

Of all the people in the world, who would be in charge of determining that Fouch's gain of function research in China was ethical?

Well, it turns out it was his wife.

That's the first time I knew this.

So his wife, who I guess just got fired by Trump, uh she was the head of the NIH office of bioeththics.

So he was actually being evaluated by his wife for whether or not he was acting ethical or not.

What just happened?

Did my light just go out?

Hold on.

Well, that's weird.

That's the uh second independent light in my uh studio that just went out on its own while the other lights didn't go out.

I'm pretty sure I'm affecting my lights today.

I do that sometimes.

Well, according to ABC News, um Robert F.

Kennedy has cut more jobs at the uh Health and Human Services than he wanted to.

So, some people will be hired back and those would have been called mistakes.

Now, how would you report this if you were ABC News?

Would you report it as that dumbass?

He should have used a scalpel instead of a a hammer.

And uh now he's made this terrible mistake and now he's gonna have to correct it.

Let's hope he's smarter next time.

Well, I would call that the low experience take.

Uh here's what an experienced person would say about that situation where big cuts were needed, big cuts were made, but then it went a little too far.

So they have to back up and correct a few things.

Um I would say that the the view that he should have done it perfectly the first time is what very inexperienced people say about things.

You know, I I'm no expert, but uh I think you should do everything perfectly every time.

What?

That that's what the Democrats with not much experience say, you know, who've never been in business, never done anything important.

That's not a thing.

You can't do something of that size and scale and do it perfectly on the first try.

Nobody could do that.

So don't even imagine that if he tried harder or used his scalpel that he could have gotten it exactly right the first try and gotten it done on time.

If you had infinite time, you still couldn't do it because if you have infinite time, then forces working against you will have time to organize and thwart you and get in the way.

So the best way to do this stuff is take your best cut at it.

make some mistakes and then correct them as you need to.

That's a perfect job.

Inexperienced people say, "Well, you had a choice of just doing it perfectly in the first place.

Why didn't you just measure twice or thrice before you cut?" I mean, there there's a little thing that even says says what you should do.

Measure twice, cut once.

Have you never heard that?

I mean, if you've heard it, then I guess you would never make any mistakes.

But it's a good thing that I'm cleverly telling you now with all my lack of experience how things work in the real world.

Yeah.

Do it without mistakes.

I'm going to add that to my other thing that only inexperienced people say, which is you should have done it sooner.

Do you know what else you should have done sooner?

Everything.

Everything that was worthwhile, you should have done it sooner.

What about Doge?

Should have done it sooner.

What about tariffs?

Sooner.

What about tax cuts?

Sooner.

Everything should have been done sooner and perfectly.

It should have been done sooner and perfectly.

That's what all the dumb people will tell you.

Anyway, so I was looking at uh so PJ Media Victoria Taft is writing about this that uh Congresswoman uh Japal uh Promeila Japal and um some Harvard professor are behind the training of people to resist um Doge and and Tesla.

So, they're they're actually doing resistance training to get more people onto the streets.

Resistance training.

Now, here's the fun part.

I happened to be watching Japal um getting interviewed live the other day and she said that this resistance training that they were giving was part of capacity building.

Now, do do you know where I'm going with this?

If those of you have listened to Mike Benz, he talks about the CIA and often working with USAD in the past where they would do capacity building as part of the uh plot to overthrow other countries.

Now, capacity building would be things like making sure that you had co-opted the media or or maybe introduced a new form of media that was going to say the right things, or you had uh trained people to resist on the streets, which is exactly what Japal is working on.

And I said to myself, what are the odds that she would use that phrase?

Have you ever heard any just member of Congress talk about capacity building?

Have you ever heard anybody anybody in any context use the phrase capacity building?

The only place I've ever heard it is from Mike Benz and he didn't make it up.

He's training us to understand that that's a CIA phrase.

So, do you think that Japal accidentally admitted that she's CIA influenced?

I do.

I don't have proof, but that was a pretty big signal that uh she's had some kind of training that's either adjacent to or because of the CIA.

And that would explain so much that I didn't understand about her.

So much.

So I can't say for sure, but if you see any anybody who's training people to resist on the streets and they refer to their own work as capacity building, it's probably means exactly what you think it means.

And if I had never heard Mike Ben talk about it at length, I wouldn't have caught it.

But that little, by the way, this is a it's a hypnotist thing.

Hypnotists will tell you that people tell you exactly what their hidden thoughts are.

They just don't know they're doing it.

So, I'm always looking for the hidden thoughts based on their choice of words.

This one just jumped right out.

So, that was interesting.

All right, let me give you an update on tariffs.

Now, as if if you're brand new to my live stream, uh you don't know that I'm uh I'm completely disgusting because I often mention that I have a degree in economics and um an MBA from a top school.

So, a person like me should certainly understand tariffs.

I mean, with all of my sophisticated education background, of course, I understand everything about tariffs, and I'm going to explain it to you now in the simplest possible way, and then you'll be as smart as I am about tariffs.

Wouldn't that be great?

Don't you want to be as smart as I am?

Um, well, no.

The the real story is economics is not even real, but we'll get to that.

So when you see people complaining that the stocks went down and and they lost money, that's not real.

Nobody lost any money unless it stays down and never goes back up, which has never happened to the stock market in the history of the stock market.

There's never been a time when it went down and just kept going down.

Now, if we ever do see that, that will be, you know, the end of the United States.

But in all likelihood, there's a temporary uncertainty and that, you know, things are likely to adjust.

So, I was watching um I was watching somebody, it doesn't matter who, just saying, you know, and I lost all this money in the stock market.

No, you didn't.

Not only did you not lose it, but your percentage of ownership of the country stayed about the same.

Meaning that if you owned this, you know, tiny bit of stock, you owned a tiny bit of the country because the country is mostly, you know, corporate wealth.

And if everything went down, you probably own just about the same percentage of the country as you owned before.

So, it's not as bad as as it could be.

Um, I haven't sold any stocks.

You know, I'm just going to write it out.

I'm not not terribly worried.

Uh, I don't know.

I don't have a estimate of when it will bounce back.

Could be sudden.

Could be any time.

I don't know.

Could be months, could be longer.

But, uh, what what do you think about the people in the news business?

I think the people in the news business uh are not waiting for manufacturing jobs to come back so they can get one, but they definitely have some money in the stock market.

If you're in the news business, you're well paid and you you probably got a 401k.

So, the people in the news are going to obsess about the stock market because that's what affects them.

They're not going to say, "Well, thank goodness, you know, we have a plan in place to bring back those good manufacturing jobs so I can get one of those and stop being on MSNBC." No, they're only going to be worried about the stock because that's what affects them and it's also what they understand or they think they do.

So, first thing you need to know is that Jim Kramer thinks these tariffs are a terrible idea.

Now, if you spend any time on the internet, you know that Jim Kramer is famous for being a contra indication of what's gonna happen.

So, if he thinks it's a bad idea, might be the best idea ever.

We'll see.

Apparently, General Motors says they're going to dramatically increase car production in the US.

And that's directly because of the uh tariffs because it'll make uh foreign cars more expensive.

So GM is thinking, "Oh, good.

We're going to sell more." Uh likewise, uh Ford is no likewise, but in addition, Ford is rolling out, uh what they call employee pricing.

So they're going to allow anybody to buy a Ford for what would have been the same price that their employees could get them.

I don't know how how good a deal that is or not, but it doesn't doesn't count with some of their best cars.

uh doesn't count like the Raptor or the Mustang or the Bronco or the Expedition or the Navigator or the Superduty trucks.

So, it's not the best offer in the world, but it'd be great if you're looking for an ordinary Ford car and you just want a good price.

But I think the lowhanging fruit here is US companies that will benefit from the tariff and already have facilities.

So all they have to do is, you know, increase production at the existing facilities.

