Episode 2878 CWSA 06/25/25

Come on in.

It's time.

Well, let's check on our stocks.

Tesla is down a little bit.

The S&P 500's up a little bit.

Bitcoin's up nicely.

All right.

Good start.

That's uh one way to start the day.

All right.

Soon as I get my comments working.

Where are you comments, we will have a show and it'll be amazing.

Oh yeah, it will be.

So, some of you were wondering why I had to shorten my show the other day.

And I don't know the exact answer, but I think it's a reaction to some change in medication.

So, temporary and not important, but it would have been really hard to finish the show.

All right.

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 time.

But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a tongue twister, which I wish I'd never written.

A copper immug glass, a tanker chalice or stein, a canteen 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 thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

And it happens now.

Go.

Well, it's all looking good.

So, uh, Elon Musk is apparently very happy with the development of his robots.

Optimist.

Optimus.

Not optimist.

No optimus.

But, ironically, which is the wrong word to use, but you won't know the difference.

Um, he he's optimistic about Optimus.

I guess version three is looking good and it already has a Grock AI built into it for conversation purposes.

So 2026, do you know what 2026 is going to look like?

Oh my god, you're going to have auto cabs, self-driving um Teslas everywhere.

You're gonna have the release of Optimus.

Um, you could have AI that's going to whatever new level it goes to by then.

And, uh, what else?

But basically, uh, all the big stuff seems like it's it's going to happen in 2026.

So, lots of stuff coming.

Well, Bernie Sanders was on uh Joe Rogan show and uh Bernie was talking about climate change and Joe Rogan sort of challenged him on whether whether climate change is real and he said this.

He said to Bernie, "Did you see the Washington Post piece?" uh essentially they found that we're in a cooling period and this was like a very inconvenient discovery uh but they had to report the data and kudos to them for doing that.

So then he uh he asked Jamie his engineer to put up a chart and the chart showed very clearly that with with or without human involvement the temperature of the earth has uh greatly fluctuated over the entire knowable period.

So there are periods when it's up, periods when it's down.

And so Rogan shows Sanders the Washington Post piece that you might argue destroys the entire climate change narrative.

And Sandra's response was, "Well, I'm not sure.

I didn't read that article, but you know, the scientists who are out there, I think I know." So Sanders at the, you know, the end of his career.

He can't, I don't think he'll last too much longer.

He's a certain age.

But imagine your entire career, one of your most important things was pursuing climate change and then the publication which is most aligned with the left Washington Post gives you essentially a debunk of the thing that you spent your entire career um chasing.

So that would uh predictably cause um some cognitive dissonance which would make uh Bernie say stuff like well the Washington Post doesn't know and what about those 97% of scientists.

So it's not like he's going to change his mind but there it is.

Does it does it feel to you like climate change is now so debunked that you don't really see stories about it even on CNN and MSNBC?

It feels like that entire narrative went away.

Is that my imagination?

Did anybody else notice that?

I don't know if that's entirely because of Trump or just the news was too inconvenient at some point.

Well, according to something called Zatakan by Ruben Andre, there's a uh survey.

It shows that uh Gen Z uh likes flex hours and part um oh they want to 38% of them want to have sex at work um which I believe means remote work.

And I'm saying to myself, Gen Z, only 38% of them want to have sex at work.

What part am I not understanding?

Is Is there really a a human being who doesn't want to have sex instead of working?

Who who would make that choice?

Well, you know, I could be having some sex right now and getting paid for it, but I'd rather be working on these reports.

47% of young people say remote work has improved their sex lives, even without a partner.

I don't know.

Um, one one of the uh most let's say inconvenient things about all the remote work is that for some number of people it it probably caused a massive masturbation problem as in they you know they couldn't they couldn't get any work done because they were looking at porn all day.

You know that happened.

I don't know with what percentage but probably a big percentage of remote workers found something else to do during the day during Zoom calls.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that uh Gilead Science has got FDA approval for an HIV vaccination that you do twice a year that they claim is nearly 100% effective in preventing HIV transmission.

Now, apparently there's already a pill that does the same thing, but people are not good at remembering to take pills, so it's not as effective.

But if you remember to get your twice a year shot, um, if you believe in vaccinations, does anybody believe in vaccinations?

Maybe, maybe it's the wrong audience.

Maybe every one of you are like, uh, we're not really sure vaccinations are even real.

But the, uh, the thing that I thought was interesting is that the Wall Street Journal said the breakthrough, uh, cracks open the door to ending the HIV pandemic.