So when you see that kicking in, that's probably a good sign.

Um, here's a just so predictable.

So Republican uh Chuck Grassley is working with a farleft Democrat, uh, Maria Kwell.

Can't well.

That sounds like the the worst name for somebody who's trying to get something done.

Can you do this?

Well, can't Well, anyway, uh the two of them are working together in a bipartisan way to try to wrestle control from Trump about tariff decisions and make sure it's in the uh it's in the Congress.

So they want to make some new legislation that basically, you know, cod codifies the fact that Congress is the one who can raise taxes and decide on tariffs.

So this would be game over.

Now, now I don't know what the odds are that this gets passed.

I think low, probably pretty low odds that it gets passed, but this would be terrible.

It would be basically neutering Trump's ability to negotiate, to do anything useful with tariffs.

But uh there we are, Chuck Grassley trying to take control of that for the Congress, which as you know is worthless according to the Economist magazine.

All right, here we go.

Now, the Economist magazine would be written by people who really understand economics.

So, whatever their take on this would be the the smart take, right?

So, they put out a magazine.

Uh oh, and did I mention that they're called The Economist and they think that magazines are still a good business model?

That's sort of disqualifying from being an economist.

Uh what's your business model?

Well, we've got a magazine.

Okay.

But what they say is that uh uh this is right on the cover of their new magazine that Donald Trump has committed the most profound harmful and unnecessary economic error in the modern era.

Almost everything he said on history, economics, and the technicalities of trade was utterly deluded.

Um but if you want to hear the counter to that uh all-in pod and u entrepreneur Jimoth Pella Hapata um commented on that and he called them a mouthpiece of globalist rhetoric that is literally always wrong.

So Jamath was uh kind of commenting that the more the economist hates it, the more likely it's a good idea.

I don't think he's wrong.

You may have heard that Trump's getting some push back because Russia and you North Korea, Cuba, and Bellarus are not on the tariff list.

And you might say to yourself, "Wait a minute, is it because he's Putin's secret lover that he doesn't want to put him on there?" But anyway, the White House clarified that those countries and Russia in particular are so uh they're already so uh restricted.

So they've got high tariffs already and all kinds of sanctions and so there's not any meaningful trade with those countries.

I think there are some things like potsh or something that we trade with Russia but nothing meaningful that uh would be worthy of derailing any peace talks.

So makes sense they left them off.

Uh China has responded to the tariffs on them with a reciprocal tariff.

So they matched it with a 34% tariff uh on imports of all US products beginning April 10th.

So that matches the the US.

Um is that the beginning of negotiations?

Maybe.

We'll see.

Um New York Post is saying that uh your i.

Phone could get a lot more expensive because of the tariffs if they stayed in place, especially the China stuff because it would make your your i.

Phone be over $2,000.

they think.

Would it?

I don't know.

And if it were, maybe Apple would work hard to bring it to the United States.

I don't know if they could make it cheap enough in the United States, but maybe that'll happen.

Then the New York Post is talking about the cost of your buying your your Air Jordans um shoes that are made in Vietnam, which is also getting a big tariff.

and that your Air Jordans that used to cost $180 might cost $18 more.

You know, the the a lot of things that are optional purchases.

I'm not terribly worried about an optional purchase expensive sneaker.

Seems like you could live without one.

Um, the other thing Trump said, which was interesting, you remember I told you that China is unlikely to agree to a Tik Tok sale because I think they'd want to see Trump fail and it would be worth a few billion dollars to do it.

Um Trump hinted that uh without actually committing to it, he just said it was an example, but he was clearly hinting that uh China might want to negotiate a better tariff situation uh in return for saying yes to a sale of Tik Tok to a you know US buyer or a buyer a team of buyers.

So clearly Trump knows that China saying yes to any kind of a tick tock sale is going to be a hard sell and that if you didn't bring in a completely unrelated piece of business which is the tariffs, you probably couldn't get it done.

So I think he he understands that China is probably a hard no.

Even if they lose billions of dollars, I think that they would let that go.

I think they'd spend billions to embarrass Trump and make sure he didn't get their crown jewel social app.

Um, we'll see.

But it's interesting that Trump did set that up as a bargaining chip kind of situation.

Well, I saw one theory that uh Trump's real play with the tariffs is to lower interest rates.

And the way that would go is that the the tariffs would scare the stock market and then people who took their money out of the stock market wouldn't want it to be idle.

So they would put it in bonds.

And if a lot of people buy bonds that would lower the interest rate on bonds because supply and demand.

And then if interest rates come down then the Fed might lower interest rates.

And then suddenly when we go to um go to get our debt refinanced, we would be doing it at a much friendlier interest rate which could be tremendously useful to the country.

I don't know that that's the plan.

It's just something that might happen.

So the reason that no economist knows what's going to go on is there are way too many moving parts.

So, you got your interest rates and you got well, here's other stuff.

Uh, the Wall Street Journal, yeah, the Wall Street Journal is talking about the impact on the value of the dollar, right?

So, you got the interest rate issue that's hard to predict.

And on top of that, there's the value of the dollar that's hard to predict.

And there's not even an agreement about whether a strong dollar is good for the country or a weak dollar is good for the country.

So economists can't even decide do we like a strong dollar or a weak dollar.

Uh but it is likely that the dollar will weaken if the tariffs stay in place and it it continues to rile the market.

So that's another thing.

Um then I saw a uh according to spectator index on X the price of oil went down 4%.

Also probably because of the tariffs but I'm not sure.

So if oil goes down that should trickle into all the other costs.

So you've got the uncertainty of whether a strong or weak dollar is good or bad.

You've got the interest rate effect that's unpredictable.

You've got the energy cost that should lower prices, but would it be enough to compensate for the rise in prices?

You've got the question of who's going to absorb various tariffs?

Will it always be the the importing company or in some cases, will the exporter absorb some of it?

Then you've got the how long will it take um how long will it take to uh get manufacturing coming back to the United States?

How many how many adjustments can the industry make quickly?

We don't really know.

So the number of unknowns involved in this are just through the roof.

Um, but one thing's for sure, the people who know the least about economics are very certain that they know a lot about economics.

I think the more you know about economics, the less confidence you would have on which way things are going to go.

Because if it turns out that it's just a good negotiation, that's going to be great.

You would just get better deals.

If it turns out, you know, it's going to go some way that nobody could predict, well, anything could happen.

We'll see.

But here here's what you need to know.

Economics is more art than science.

All right?

You you think economics is more it feels like you it feels like it's some kind of a hard science.

It's not.

It's more of an art.

The second thing you need to know is that art is So let's see if you can follow this.

Economics is more art than science and art is Economics is largely You nobody really knows in a situation like this what's going to happen.

We just really don't know.

Um but we'll act like we do.

So, here's here's something that uh I saw some of the non-economists talking about.

Um I saw somebody saying that the reason they're mad at uh at Musk is that he and Trump don't pay federal income taxes.

What do you think of that?

That Musk and Trump don't pay federal income taxes.

Therefore, they're they're sort of parasites on the system.

Well, here's what you need to know.

First of all, I think it's not true.

I think Musk has actually paid more federal income taxes than any living human.

It's just that it depends on the year.

So, he's had one or two years where he had enormous payments because of the financial situation and then some years where it was zero.

Uh Trump of course as as we all know has found ways to avoid taxes wherever he can because he's in the building you know construction real estate business and the tax law is sort of designed to encourage that kind of a business.

So here's what I would say.

The reason that anybody can avoid taxes, be it Musk in some cases and Trump in some cases, is that the government wants this situation.

They would rather promote the growth and the success of a gigantic business than they need specific taxes from that business as it's young.

Now think about all of the the federal income taxes that are created by having a gigantic company with lots of employees.

All the employees are paying federal taxes.

The the businesses themselves probably have enormous uh property tax burden on them which is a state state tax but still it's part of you know the productive uh taxation of the citizens.

um they create things that have sales tax associated.

Again, it's not federal, but it's, you know, adding to the system.

And if you add together all the all the sales tax, property tax, employee taxes, and then the employment itself, and the fact that if people are employed, the government doesn't have to take care of them, the benefit that anybody with a large business that's successful is adding to the country is so great that the government is okay with you not paying federal income tax every single year if you're investing money into your company and that's that's why you're not paying taxes.

So the people who know the least just say, "Oh, they're not paying federal income tax, so that's unfair.

The billionaires are taking our money." That's not really what's happening.

All right, so here's my big worry about the tariffs.

Do we have enough of a runway that we'll know if they're working before midterms?

Because if the economy is still royal the way it is, the Republicans are going to get wiped out in the midterms.

And there's not really much time between now and the midterms for tariffs to do their magic.

you know, not a lot of people are going to be reshoring their manufacturing.

So, I feel like Trump is is risking it all.

Now, I think he had to because the current situation was un, you know, was untenable.

So, it's the right thing for the country that he's taken this risk.

I think um you know we don't know how it's going to turn out but I think it's the right kind of risk at exactly the right time to do it.

But if it doesn't make the public think it's working by the midterms, Republicans are going to get destroyed and then it's all gone.

You're going to lose everything politically.

You're going to lose everything.

And then it could get worse because if this was the only thing that was going to allow us to balance the budget and have some kind of a, you know, strong economy going forward and the Democrats take it away, which they will because they're not going to just let it ride.

Um I this is a really big this is a really big risk but again I would rather that he takes the real risk to really help the country than to do something that would be purely political which is you know paper over it and pretend it's not a problem that things aren't going right anyway.

So worry about the midterms.

Matt Taibbe, journalist Matt Taiibbe is suing a Democratic lawmaker for $10 million um because she made the mistake of saying something on social media that she had said in the context of her job.

If she said something in the context of her job, apparently you can't sue her.

but she made the mistake of putting it on social media and I guess that opened the door for him to sue.

And she made allegations that apparently are thoroughly debunked.

I'm not even going to mention them because, you know, I don't want to put it in your head, but go Taiibbe.

Yeah.

I mean, he he was unfairly accused of something that didn't pan out whatsoever in in the past.

And this uh Democratic California representative Sydney Kim Leger Dove uh just decided to, you know, empty the barrel.

Is that a thing?

Um and just totally trash him in in a public way, including on social media.

So yes, she needs to be completely put out of business.

I I hope he succeeds.

Uh, I saw in a Mario and a recap of the news that the hoodies have shot down a number of drones now.

And our drones cost $30 million a piece, the good ones, the Reaper drones.

And they've shot down three of them.

Uh, two recently just this week.

So, we've lost 17 of them over time, and each one cost $30 million.

So, they've managed to cost us $500 million worth of just drones they shot down in the last six months.

Now, here's my question.

What kind of technology do the Hoodies have that they can so successfully shoot down our drones?

I mean, you know, maybe they miss nine out of 10 times.

I don't know.

But they must have some pretty serious equipment over there that they can spot it and then get to it.

So, I don't know how long it's going to take for us to suppress the hoodies, but looks like it could be a while.

All right, I'm going to claim um I'm going to claim the best predictor of what's happening in Gaza.

Now, those of you who've been watching me for a while, you have to either back me or disagree with me on this.

I I'll tell you the current news and then you tell me, was I the best predictor of what would happen with Israel and Gaza.

Now, if you're new to me, uh I need to clarify that I do not support Israel.

I observe it and I observe that they seem to have the power and they're using it.

If the if the other side had the power, they would be using it.

So, I'm not putting an ethical or moral label on any of this, and I'm not saying what they should do or what they shouldn't do.

I'm just telling you what they're doing.

And one of the things I predicted was they were never going to let the um Gazins move back into Gaza and that they would have to depopulate it and just move people somewhere else or keep them in camps or something.

And it looks like that's exactly what's happening.

So the biggest mass displacement of the war so far, Israel is calling it creating security zones, but one assumes the security zones will, you know, grow to the entire thing.

and they plan to be more aggressive for a year, but Hamas apparently has offered to release all the remaining hostages in exchange for a permanent ceasefire, which suggests that Hamas knows that Israel's real aim is to depopulate the area, kill every member of Hamas, even if it costs them their hostages.

Now, I don't think the Israel is going to stop just because they have a chance to get the hostages back.

They might keep negotiating, but they're done with Hamas.

Hamas will be trapped and destroyed in their tunnels, and I don't think there's any way around it.

And uh eventually Gaza will be just, you know, owned and owned and operated by Israel.

And I believe I'm the only person who told you that from the jump.

Can you confirm or deny that that's true?

I saw no other commentator say from from the very first the Palestinians are not going to be living in Gaza when this is done.

Now part of it is that Israel used the term total victory and you know they said things like uh it will never be the same.

Now, when you hear total victory and you hear it will never be the same there, what did you think was going to happen?

Because if all they did was fight for a while and then say, "All right, let's try living together again, would that be total victory?" No.

No.

That wouldn't even be anything.

Um if if they had negotiated for the hostages and then said, "All right, we we promised we'd get our hostages back, so now you can keep on living and Hamas, you can keep on running Gaza." That's not really total a victory, is it?

It's not even close.

It's It's more like losing.

So yes, there's really no chance that the Palestinians will be going back to Gaza and living there.

Now again, if you're new, I'm not saying that's good or bad or moral or ethical or not.

That's up to you.

Make up your own decisions.

I'm just predicting.

And and I'm saying that if you were in that situation, what would you do?

If the situation were reversed, what would Hamas do?

This.

They would do this.

Everybody in this situation would end up defaulting to this because everything else doesn't make sense at all.

And uh you know the United States is kind of distracted at the moment.

So if we had an impulse to try to stop Israel from doing what it's doing, I don't think this would be the time we'd use it.

So that looks like what's going to happen.

And that ladies and gentlemen are my comments for today.

I'm going to make a few comments privately to the locals subscribers, but for the rest of you, uh, thanks for joining on You.

Tube and X and Rumble.

And I'll see you again tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

And locals coming at you privately in 30 seconds.

check the stock

market, but we all expected that. So, no

big

news. We knew it was not going to be a

good week for the stock

market. Let's get my comments going

here. And then we've got the show that

you

deserve. If you've been

good, and I'll bet you have been. I'll

bet you've been good.

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better day. But if

you'd like to take your experience up to

levels that nobody can even understand

with their tiny shiny human brains, all

you need is a copper mug or a glass of

tanker chalice canine jug or flask a

vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join

me now for the unparalleled pleasure of

the dopamine hit of the day. The thing

that makes everything better. It's

called, that's right, the simultaneous

sip. And it happens

now. So good.

Well, I guess it's going to be up to me

to explain tariffs and everything else

because it's all terribly complicated.

But first, let's see if there's any

science that didn't need to be done. Oh,

here we

go. According to

Pedipixel, which sounds like a weird

name, Matt Grokoot. How could that be a

real name?

[Laughter]

Grooot. Poor guy. Matt Grokoot. Anyway,

uh there's a study and the study finds

that if you smile in your profile

picture, uh more people will want to do

business with you and you'll make more

money. Now, that's quite a surprise,

isn't it? Do you know what they could

have done instead of this study?

They could have just asked me, "Scott,

is it good if people smile in their

profile picture?" Yes. Yes, it is. Well,

we were thinking of doing a big

expensive study. Don't bother. People

like it when you smile in your profile

picture, but will they be more willing

to do work with you and, you know, maybe

buy things from you? Yes. Yes. Smiling

can do all of that for you. So next time

just talk to Scott. I can save you a lot

of time. Well, the Trump administration

is freezing $510 million

um from Brown University according to

the Daily Caller. Reagan Ree is writing

and uh it's because Brown University has

been accused of not doing enough about

anti-semitism and uh their DEI program

is a little problematic as well. Uh but

more than that, I think they need to

change the name of their university to

something more inclusive. I mean, the

name of the college is Brown University.