To which I said, wait a minute, HIV was still a pandemic.

When was the last time you had a friend or acquaintance or co-orker who got AIDS?

I remember in the was it the 80s ' 80s or 90s that you it happened all the time.

So the person on the other side of my cubicle wall died of AIDS.

um people's relatives, their their cousins, their friends, everybody seemed to be, you know, dying of AIDS, but I don't really hear about it anymore.

Is that because the pills weren't good enough?

But, uh, apparently the Wall Street Journal says it's still a pandemic.

All right.

Well, let's talk about the uh uh bomb damage assessment.

The BDA um I think the BDA and the TDS have merged.

Have you noticed that Trump derangement syndrome and bomb damage assessment now sort of became the same topic?

Let me let me uh do bomb damage assessment the way the public and maybe even all of the intelligence people in the military are doing it too.

Are you ready?

Now I know what you're going to say.

You're going to say, "Scott, you're no expert on military stuff." True.

You might say, "Scott, you don't know anything about bomb damage assessment and you not you don't even have privy to all the private information." True.

True.

But you want to watch something impressive.

I'm going to give you the best, most accurate bomb damage assessment that you'll ever see.

Better than the news, better than the military, better than Trump.

Are you ready?

Now, I know that's a high bar, but this will be the best bomb damage assessment.

You ready?

If you like Donald Trump as your president, he then the uh entire nuclear program was obliterated and they will not start up again for possibly decades and they would be crazy to even try.

That's if you're a supporter of Trump.

If you were not a supporter of Trump or maybe you were doubting him in the runup to the uh ceasefire, then uh you would say h there's no way to know if anything got destroyed.

I suspect that they might be able to reconstitute their entire program in 3 to 6 months.

There you go.

That do you think there will be anything on the news that is better than that?

No, there will not be.

Then the one thing that you could predict with complete certainty is that there would not be agreement on how effective the bombing was.

Right?

There was no chance, no chance that the Democrats were going to say, "Wow, you know, we don't like this this authoritarian dictator Hitler guy, but I got to admit, he's really good at bombing away the risk of nuclear war with other countries." Was that going to happen in in any reality?

where Democrats going to say, "Yeah, you know, got to say he really nailed it with that, you know, limited bombing run.

So precise, got everything obliterated.

Totally obliterated." So, um I remember on the uh you know when the bombing was being talked about and it first happened and I made some comments on social media about how in the world could you be sure that you got everything?

Because how would you know if they had something hidden that you didn't know about?

How would you know if maybe they had removed some stuff but did it cleverly so they the removal could not be detected?

How would you know what's under that mountain?

If they start digging, are they going to find anything left?

How would you know if maybe they had uh you know various equipment for enriching uranium that hadn't been connected to you know their setup yet but it's new and it was sitting there and they could just connect it.

How would you know?

You would not know.

So the your belief in the bomb damage assessment and whether it worked or did not work is entirely based on guessing and political preference.

If you think we're going to get to the point where we're going to know for sure if the bombing was a huge positive success or it was a big failure, we'll never know that.

There will always be two stories.

One will be that it was the best thing ever and the other will be that it didn't work.

And that will never change and that was completely predictable before we got to this point.

So we've got uh and and basically the the Dilbert filter is what I like to put on these things.

So you don't have to be an expert on the military or politics to know that big organizations operate in similar ways, which is people are going to disagree about what the data is.

That's just built into everything from climate change to bomb damage assessment.

So CNN is saying predictably uh according to an early US intelligence assessment the US military strikes on uh the nuclear program did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program.

Do do you think they know that?

Um that's based on one of what will be, you know, maybe more than a dozen different assessments that might change over time.

But do you really think that CNN has a source that can tell them that the core components have been spared?

You know, it's possible that somebody told them that, but how would anybody really know that?

You know, it doesn't seem knowable one way or the other at this point.

Um, Iran says that their nuclear installations were badly damaged by the US according to the AP.

So, if Iran says badly damaged, does that mean that they can't reconstitute it in six months?

Well, I don't know what does badly damaged mean in this context.

Um, so anyway, there Trump, here's what Trump said.

He said that the attacks set them back decades because they had such a bad experience.

So Trump's narrative now is not just there's nothing they can do because everything's destroyed, but he's modified his narrative a little bit to even if they could, they'd be insane to do it because it worked out so poorly.

And uh Israel has also said, you know, that if they see any nuclear development, they'll be back to bomb more.