I mean, seriously, you're going to have

to change the name. I think something

like rainbow university or all the

colors

university or be they black, be they

white, be they any other color

university, but you just can't call it

Brown University. If DEI is your

problem, change that

name. Okay, it's certainly named after a

person named Brown, but that doesn't

matter to the joke.

Well, there's yet another day, this is

the millionth day in a row, in which uh

somebody has breathlessly um posted on X

that some new AI app can create people

who are doing what you want them to do.

So, if you dance, it makes it look like

a celebrity that you selected is

dancing. And you can make them do all

kinds of things. You can make them

Marilyn Monroe. And does it matter which

app it is? No. Because nobody's ever

going to do anything useful with

that. How many times have you seen an AI

app that promises to make Oh my god,

with this kind of tool, I could make my

own fulllength

movie. Has anybody made a full-length AI

movie? Nope. Is anybody close to making

a fulllength AI movie?

Nope. Because I've tried a little bit um

you know image generation stuff just to

see what's going on. I think I use Gros

and maybe Chad GBTS.

And so I thought to myself, okay, I'm

I'm already a visual artist kind of. And

so I'll tell the AI to make and then if

it's not exactly what I want, how great

will this be? Because I can just tell it

to change it. I can say, "Change the

color of that shirt and put it in a

tropical setting and pretty soon with

very little effort, I'm gonna have like

a piece of art." It took me about 10

minutes of messing around to say to

myself, I have no interest in doing this

whatsoever. And it never got close to

what I wanted cuz it turns out that the

thing in my mind

uh just couldn't be re reproduced by AI.

There was just always something that

wasn't close. And I think all of these

image generation things where you think,

ah, we must be five minutes away from

Hollywood being able to make a

full-length movie with this technology.

Nope. Nope. You're not even close.

uh you would not get anywhere close. Um

I'm going to double down on my

prediction or triple down or quadruple

down because I keep saying it that

art pretty much all art

forms are only attractive to us as

consumers if we know that it was made by

a human. And it's not because we're

anti- AI or something. It's because it's

related to our mating instinct.

So when you see an artist who does

something that you can't do, you say to

yourself, you don't maybe you don't say

it consciously, but your instinct is to

want to mate with the artist because the

artist has some kind of genetic thing

you don't have. If you see somebody who

can play the piano like Beethoven and

even write write the music like

Beethoven, you are automatically

triggered to say, "Really? If I mated

with that, maybe I'd have a child who is

super skilled. All right, bring it on.

So, I don't think AI will ever produce

any art that anybody cares about. That's

what I think. Uh, but it might be the

end of drawing. I was doing some drawing

yesterday

uh for you know my job and I realized

that a child born today will never even

learn to draw because it wouldn't have

any utility. They'll just they'll just

learn to use AI to make images. Why

would you learn to draw if you were a

child born

today? No real reason. I I'm almost

wondering if children born today will

learn to

write because you could just talk to the

computer and it'll write it perfectly

for you. At what point is it just

useless to learn how to do it yourself?

I don't know. We're getting

close. All right. Uh, apparently,

according to Zero Hedge, Republicans,

the Trump administration,

uh, are looking at raising a new, well,

creating a new tax bracket for those

over earning over a million dollars a

year. Uh, does that sound like something

that Trump would be okay

with? It doesn't to me.

Um, you know, I I suppose it would be

popular or help him sell the tax package

if he does it, but uh not a big fan. Not

a big fan of that. If you had any idea

what the tax burden is for people who

make over a million dollars a year and

let's say they don't have any fancy ways

to hide it. They're not they're not in

real estate or they don't own a you know

gigantic company with lots of ways to

hide your taxable income. If you're just

making a lot of money because you're a

surgeon or something, the tax burden is

insane. It's insane. And then when you

die, the government takes 40% of what's

left. There's there's really no hope.

Well, let me put it another way. If you

made a if you were so good at your job

that you made a million dollars a year

every year that you worked and then you

retired, you would not be leaving your

children much of anything at

all because what it would cost you to

live would be about the same. your taxes

would take most of it and then your

estate tax would take 40% of what's left

and then if you had three kids and you

divided by

three, not much left. So,

uh really the the government in its

current form has made it kind of

impossible to build wealth in a

realistic way, you know, unless you're

just killing it and then you can do it.

But but you'd have to get so lucky. But

people who are making a million dollars

a year, just like clearing a million

dollars a year, they're not they're not

creating a dynasty. That's just that's

just living a pretty good life while

you're alive. Pretty good

life. Well, meanwhile, Klaus Schwab is

stepping down for the World Economic

Forum. We knew this was coming. But is

it my

imagination or did the people who were

quite worried that the World Economic

Forum was going to be like a shadow

government and you really running the

whole world and all that, did we just

stop thinking and talking about it?

Because I never bought into that, you

know, I was just sort of observing it

from the outside. But to me, it just

looked like what Elon Musk said once, a

rich people club.

And they had some preferences, you know,

they wanted some climate change and

maybe they wanted you to eat bugs and

not own as many things and, you know,

rent them instead. But did any of it

make any

difference? I don't

know. It It doesn't seem like it really

did. And now that Clouse is gone, you

wonder if all the clout the Klouse clout

will be gone. So uh but I also wonder

did we think that the WF World Economic

Forum was the shadow government until

Doge discovered that USA was a shadow

government at least for the United

States and and for a lot of countries it

affected.

So maybe we just like having the idea

there's a shadow government, but as soon

as you see that

uh as soon as you see that what USID was

doing, that looks like the real one and

then the World Economic Forum again just

looks like a rich person's club. So

Klouse is uh stepping

down. Uh Trump called the uh situation

in France where Marine Leen who was the

front runner for the presidency uh got

taken out by lawfare or at least that's

what it looks like from you know this

this part of the world and Trump called

it a witch hunt and said it was the same

playbook that was used against Trump to

take him out. Now do you buy that? Do

you buy that it it wasn't a legitimate

prosecution? It maybe wouldn't have

happened to anybody else and that it was

completely political and it was for the

purpose of taking a round of the

election. I do I do now could be wrong

maybe but we live in a world where

unfortunately that would be the most

obvious and routine thing that would

happen because we're seeing in other

places. You know, it seems to me that

remember when the first time you learned

that George Soros had figured out that

the best way to control the country is

to control the prosecutors and maybe

some

judges. Because if you get the attorney

generals and the prosecutors on your

side, you can kind of control the legal

system. And if you control the legal

system, you are the

government because you can take out a

candidate. If you can take out a

candidate like Trump or you can take out

Marine Le Pen, you're kind of the

government. And remember how clever that

seemed? We thought, man, this Soros guy

is so clever. He figured out the least

expensive way to control a country. Then

he was, you know, controlling the United

States, it felt like. And then we

learned that

USAID has been doing exactly that to

other countries massively and for

decades. So apparently one of the first

things we do when we want to control

another country is we look to control

their courts. We try to get a try to get

a judge and a you know prosecutors that

we can control or bribe or you know

somehow have some influence over. So it

does seem that all governments that you

would call part of the democratic world,

they all seem fake because I believe

that if your if your court system has

been corrupted and that certainly is the

case in the United States, seems to be

the case in France, probably the case in

every country that USID was working in.

I'm not sure any of the democracies are

real. I think that they might all be

pretend and that the real government is

whoever put in the corrupt judges. You

know, remember Joe Biden and the uh the

prosecutor, he said, "Well, we won't

release your billion dollars to Ukraine

unless you get rid of that prosecutor."