And uh Trump says the sites that we hit in Iran were totally destroyed and everyone knows it.

Do they?

Does everyone know it?

Um he says they didn't have a chance to get anything out because we acted fast.

really that there was no way to move that enriched uranium.

They didn't have enough time.

I'm not even sure we knew where it was in the first place, but okay.

Um and Trump said it's very hard and very dangerous for them to remove that kind of material.

Yeah, but they were in sort of a dangerous situation in general.

So, I don't know.

B.

Eggs says, quote, "Anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the president." So, you know what I have to say to P Exathth?

you, you.

Uh, I can make up my own opinion about whether or not our government is, you know, lying or accurate about bomb damage assessment and it does not have anything to do with trying to undermine the president.

And when I see somebody say something like that, that the facts if if you disagree on the analysis that you're trying to undermine the president, you.

Just yourself as hard as you can with a with a bunker buster bomb P B P B P B P B P B P B P B P B P B P B Exath.

You know, I I I've not been a critic of PX, but no, you don't get to say this.

Well, you can say it's a free country, but if you tell me that my opinion of the bomb damage assessment at this stage is dependent on, you know, either trying to support or undermine the president, just you.

Shut the up.

We don't want to hear any of it.

So, no, you fail.

That's a fail ex messaging.

And uh like I said, Netanyahu says, "If anyone in Iran thinks of rebuilding it, we will strike again." Then I was watching a uh video by Glenn Greenwald who was talking about, you know, the prior, you know, the uh Obama agreement on uh Iran.

And I don't know if I have the entire argument that I can summarize, but the the summary is that Iran was already contained and that it was Trump's fault for removing an agreement that was working and uh then Iran responded and you know then war broke out.

So, one narrative is that they never intended to do anything but domestic um development.

And that would make sense because they wanted to sell their oil and they wanted to use cheap electricity at home through nuclear power.

Now, that sort of makes sense, but then you switch the channel and listen to uh Jesse Waters talk about it on his show on Fox and he he asked the following question.

If it was only for peaceful um domestic energy purposes, why they have to hide it in a mountain?

And and I laughed when I heard that.

Why do they have to hide it in a mountain?

And I'm thinking, huh?

Yeah.

Does anyone else who uses nuclear only for domestic energy needs, does anybody else hide their program in a mountain?

I don't think so.

And then on top of that, um, Israel has been, I think everyone agrees, funding proxies that would attack Israel.

Now, if you're funding proxies to attack Israel, and you're also you're also chanting, you know, death to Israel.

And then the argument is that death to death to Israel.

No, no, that doesn't mean kill all the people.

It just means they would like to have a one-state solution.

Do you buy that?

Do you buy that?

Chanting death to Israel, what it really means is a one-state solution.

Okay, let's say you do believe that.

Now, now explain death to America.

Oh, it got a little harder, didn't it?

Do they want a one-state solution that includes America, Israel, and the the West Bank and Gaza?

Is that what they want?

Why did they throw America in the death category?

If we're only talking about Israel as being a one-state solution, what's that got to do with America and us being put to death?

All right, so here's my take.

If Iran genuinely had only domestic nuclear power ambitions, if that were real, how easy would it have been for them to avoid war?

And the answer is really really easy.

If they seriously did not plan to at least have the threshold capability, which would be a threat to the region or to have, you know, actually make the bomb.

If they didn't intend that, it would be the easiest thing in the world to talk the rest of the world out of attacking them.

How hard would that be?

Here's what you would do.

You would first of all say, "All right, we're going to stop funding all these uh proxies." Next thing you would do is you would ask your own public to stop doing this chanting death to America, death to Israel thing because it's being misinterpreted, right?

But you don't see that.

And then you wouldn't put it hidden in a mountain.

You wouldn't do anything that they did if you were just really just trying to get some innocent, you know, cheap electricity.

So I don't think uh Glenn Greenwald is got the entire picture there.

Although it's worth it's worth listening to his narrative just so you've heard it.

Um, apparently Iran has reportedly, according to World Source News 24/7, um, they've arrested more than 700 Iranians, um, and accused them of as agents for Israel over the past 12 days.

So, how much does Israel have them spooked that they arrested 700 of their own their own citizens and you know, who knows what's going to happen to them?

Probably death.

I don't know.

Um, but in just 12 days, they arrested 700 people.

What is your guess of how many of those 700 people were actually spies for Israel?

My best guess would be maybe some of them, maybe a few dozen, but out of 700, I've got a feeling they're arresting a lot of people who had nothing to do with anything.

But if there really were 700 Iranian spies that they could catch, how many did they not catch?

Are there 20,000 Iranian spies, you know, for Israel?

I don't know.

Um, here's I'm going to double down on something I predicted.

I've got a feeling that the regime has already changed and here's my working hypothesis.

So, you've got an 86year-old supreme leader and he has made decisions that have brought your country to, you know, the the verge of complete destruction and you're an underling and you're you're sort of no longer trusting his opinion because at 86, you know, he needs naps more than he needs anything.

And he might he might be losing a step cuz you know 86 is different for different people.

So there might be a Joe Biden situation where there are only a few advisors you know and trusted people who even talk to him.

So it could be that it's not like he's having meetings with all of his people all the time.

So now imagine that he needed to be protected because you know the bombs are falling.

If if you took this 86y old and you locked him in a bunker underground for his own good, for his own safety, and then you took away from him his phone, so there was no phone with an advisor or anybody else in the same room.

And then you would say, "No, you can't have us a phone." Either because it doesn't work underground or or it would be uh too easy for Israel to identify you via the phone.

So now now you've talked the Supreme Leader into being in an underground locked room with no form of communication.

Now, who would be in charge of protecting the Supreme Leader?

Would it be political friends?

No.

It would be some part of the military force of Iran and whoever was most trusted.

Now, if you were the head of that military and maybe you used to be not anywhere near the head of it, but all the people above you have already been assassinated.

and you say to yourself, "Okay, I need to do something right now or I'm gonna get assassinated and my whole family will be wiped out, too." How hard would it be for you to just take over without people even knowing?

Well, you would need two guards.

You would need one on the inside of the door in the same room as the ayatollah to say, "No, you can't go out and you can't have a phone and you can't talk to anybody." And then you would need one on the outside of the door to tell people that everything's fine, but the Ayatollah doesn't want to talk to you.

If you have a question, um, we'll make sure that he hears the question and that he gets back to you with some instructions.

So the military head, whoever was in charge of protecting him, could have taken over the country with two guards.

One on the inside of the door where the supreme leader is and one on the outside and all they'd have to do is Joe Biden the situation cuz we watched it happen.

As long as you didn't suspect there was something wrong, you would think, "Oh, well, obviously the Ayatollah is not going out in public and obviously the the people who were protecting him are just passing along the messages and obviously he's still running things.

If that was your belief, then whoever the top military person who's left is could have easily taken over the country.

So even if that didn't happen, just the way I explained it, he's still 86 and we don't know who he listens to.

Does he have his own Jill Biden or Hunter Biden situation where there's somebody sketchy who's the only person he talks to?

Maybe by the time you're 86, you don't you just don't act the same.

You don't trust the same.

You know, you've got less energy, everything else.

So, I'm going to put the put it out there that we might be not hearing from the Supreme Leader in a video and that it might be a long time before we know if the Supreme Leader is still in charge.

He's probably still alive, but uh I suspect maybe other forces have have emerged because they're trying to protect themselves from assassination basically.

So that is my speculation.

there's already been a regime change and maybe that's the only reason there's a ceasefire that seems to be holding so far.

According to Blaze media, um the the ICE in in America, the ICE people have uh busted 11 illegal Iranian nationals in our country.

Um, one is a terror suspect, one's an ex sniper, and other has hasbol ties.

Really, if you if you were to just uh round up a bunch of Iranian, you know, immigrants who came through our open border, how many of them would be terror suspects, ex snipers, and have ties?

Would most of them or would most of them just be people trying to get a better life or something?

That uh that's pretty scary.

Now, I feel like the only thing protecting the United States from a a terror attack from some Iranian sleeper cell is that Iran knows that our our revenge for that would be so extreme that, you know, couldn't possibly be a good idea.

So, unless they're actually crazy, I don't think they're going to go big on any kind of, you know, state sponsored terrorism in in the US.

That's the thing I'm least worried about.

It might be something, but you know, I don't think anything that will change the nature of the country.

Well, Trump is going after CNN and what he calls MSDNC and the New York Times, and he's over at NATO right now, and when asked, he said that they're all scum.

and he says that they're disrespecting the military geniuses and the pilots um and they're not getting credit because the news are fake news and they're all scum.

Now, is that is that the right way to treat a bunch of people who are just reporting that we're not sure if the bomb damage assessment is correct?

I don't know.

Um he's right.

that no matter what they knew or whatever sources they had, they probably would be running non-stop content saying it didn't work because they're anti-Trump.