That was just this. It looks like it it

was just another case where we couldn't

control Ukraine unless we could control,

you know, their judges and

prosecutors. So it looks like that's

what he was

doing. So once you learn that the

governments all look

fake, they all look fake. If you look at

let's say an election in the United

States, do you think it will be

determined by the candidates and the

voters or will it be determined by

whatever corrupt judges

decide is going to be legal

today? I think the judges can change the

rules. They'll decide what's in do you

need voter ID? Are you going to reortion

the district so that you get, you know,

more

representatives? I think the courts kind

of

control

democracy and so to me everything looks

fake as long as the courts and the

judges don't look credible and they

don't look credible at this

point. So there's that. So Laura Loomer

made some news by apparently she had

identified some uh what Glenn Greenwald

calls three pro-war members of the

National Security Council and she talked

to Trump and Trump fired them

immediately. Now how do you interpret

that if

you're an anti-Trumper? You say to

yourself, "What? This Laura Loomer

conspiracy theory lady um is is so

powerful. She's she's causing policy to

happen in the White House. Is that

what's happening?" Let me give you my

frame on

this. U I've I've said this a number of

times about Trump. One of his

superpowers, one of one of his strengths

is that he's really good at listening to

everybody. He you'll listen to Bill

Maher. He listened to me when I visited.

You'll listen to uh Rock, you'll listen

to Laura Loomer, but you will also

listen to Scott Bessent and you know all

the top economists and uh you'll listen

to other world leaders. and he's really

good at scanning the room and

listening. Now, the other thing I teach

you is that the person with the best

ideas is always in

charge. So, Laura Loomer must have done

some research or had some information

that Trump was not aware of and she had

credibility from other interactions. So,

he was willing to, you know, give her a

listen. She described these people and

why she thinks that they were dangerous

to keep on because they're kind of

pro-war, you know, maybe not as proTrump

as they could be. And uh he decided cuz

he's the decider. Uh that's a good

point. I didn't know about that. They're

gone. I don't have any problem with that

at all. To me, that all looks positive.

positive part is that Trump is always

scanning

uh his his base to find out what they

think and and listening to suggestions.

I I can't tell you how many times I've

heard that somebody made a suggestion to

the Trump White House and then when it

got to Trump, he said, "Huh, pretty good

idea. Let's do that."

It's very common and I don't think any

other president has has had the

confidence or or just the vision to see

what everybody wants and to be able to

decide, oh, I like that one. I don't

like this one. I like this one. I don't

like that one. So, I love the

fact that Loomer could come in with some

some information of value because

otherwise Trump wouldn't have acted if

it had no value and uh he acted on it.

So, I I don't think that story is about

Loomer. Uh but she's she's doing a hell

of a job of of making herself relevant

in the uh entire political process. So,

hats off to that. Um, but this is a

Trump story and

Trump doing the thing I like best about

him, listening, taking people seriously

and then acting, you know, without any

hesitation.

Um, so I saw a uh there's going around

on X there's a video of Chuck Schumer in

1996 and he's uh Chuck Schumer is

basically sounding exactly like Elon

Musk talking about immigration and

Schumer in 1996 he's arguing in the

Congress and he says the number one

reason that illegals come to the US is

so they can defraud programs like social

security. Does that sound familiar? It's

1996 and it's Chuck

Schumer. Now, today he would say exactly

the opposite. Oh, stop accusing those

illegals. Uh there's nothing going

on completely opposite. Now, that's not

the only person who's on video doing

things that look sort of opposite based

today. Uh, according to the Wall Street

Apes account, uh, in 1996, Pelosi was

encouraging,

um, Congress to back reciprocal tariffs.

Do you think she's doing it today?

Probably not. In 2008, Bernie Sanders

wanted tariffs uh because he says jobs

are going

overseas. Uh, actually, Bernie might be

consistent. I think he might I I'll have

to check on that, but I think Bernie

might be consistent because I think he

agreed with Trump on some tariff stuff.

And in 2018, Barack O Barack Obama Obama

uh called for reciprocal tariffs. Do you

think he's doing it today? So, here's my

take on Republicans versus Democrats.

My my observation having spent a lot of

time with you know both is that

Republicans have core

beliefs. Now I know that sounds funny

because you think everybody has core

beliefs but I don't think so. I think

Republicans have core beliefs and they

don't really change. Um and Democrats

have

performances. So, one has core beliefs

and you could predict if if you found a

video of a Republican

talking 20 years ago, would it look that

different from a Republican talking

today? I feel like it would look a

essentially the same. Whereas the

Democrats, you can always go back and

find them having the opposite opinion.

The indication to me is that one group

is performing and one group is acting on

their actual core

beliefs. And once you see it, you can't

unsee it. But let me give you another

example here.

Um, according to Rasmusen polling, uh,

Stephen A. Smith, you know, you know,

uh, would you call him, uh, entertainer

or ESPN commentator? Let's call him

Stephen A. Smith that if you throw him

in the mix for potential candidates to

be president of the Democrats, he he

actually scores pretty well.

Um so let's see, uh 33% of likely US

voters view him

favorably. And in a hypothetical

matchup,

um 31% would vote for Nuome, but 28% for

for Stephen A. Smith. and he would do

about the same against AOC. So, he's not

the leading person, but he's also not

running at all. I mean, I think he's

been pretty clear that even being

considered a presidential candidate is

less about him. I like the way he says

this, by the way. It's less about him

and more about the complete lack of uh

good

candidates. He's totally right about

that.

But here's the thing. Stephen A. Smith

is a

performer. Now, he's a commentator, but

what makes him like extra good at his

job is that he performs. Like he's he

goes big when he comments and that makes

him hard to look away. I I find him

totally engaging and very skilled at

doing what he does, which is get your

attention, hold your attention. Uh, my

experience is if I come across a a clip

of Stephen A. Smith, it's hard to stop

watching it because he's just so high

energy and, you know, he he makes sense

most of the time. Um, but he's a

performer,

so that makes sense in the Democrat

world. Find a performer because it's all

performance.

Well, there's a study by uh well, Cypost

is writing about it.

Um it was published in the personality

and social psychology bulletin that says

that liberals show less empathy to

political opponents than conservatives

do. So, liberals would care less if

conservatives had something bad happen

to them, whereas conservatives might,

you know, deeply disagree with the

liberals, but wouldn't find pleasure in

seeing something bad happen to them. Is

that

surprising? Nope.

Because I'll tell you my my current view

on Democrats besides the fact that

they're performing as opposed to

operating on core beliefs. I think

Democrats are motivated by jealousy and

hate and that's why they perform.

Imagine if your core belief was

non-existence, but your your real

motivation is a revengey, jealousy,

hatred of people who are doing better

than

you, you would have to

perform because you couldn't say the

truth. You couldn't say, you know,

honestly, I'm just full of hate. So, I

think I, you know, want Trump to lose.

Uh, not because he's doing a bad job.

I'm just full of hate. And uh, Doge,

even though it sounds like a good idea

on paper, Musk is so rich and having so

many babies. And I'm not having any

babies, and I'm not rich. So, I I just

like to see him fail. You couldn't

really do

that. You can think it, but you can't

say it out loud. So, you're going to

have to put on a performance instead.

you're going to have to pretend that you

have normal views and that you're a

normal

person. But Republicans seem motivated

by

um two things. One is the ick

factor. Now, you've heard this before

that um

conservatives seem to be more likely to

be icked out by anything that's

non-standard or just icky. And you know,

I I don't want to give you examples what

that is cuz uh cuz that would cause

problems. But there just some things

that make conservatives go

gh that out of here. I don't want to be

part of that at all. But that's not the

only factor. I think uh Republicans have

a growth

mindset which is you know you can you

can do well, the country can do well, we

can we can create more for everybody.