So, as I, you know, said in the beginning, I can tell you what your bomb damage assessment is if you tell me what your political preference is.

That's all you need to know.

And we will all treat that like we know it and it's true.

And it's just the facts.

We don't know.

We couldn't possibly know.

But uh Republican Buddy Carter, he's a representative.

Um he's nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in Israel with Iran.

And uh the Israeli ambassador to the UN, Danny Dannon, um he agrees.

He says, "I think that President Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize." So, imagine how frustrating it would be to be Trump when you believe you've pulled off one of the greatest peacemaking things of all time, you know, albeit with a bomb or lots of bombs.

And you got some people promoting you for a Nobel Peace Prize, which I feel like he would love.

I feel like he would like that.

Um, and other people saying, "Ah, no, it didn't even work." Oh my god, that would drive me crazy if I were him.

So, I could see why he's a little bit miffed.

Anyway, so Trump is over at the NATO meeting and uh apparently NATO has uh designed itself around Trump.

Um, so, uh, apparently NATO is saying good stuff about him.

They're complimenting him.

The secretary general of NATO said, uh, to Trump, while Trump was on stage, uh, he said, "I just want to recognize your decisive action on Iran.

You were a man of strength, but you're also a man of peace." Um and he said the fact that you're now getting this ceasefire, I really want to commend you for it.

This is important for the whole world.

And he said that without President Trump, this would not have happened.

So that's the secretary general of NATO.

He's basically just really buttering up Trump.

And then separately, NATO said that they've gone to 5% funding.

you know, 5% of GDP, I guess, and not right away.

You know, it's there's a schedule to get there, but they're crediting Trump for what will be a huge uh increase in funding for NATO.

So, they're praising him for what he's doing outside of NATO.

They're praising him for getting funding for NATO.

And then the best part, Zalinski shows up wearing a suit.

Do you think that Zalinski would have worn a suit to NATO except for Trump?

I don't think so.

I think everything from Zilinski to the Secretary General to all the leaders of NATO to all the countries, they're all adjusting their approach for Trump.

Have you ever seen anything like this?

This is the most the most remarkable um persuasive I don't know influence you've ever seen in your life.

Everything that people are doing from the news to NATO to Israel to Iran to Zilinski to Putin.

They're all modifying what they're doing based on keeping Trump happy.

Even Putin.

Now, have we ever seen anything like this?

I don't think so.

There's there's definitely never been a president in my lifetime that was so such a big footprint on just everything.

I've never seen it.

Amazing.

So, yeah, Zilinski wore a suit.

Um, and Trump said that his uh his negotiator Wickoff told him that uh a Gaza deal was very close.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that a deal for Gaza is close?

What would that even look like?

And there's not much left of Gaza.

So, how can you possibly make any kind of a deal?

What is Hamas gonna surrender and be shaw or jailed?

Is israel gonna let the military wing of Hamas just reconstitute somewhere?

Now remember I said the same thing about uh the Israel Iran conflict.

I said, "There's no obvious way this could ever stop." And then Trump finds a non-obvious way to do it by putting, you know, 12 bombs in six holes and then, you know, claiming victory and then forcing Israel to agree to it and, you know, basically beating up everybody who disagreed.

That worked.

I mean, it looks like it worked.

We don't know if it's we bought three months or or 40 years But do you think he could pull off the impossible again with whatever is left of Gaza?

I don't even know what a a deal would look like because Israel is not going to return all those people to their prior homes.

There's no home to return them to.

And if they uh put all of the um the prior residents of Gaza in some kind of concentrated area, it's going to be called a concentration camp.

So is the world going to say, "Yeah, that's a good peace deal there." So I don't know what that's could look like.

My guess would be we're not very close to a Gaza deal.

at least not one that the Gaza residents exits would have agreed to.

According to the uh Wall Street Journal, um China is and Russia a little bit more interested in having a pipeline so that Russia can supply oil to China with you know full control of the of the mechanism of delivery.

They don't want to don't want to depend on the straight of horos or anything else that could get easily attacked by other countries.

Um but they're not going forward with it because apparently they can't agree on percentage ownership.

So they they can't figure out how to make a deal.

But imagine how important that would be if they did.

if they if Russia just sent a pipeline to China and then part of the conversation is that uh Russia doesn't want to be too dependent on having one big customer and China doesn't want to be too dependent on Russia.

So, they've got issues, but I think it's interesting that we see Russia and China becoming these great friends, and it's a big risk to us.