So, if you have a growth

mindset, you don't really need to

pretend when you're talking about what

you want. I want to lower taxes. I want

to get rid of regulations. It's just a

growth mindset. And the Democrats are

just literally just putting on

performances trying to cover up the fact

that their real motivation is just some

kind of horrible hatred. That's what it

looks like to

me. Well, here's something I didn't

know. Uh, according to the Amuse account

on

X, did you know that the person who at

one point had been tasked with

determining whether or not Dr. Fouch's

gain of function research was ethical or

not was, who do you think it was? Of all

the people in the world, who would be in

charge of determining that Fouch's gain

of function research in China was

ethical? Well, it turns out it was his

wife.

That's the first time I knew this. So

his wife, who I guess just got fired by

Trump, uh she was the head of the NIH

office of

bioeththics. So he was actually being

evaluated by his

wife for whether or not he was

acting ethical or not. What just

happened? Did my light just go out? Hold

on.

Well, that's weird. That's the uh second

independent light in my uh studio that

just went out on its

own while the other lights didn't go

out. I'm pretty sure I'm affecting my

lights today. I do that

sometimes. Well, according to ABC News,

um Robert F. Kennedy has cut more jobs

at the uh Health and Human Services than

he wanted to. So, some people will be

hired back and those would have been

called mistakes. Now, how would you

report this if you were ABC News? Would

you report it as that dumbass? He should

have used a scalpel instead of a a

hammer. And uh now he's made this

terrible mistake and now he's gonna have

to correct it. Let's hope he's smarter

next time. Well, I would call that the

low experience

take. Uh here's what an experienced

person would say about that situation

where big cuts were needed, big cuts

were made, but then it went a little too

far. So they have to back up and correct

a few things.

Um I would say that the the view that he

should have done it perfectly the first

time is what very inexperienced people

say about things. You know, I I'm no

expert, but uh I think you should do

everything perfectly every

time.

What? That that's what the Democrats

with not much experience say, you know,

who've never been in business, never

done anything important. That's not a

thing. You can't do something of that

size and scale and do it perfectly on

the first try. Nobody could do that. So

don't even imagine that if he tried

harder or used his

scalpel that he could have gotten it

exactly right the first try and gotten

it done on time. If you had infinite

time, you still couldn't do it because

if you have infinite time, then forces

working against you will have time to

organize and thwart you and get in the

way. So the best way to do this stuff is

take your best cut at it. make some

mistakes and then correct them as you

need to. That's a perfect job.

Inexperienced people say,

"Well, you had a choice of just doing it

perfectly in the first place. Why didn't

you just measure twice or thrice before

you cut?" I mean, there there's a little

thing that even says says what you

should do. Measure twice, cut once. Have

you never heard that? I mean, if you've

heard it, then I guess you would never

make any mistakes. But it's a good thing

that I'm cleverly telling you now with

all my lack of experience how things

work in the real world. Yeah. Do it

without

mistakes. I'm going to add that to

my other thing that only inexperienced

people say, which is you should have

done it

sooner. Do you know what else you should

have done sooner? Everything.

Everything that was worthwhile, you

should have done it sooner. What about

Doge? Should have done it sooner. What

about

tariffs? Sooner. What about tax cuts?

Sooner. Everything should have been done

sooner and perfectly. It should have

been done sooner and perfectly. That's

what all the dumb people will tell you.

Anyway, so I was looking at uh so PJ

Media Victoria Taft is writing about

this that uh Congresswoman uh Japal

uh Promeila

Japal and um some Harvard professor are

behind the training of people to resist

um Doge and and Tesla. So, they're

they're actually doing resistance

training to get more people onto the

streets. Resistance

training. Now, here's the fun part. I

happened to be watching Japal um getting

interviewed live the other day and she

said that this resistance training that

they were giving was part of capacity

building.

Now, do do you know where I'm going with

this? If those of you have listened to

Mike Benz, he talks about the

CIA and often working with USAD in the

past where they would do capacity

building as part of the uh plot to

overthrow other countries. Now, capacity

building would be things like making

sure that you had co-opted the media or

or maybe introduced a new form of media

that was going to say the right things,

or you had uh trained people to resist

on the streets, which is exactly what

Japal is working on. And I said to

myself, what are the odds that she would

use that phrase? Have you ever heard any

just member of Congress talk about

capacity building? Have you ever heard

anybody anybody in any context use the

phrase capacity

building? The only place I've ever heard

it is from Mike Benz and he didn't make

it up. He's training us to understand

that that's a CIA phrase.

So, do you think that Japal accidentally

admitted that she's CIA

influenced? I

do. I don't have proof, but that was a

pretty big

signal that uh she's had some kind of

training that's either adjacent to or

because of the CIA.

And that would explain so much that I

didn't understand about her. So much. So

I can't say for sure, but if you see any

anybody who's training people to resist

on the streets and they refer to their

own work as capacity

building, it's probably means exactly

what you think it means. And if I had

never heard Mike Ben talk about it at

length, I wouldn't have caught it.

But that little, by the way, this is a

it's a hypnotist thing. Hypnotists will

tell you that people tell you exactly

what their hidden thoughts are. They

just don't know they're doing it. So,

I'm always looking for the hidden

thoughts based on their choice of words.

This one just jumped right out. So, that

was

interesting. All right, let me give you

an update on tariffs.

Now, as if if you're brand new to my

live stream, uh you don't know that I'm

uh I'm completely disgusting because I

often mention that I have a degree in

economics and um an MBA from a top

school. So, a person like me should

certainly understand tariffs. I mean,

with all of my sophisticated education

background, of course, I understand

everything about tariffs, and I'm going

to explain it to you now in the simplest

possible way, and then you'll be as

smart as I am about tariffs. Wouldn't

that be great? Don't you want to be as

smart as I

am? Um, well, no. The the real story is

economics is not even

real, but we'll get to that.

So when you see people complaining that

the stocks went down and and they lost

money, that's not real. Nobody lost any

money unless it stays down and never

goes back up, which has never happened

to the stock market in the history of

the stock market. There's never been a

time when it went down and just kept

going down. Now, if we ever do see that,

that will be, you know, the end of the

United States. But in all likelihood,

there's a temporary uncertainty and

that, you know, things are likely to

adjust. So, I was watching

um I was watching somebody, it doesn't

matter who, just saying, you know, and I

lost all this money in the stock market.

No, you didn't. Not only did you not

lose it, but your percentage of

ownership of the country stayed about

the same. Meaning that if you owned

this, you know, tiny bit of stock, you

owned a tiny bit of the country because

the country is mostly, you know,

corporate wealth. And if everything went

down, you probably own just about the

same percentage of the country as you

owned before. So, it's not as bad as as

it could be.

Um, I haven't sold any stocks. You know,

I'm just going to write it out. I'm not

not terribly worried. Uh, I don't know.

I don't have a estimate of when it will

bounce back. Could be sudden. Could be

any time. I don't know. Could be months,

could be longer. But, uh, what what do

you think about the people in the news

business? I think the people in the news

business uh are not waiting for

manufacturing jobs to come back so they

can get one, but they definitely have

some money in the stock market. If

you're in the news business, you're well

paid and you you probably got a 401k.

So, the people in the news are going to

obsess about the stock market because

that's what affects them.

They're not going to say, "Well, thank

goodness, you know, we have a plan in

place to bring back those good

manufacturing jobs so I can get one of

those and stop being on

MSNBC." No, they're only going to be

worried about the stock because that's

what affects them and it's also what

they understand or they think they

do. So, first thing you need to know is

that Jim Kramer thinks these tariffs are

a terrible idea.