But apparently the big friends, China and Russia, can't even work out a pipeline deal, which honestly doesn't seem like it would be that hard.

I feel like Trump could do it.

You know, Trump's could work out a pipeline deal, I think, but uh no, they can't do it.

Well, we know now who was primarily involved in managing the auto pen for Biden.

Now, I can't believe that we had to wait this long for the person who was definitely in charge of it to come forward and only because uh she was compelled by congressional testimony today.

So, the some oversight committee was uh querying her and she admitted that she was in charge of making sure the autopen process worked.

Now, in theory, that does not mean that she was making the decisions.

Um, in theory, she was just doing whatever the president wanted to do.

So, you know, in the best case scenario, there's no issue here at all.

But do you believe that?

Do you believe that she only did what um Biden asked her to do?

as in, well, I'm at the beach.

Use that auto pen.

Maybe it started that way.

But there are some accusations that I would not consider yet uh credible, but there are accusations that um some entities that she was involved with outside of her job got a little extra funding thanks to that auto pen.

But I think it's too soon to to imagine that those accusations are accurate.

Maybe.

I mean, if if she had that power and nobody was watching too closely, maybe.

You know, I I always tell you that wherever corruption is possible, it always happens.

But if there were other people watching her all the time and it wasn't just one person and an autopen, well, maybe enough people were watching.

All right.

So, we don't know.

uh pollster Mark Mitchell was on Betty Johnson's podcast and Mark Mitchell uh is from Rasperson and uh he said that Trump is on base to pass Obama as the most popular president in US history.

Now hasn't happened but the uh the trend line is looking like it might.

So according to Mark Mitchell at this point, yeah, 100% Trump is about to outperform him, meaning Obama, uh, that's what's going to happen.

Then separately, I saw, but I didn't look into, there's another, uh, another poll, not Rasperson, they had Trump at a new low.

So the pollsters do not agree.

Is Trump gonna be the most popular president or did his popularity just go down?

Well, that's the way the world is working right now.

Apparently, uh 128 Democrats decided to vote against the idea of pursuing impeachment over Trump.

So, Fox News is reporting this.

So, it was not only the Republicans who killed the uh Al Green, Representative Al Green.

He's always looking for a Trump impeachment no matter what.

Um, but a whole bunch of Democrats disagreed, so that's good.

My guess is that it didn't work last time.

The last time they tried the impeachment, and they they have really nothing to impeach him over.

So I guess they were just being wise.

Um there's a AI called uh Claude if you haven't heard of it.

It's one of the big ones by Anthropic and Anthropic is apparently Amazonbacked.

So Amazon's the money backer, one of them.

and uh they just won a uh court ruling that they would be allowed to train their AI on books that had been legally purchased um as long as they don't reproduce the book.

So they can't reproduce it even if you said to them um give me the first chapter of that book.

um instead it would just be a method of trading them.

So I don't know how I feel about that.

It does feel like I have to admit that feels like fair use because if you're only using it to sort of generically train your AI the same way it would train looking at Reddit or looking at X or something then I'm not too worried about it.

But uh as an author it does make you wonder you know if if your copyright value is shrinking with AI.

I think it's shrinking um but it's not gone.

So that's happening.

Meanwhile, according to the Guardian uh the US House of Representatives has banned Whats.

App.

So, it doesn't want any of his members using the Whats.

App app to communicate.

Um, and the reasoning is that it's not uh doesn't have enough cyber security or at least they're not confident has enough cyber security.

So, how many times have I told you that there's no such thing as a protected form of communication?

If you ever imagined that you had an app that would encrypt things and nobody could see it because it's all encrypted, I don't think there was ever any chance of that because the at the very least the intelligence uh services of the host company wherever the com wherever the uh company resides at the very least they're going to insist on a back door.

So, I do agree that uh there's a risk, but what else would they use?

I I feel like it would be like all it's going to do is force them to use some other app that's just as unsecure, right?

I don't know.

Maybe they'll just never talk to each other.

Well, uh, Tucker Carlson, uh, mentioned on his podcast that, uh, and I'd never heard this before.

I don't know if anybody heard it before, that right after he got fired from Fox News, the owners of Fox News, the Murdoch, uh, offered to back him for president if he ran against Trump and suggested that they would use their media assets to back him.

that would include Fox News and the Wall Street Journal among others.

Now, apparently, according to Tucker, and I don't think he would lie about it, according to Tucker, even though they had just fired him, they still thought he was a better choice for president uh than Trump.

Now Tucker of course laughs it off as you know not him not being qualified for that.

But what does it tell you that the Murdoch believe they could make him president based on never having held any office?

Does it feel like people keep making the President Trump analogy and it just doesn't work?

The analogy would be, well, if this one person who was never elected before and is only a popular media star, if this one person can become president of the United States without going through the normal, you know, senator, governor channels, then why not do it with another celebrity?

And I think that has that always has the wrong um well the problem with that analysis is that there's only one Trump.

If if Tucker Carlson were also Trump, like exactly Trump, you know, not not somebody who reminds you of Trump, but exactly Trump.

Well, if he were exactly Trump, that might work.

But I don't think I don't think you can take some media personality, whether it's a Stephen A.

Smith or uh John uh what's his name from the Daily Show.

Um, I don't think you could take your average TV popular media person and turn them into a president, you know, even if you had the entire Fox News, Wall Street Journal machine behind it.

Or am I being naive?

Am I being naive?

Is it possible they could make anyone president if you if they have name recognition uh on the one side that you know they care about and they backed it hard?

Maybe they could.

What do you think?

My my instinct is that there's only one Trump.

So imagining that you could reproduce, you know, that kind of phenomenon would just be you folly.

I think but the fact that the Murdoch thought they could turn a a TV talking head opinion guy into a president just by adding their resources.

Boy, that is a peak behind the curtain, isn't it?

That's that's some scary stuff.

Well, I keep seeing on social media and and the news references to the woke right.

How many of you even know what that means?

The woke right.

I did not know what that meant.

So, I've tried now twice to figure out what it is to find out if I'm part of it or somebody else thinks I'm part of it.

So here's what uh here's what Grock says.

So these are the characteristics of somebody who's in the quote woke right.

Um and there are several of them.

They have identitydriven rhetoric.

Well, that's sort of everybody, isn't it?

Is there anybody who doesn't have identity driven rhetoric?

No.

If you're woke, as in the left woke, you have identitydriven rhetoric.

If you're opposed to it, you also have identitydriven rhetoric.

But in this case, you're trying to make the identity not the main thing, but you're it's still part of your messaging.

Uh, you would be anti-woke.

Okay, a lot of people are anti-woke.

Does that make them woke?

Right?

Um, you have outrage and moralism.

Okay, that's everybody online.

There's a victimhood narrative.

Again, that's everybody who talks about politics talks about how their own group is being disadvantaged by other groups.

That's sort of everything that social media is.

You're you're always talking about how the group you're in or the group you care about or some other group is being disadvantaged by some other group.

Isn't that everybody?

Is there a way to not talk about that?

If you're talking about politics, there's a populist appeal.

Really, populism is going to be part of a woke right.

There's a cancel culture tactics, meaning trying to cancel people for their views.

But isn't that just anti-woke?

And then there's social media amplification.

Again, that's just people online who are doing a good job.

And performative activism.

Performative.

Is Robbie Starbucks performative?

If he's actually getting, you know, real corporations to change their policies, that's not really performative.

That's actually real stuff.

And then I asked the Grock to give me a list of people that would be considered woke.

Right.

Now you tell me what have all these people have in common other than being rightleaning.

Um Clay Travis, Charlie Kirk, Jack Pobic, the libs of Tik Tok.

Um, that's Chia Rachek, Marjgerie Taylor Green, Ron De.

Santis, Candace Owens, and Tucker Carlson.

I'm pretty sure they don't even agree with each other.

Is that the list of people that have so much in common that they get their own label?

I don't see it.

So this whole woke right thing, it just seems so artificial and I don't know, it just seems like somebody's trying to find a way to come up with an insult for people who are doing a good job getting attention for their point of view.

If the only thing you're doing is a really good job of getting clicks because people really care about your opinion, it's not exactly, you know, we don't need a a label for that.

Well, Steven Miller is pointing out that um New York City may be on the verge of getting a what is called an anarchist socialist mayor and uh a Muslim and an immigrant uh who wants to basically freeze housing costs and build a government grocery store.

Basically a socialist And uh Steven Miller is pointing out that the only way that he could be ahead in the polls and likely likely about to be uh uh the next mayor is because of massive um illegal probably illegal immigration into New York City.

I think I saw that 38% of New York City uh the residents were born in other countries.

38%.

That's a big number that that would be enough to make sure that the uh the undocumented people would come into the country are determining local politics.

It looks like that's what's happening.

And uh I think Andrew Cuomo has already dropped out.