Now, if you spend any time on the

internet, you know that Jim Kramer is

famous for being a contra indication of

what's gonna happen. So, if he thinks

it's a bad idea, might be the best idea

ever. We'll see. Apparently, General

Motors says they're going to

dramatically increase car production in

the US. And that's directly because of

the uh tariffs because it'll make uh

foreign cars more expensive. So GM is

thinking, "Oh, good. We're going to sell

more." Uh likewise, uh Ford is no

likewise, but in addition, Ford is

rolling out, uh what they call employee

pricing. So they're going to allow

anybody to buy a Ford for what would

have been the same price that their

employees could get them. I don't know

how how good a deal that is or not, but

it doesn't doesn't count with some of

their best cars.

uh doesn't count like the Raptor or the

Mustang or the Bronco or the Expedition

or the Navigator or the Superduty

trucks. So, it's not the best offer in

the world, but it'd be great if you're

looking for an ordinary Ford car and you

just want a good price. But I think the

lowhanging fruit here is US companies

that will benefit from the tariff and

already have facilities. So all they

have to do is, you know, increase

production at the existing facilities.

So when you see that kicking in, that's

probably a good

sign. Um, here's

a just so predictable. So Republican uh

Chuck Grassley is working with a farleft

Democrat,

uh, Maria Kwell. Can't well. That sounds

like the the worst name for somebody

who's trying to get something done. Can

you do this? Well, can't

Well, anyway, uh the two of them are

working together in a bipartisan way to

try to wrestle control from Trump about

tariff decisions and make sure it's in

the uh it's in the Congress.

So they want to make some new

legislation that

basically, you know, cod codifies the

fact that Congress is the one who can

raise taxes and decide on tariffs. So

this would be game over. Now, now I

don't know what the odds are that this

gets passed. I think low, probably

pretty low odds that it gets passed, but

this would be terrible. It would be

basically neutering Trump's ability to

negotiate, to do anything useful with

tariffs. But uh there we are, Chuck

Grassley trying to take control of that

for the Congress, which as you know is

worthless according to the Economist

magazine. All right, here we go. Now,

the Economist magazine would be written

by people who really understand

economics. So, whatever their take on

this would be the the smart take, right?

So, they put out a magazine. Uh oh, and

did I mention that they're called The

Economist and they think that magazines

are still a good business

model? That's sort of disqualifying from

being an economist. Uh what's your

business model? Well, we've got a

magazine. Okay. But what they say is

that uh uh this is right on the cover of

their new magazine that Donald Trump has

committed the most profound harmful and

unnecessary economic error in the modern

era. Almost everything he said on

history, economics, and the

technicalities of trade was utterly

deluded.

Um but if you want to hear the counter

to that

uh all-in pod and u entrepreneur Jimoth

Pella Hapata

um commented on that and he called them

a mouthpiece of globalist rhetoric that

is literally always wrong.

So Jamath was uh kind of commenting that

the more the economist hates it, the

more likely it's a good idea. I don't

think he's

wrong. You may have heard that Trump's

getting some push back because

Russia and you North Korea, Cuba, and

Bellarus are not on the tariff list. And

you might say to yourself, "Wait a

minute, is it because he's Putin's

secret

lover that he doesn't want to put him on

there?" But anyway, the White House

clarified that those countries and

Russia in particular are so uh they're

already so uh restricted. So they've got

high tariffs already and all kinds of

sanctions and so there's not any

meaningful trade with those countries. I

think there are some things like potsh

or something that we trade with Russia

but nothing meaningful that uh would be

worthy of derailing any peace

talks. So makes sense they left them

off. Uh China has responded to the

tariffs on them with a reciprocal

tariff. So they matched it with a 34%

tariff uh on imports of all US products

beginning April 10th. So that matches

the the US.

Um is that the beginning of

negotiations? Maybe. We'll

see. Um New York Post is saying that uh

your iPhone could get a lot more

expensive because of the tariffs if they

stayed in place, especially the China

stuff because it would make your your

iPhone be over

$2,000. they

think. Would it? I don't know. And if it

were, maybe Apple would work hard to

bring it to the United States. I don't

know if they could make it cheap enough

in the United States, but maybe that'll

happen. Then the New York Post is

talking about the cost of your buying

your your Air Jordans um shoes that are

made in Vietnam, which is also getting a

big tariff. and that your Air Jordans

that used to cost

$180 might cost $18

more. You know, the the a lot of things

that are optional

purchases. I'm not terribly worried

about an optional purchase expensive

sneaker. Seems like you could live

without one.

Um, the other thing Trump said, which

was

interesting, you remember I told you

that China is unlikely to agree to a Tik

Tok sale because I think they'd want to

see Trump fail and it would be worth a

few billion dollars to do it. Um Trump

hinted that uh without actually

committing to it, he just said it was an

example, but he was clearly hinting that

uh China might want to

negotiate a better tariff situation

uh in return for saying yes to a sale of

Tik Tok to a you know US buyer or a

buyer a team of buyers.

So clearly Trump knows that China saying

yes to any kind of a tick tock sale is

going to be a hard sell and that if you

didn't bring in a completely unrelated

piece of business which is the tariffs,

you probably couldn't get it done. So I

think he he understands that China is

probably a hard no. Even if they lose

billions of dollars, I think that they

would let that go. I think they'd spend

billions to embarrass Trump and make

sure he didn't get their crown jewel

social

app. Um, we'll see. But it's interesting

that Trump did set that up as a

bargaining chip kind of

situation. Well, I saw one theory that

uh Trump's real play with the tariffs is

to lower interest rates.

And the way that would go is that the

the tariffs would scare the stock market

and then people who took their money out

of the stock market wouldn't want it to

be idle. So they would put it in

bonds. And if a lot of people buy bonds

that would lower the interest rate on

bonds because supply and demand. And

then if interest rates come down then

the Fed might lower interest rates. And

then suddenly when we go to

um go to get our debt

refinanced, we would be doing it at a

much friendlier interest rate which

could be tremendously useful to the

country. I don't know that that's the

plan. It's just something that might

happen. So the reason that no economist

knows what's going to go on is there are

way too many moving parts. So, you got

your interest rates and you got well,

here's other stuff. Uh, the Wall Street

Journal, yeah, the Wall Street Journal

is talking about the impact on the value

of the dollar, right? So, you got the

interest rate issue that's hard to

predict. And on top of that, there's the

value of the dollar that's hard to

predict. And there's not even an

agreement about whether a strong dollar

is good for the country or a weak dollar

is good for the country. So economists

can't even decide do we like a strong

dollar or a weak dollar.

Uh but it is likely that the dollar will

weaken if the tariffs stay in place and

it it continues to rile the

market. So that's another thing. Um

then I saw a uh according to spectator

index on X the price of oil went down

4%. Also probably because of the tariffs

but I'm not sure. So if oil goes

down that should trickle into all the

other costs. So you've got the

uncertainty of whether a strong or weak

dollar is good or bad. You've got the

interest rate effect that's

unpredictable. You've got the energy

cost that should lower prices, but would

it be enough to compensate for the rise

in prices? You've got the question of

who's going to

absorb various tariffs? Will it always

be the the importing company or in some

cases, will the exporter absorb some of

it? Then you've got the how long will it

take

um how long will it take to uh get

manufacturing coming back to the United

States? How many how many adjustments

can the industry make quickly? We don't

really know. So the number of unknowns

involved in this are just through the

roof. Um, but one thing's for sure, the

people who know the least about

economics are very certain that they

know a lot about

economics. I think the more you know

about

economics, the less confidence you would

have on which way things are going to

go. Because if it turns out that it's

just a good negotiation, that's going to

be great. You would just get better

deals. If it turns

out, you know, it's going to go some way

that nobody could predict, well,

anything could happen. We'll see. But

here here's what you need to know.

Economics is more art than

science. All right? You you think

economics is more it feels like you it

feels like it's some kind of a hard

science. It's not. It's more of an art.

The second thing you need to know is

that art is

So let's see if you can follow

this. Economics is more art than science

and art is

Economics is largely

You nobody really knows in a

situation like this what's going to

happen. We just really don't know.

Um but we'll act like we do.

So, here's here's something that uh I

saw some of the non-economists talking

about. Um I saw somebody saying that the

reason they're mad at uh at Musk is that

he and Trump don't pay federal income

taxes. What do you think of

that? That Musk and Trump don't pay

federal income taxes. Therefore, they're

they're sort of parasites on the system.

Well, here's what you need to know.

First of all, I think it's not true. I

think Musk has actually paid more

federal income taxes than any living

human. It's just that it depends on the

year. So, he's had one or two years

where he had enormous payments because

of the financial situation and then some

years where it was zero.

Uh Trump of course as as we all know has

found ways to avoid taxes wherever he

can because he's in the building you

know construction real estate business

and the tax law is sort of designed to

encourage that kind of a business. So

here's what I would

say. The reason that anybody can avoid

taxes, be it Musk in some cases and

Trump in some cases, is that the

government wants this situation. They

would rather promote the growth and the

success of a gigantic

business than they need specific taxes

from that business as it's young. Now

think about all of the the federal

income taxes that are created by having

a gigantic company with lots of

employees. All the employees are paying

federal taxes. The the businesses

themselves probably have enormous uh

property tax burden on them which is a

state state tax but still it's part of

you know the productive uh taxation of

the citizens.

um they create things that have sales

tax associated. Again, it's not federal,

but it's, you know, adding to the

system. And if you add together all the

all the sales tax, property tax,

employee taxes, and then the employment

itself, and the fact that if people are

employed, the government doesn't have to

take care of them, the benefit that

anybody with a large business that's

successful is adding to the country is

so

great that the government is okay with

you not paying federal income tax every

single year if you're investing money

into your company and that's that's why

you're not paying taxes.

So the people who know the least just

say, "Oh, they're not paying federal

income tax, so that's unfair. The

billionaires are taking our money."

That's not really what's

happening. All right, so here's my big

worry about the tariffs.

Do we have enough of a

runway that we'll know if they're

working before

midterms? Because if the economy is

still royal the way it

is, the Republicans are going to get

wiped out in the

midterms. And there's not really much

time between now and the midterms for

tariffs to do their magic. you know, not

a lot of people are going to be

reshoring their

manufacturing.

So, I feel

like Trump is is risking it

all. Now, I think he had to because the

current situation was un, you know, was

untenable. So, it's the right thing for

the country that he's taken this risk. I

think um you know we don't know how it's

going to turn out but I think it's the

right kind of risk at exactly the right

time to do it. But if it doesn't make

the public think it's working by the

midterms, Republicans are going to get

destroyed and then it's all gone. You're

going to lose everything politically.

You're going to lose everything. And

then it could get worse because if this

was the only thing that was going to

allow us to balance the budget and have

some kind of a, you know, strong economy

going forward and the Democrats take it

away, which they will because they're

not going to just let it ride.

Um I this is a really

big this is a really big

risk but again I would rather that he

takes the real risk to really help the

country than to do something that would

be purely political which is you know

paper over it and pretend it's not a

problem that things aren't going right

anyway. So worry about the midterms.

Matt Taibbe, journalist Matt Taiibbe is

suing a Democratic lawmaker for $10

million

um because she made the mistake of

saying something on social media that

she had said in the context of her job.

If she said something in the context of

her job, apparently you can't sue her.

but she made the mistake of putting it

on social media and I guess that opened

the door for him to sue. And she made

allegations that apparently are

thoroughly debunked. I'm not even going

to mention them because, you know, I

don't want to put it in your head, but

go Taiibbe. Yeah. I mean, he he was

unfairly accused of something that

didn't pan out whatsoever in in the

past. And this uh Democratic California

representative Sydney Kim Leger Dove

uh just decided to, you know, empty the

barrel. Is that a thing? Um and just

totally trash him in in a public way,

including on social media. So yes, she

needs to be completely put out of

business. I I hope he succeeds.

Uh, I saw in a Mario and a recap of the

news that the hoodies have shot down a

number of drones now. And our drones

cost $30 million a piece, the good ones,

the Reaper drones. And they've shot down

three of them. Uh, two recently just

this week. So, we've lost 17 of them

over time, and each one cost $30

million. So, they've managed to cost us

$500

million worth of just drones they shot

down in the last six months. Now, here's

my question. What kind of technology do

the Hoodies have that they can so

successfully shoot down our drones? I

mean, you know, maybe they miss nine out

of 10 times. I don't know. But they must

have some pretty serious equipment over

there that they can spot it and then get

to it.

So, I don't know how long it's going to

take for us to suppress the hoodies, but

looks like it could be a while. All

right, I'm going to claim um I'm going

to claim the best

predictor of what's happening in Gaza.

Now, those of you who've been watching

me for a while, you have to either back

me or disagree with me on this. I I'll

tell you the current news and then you

tell me, was I the best predictor of

what would happen with Israel and Gaza.

Now, if you're new to me, uh I need to

clarify that I do not support

Israel. I observe it and I observe that

they seem to have the power and they're

using it. If the if the other side had

the power, they would be using it.

So, I'm not putting an ethical or

moral label on any of this, and I'm not

saying what they should do or what they

shouldn't do. I'm just telling you what

they're

doing. And one of the things I predicted

was they were never going to let the um

Gazins move back into Gaza and that they

would have to depopulate it and

just move people somewhere else or keep

them in camps or something. And it looks

like that's exactly what's happening. So

the biggest mass displacement of the war

so far, Israel is calling it creating

security zones, but one assumes the

security zones will, you know, grow to

the entire thing. and they plan to be

more aggressive for a year, but Hamas

apparently has offered to release all

the remaining hostages in exchange for a

permanent

ceasefire, which

suggests that Hamas knows that Israel's

real aim is to depopulate the area, kill

every member of Hamas, even if it costs

them their hostages.

Now, I don't think the Israel is going

to stop just because they have a chance

to get the hostages back. They might

keep negotiating, but they're done with

Hamas. Hamas will be trapped and

destroyed in their tunnels, and I don't

think there's any way around it. And uh

eventually Gaza will be just, you know,

owned and owned and operated by Israel.

And I believe I'm the only person who

told you that from the jump. Can you

confirm or deny that that's true? I saw

no other commentator say from from the

very

first the Palestinians are not going to

be living in Gaza when this is done. Now

part of it is that Israel used the term

total

victory and you know they said things

like

uh it will never be the same. Now, when

you hear total victory and you hear it

will never be the same there, what did

you think was going to

happen? Because if all they did was

fight for a while and then say, "All

right, let's try living together again,

would that be total victory?" No. No.

That wouldn't even be anything. Um

if if they had negotiated for the

hostages and then said, "All right, we

we promised we'd get our hostages back,

so now you can keep on living and Hamas,

you can keep on running Gaza." That's

not really total a victory, is it? It's

not even close. It's It's more like

losing. So yes, there's really no chance

that the Palestinians will be going back

to Gaza and living there. Now again, if

you're new, I'm not saying that's good

or bad or moral or ethical or not.

That's up to you. Make up your own

decisions. I'm just predicting. And and

I'm saying that if you were in that

situation, what would you do? If the

situation were reversed, what would

Hamas do? This. They would do this.

Everybody in this

situation would end up defaulting to

this because everything else doesn't

make sense at all.

And uh you know the United States is

kind of distracted at the moment. So if

we had an impulse to try to stop Israel

from doing what it's doing, I don't

think this would be the time we'd use

it. So that looks like what's going to

happen. And that ladies and gentlemen

are my comments for today. I'm going to

make a few comments privately to the

locals subscribers, but for the rest of

you, uh, thanks for joining on YouTube

and X and Rumble. And I'll see you again

tomorrow. Same time, same place. And

locals coming at you privately in 30

seconds.