So that's who was running against him for the primary.

And then it looks like he would be the Democrat candidate and in New York City that pretty much means you're going to win.

So yeah, get out of the cities.

Get out.

Well, you remember uh the Doge employee, the young man named Big Balls.

That was one of his names he used online.

He has uh resigned from working on Doge according to Wired.

Um, so there will no longer be any big balls associated with Doge, just in case you wondered.

In other news, uh, Germany has cracked down on, um, hate speech in their own country and the police are knocking down doors and arresting people.

and they've raided 170 private homes for saying things online that the government considers hateful or inflammatory.

Uh the interior minister calls it digital arsonist.

My goodness.

Uh and points out that the hate postings are, you know, way up compared to prior years.

Now, how lucky do you feel if you live in America and free speech is still for the most part legal so far?

But can you even imagine your government, you know, breaking down doors because of something you said online?

How bad was it?

I don't know.

There's a uh report in the New York Post that AI powered hiring tools, which are more and more being used, um are racist and sexist and they favor black and female job applicants over white and male applicants.

So, if you don't tweak them, the large language models look at the world because that's what they're trained on.

They look at everything that's being written and everything that's being allowed to be written.

And uh they decided that black and female candidates were superior to white and to white people and male applicants.

But the good news is that they're aware of the problem and the people who run these ais uh working hard to get rid of that discrimination.

So I guess they've found some workarounds.

But what does it tell you?

That if you train a large language model on the allowed things online and the allowed things in books that it discriminates against uh white males.

It tells you that the world discriminates against white males because that's what the world is what they're trained on.

They don't come up with it on their own.

According to something called study finds, nearly one in four Americans want a break from physical intimacy.

So I could have asked you what percentage and you would have guessed 25% and you would have been close.

But 24% of Americans want a break from sexual activity and half have already taken extended breaks averaging six months.

So there's a little experiment that I sometimes do if I'm in public, if I'm in the mall or just somewhere where people are walking down the street and they're coupled up.

I look at the couples, well, they don't even need to be couples, could be individuals, and I say to myself, how many people would want to have sex with that person?

And you can walk past a lot of Americans before you see one that you can even imagine that someone else would want to have sex with them.

Forget about you.

So, it's not even whether you would have sex with them.

You look at him and you go, "Who who would?" Like who would want to have sex with that?

And so I'm not surprised.

And 69% of single Americans are content being single and not actively looking for relationships.

It had to be 69%, didn't it?

All right.

All right.

Um, Argentina's GDP is soaring at 5.8%, the highest in the Western world.

and even higher than China whose numbers I don't trust anyway.

So is Argentina and their their leader MLE is it a miracle everything's working?

Maybe.

Or maybe he controls the reporting of what their GDP is.

Or maybe that the way anybody can make their GDP sore is by removing social services for the poor.

Because I do think that the you know the the counternarrative to MLE being a economic genius who saved Argentina is that uh in order to do that I think he had to cut a lot of social services to the poor which might be the only way to do it.

It might be the only way out but uh we we tend to leave out what did it cost them to get that 5.8% 8% growth.

Well, Morgan Stanley um is expecting the Fed to deliver seven rate cuts in 2026.

So, remember I told you that 2026 could be lit because you got you can have robo taxis and robots and AI.

Well, you might also have a series of interest rate cuts.

So, um, things are looking really positive for 2026.

And I thought this already happened, but um, did Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez already get married?

Because the report is that they're throwing a three-day, $55 million wedding in Venice with uh, 90 private jets and 200 VIPs and all kinds of stuff.

Now that's a wedding.

I was not invited.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for you.

I'm going to talk to the uh locals people privately for a moment because they're beloved.

And the rest of you, thanks for joining and I will see you same time tomorrow.

And I hope you enjoyed it.

All right, in 30 seconds.

Come on in.

It's time.

Well, let's check on our stocks.

Tesla is down a little bit. The S&P

500's up a little bit. Bitcoin's up

nicely.

All right. Good start.

That's uh one way to start the day.

All right. Soon as I get my comments

working.

Where are you comments,

we will have a show and it'll be

amazing.

Oh yeah, it will be.

So, some of you were wondering why I had

to shorten my show the other day.

And I don't know the exact answer, but I

think it's a reaction to some change in

medication.

So, temporary and not important,

but

it would have been really hard to finish

the show. All right.

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 time. But if

you'd like to take this experience up to

levels that nobody can even understand

with their tiny shiny human brains, all

you need for that

is a tongue twister, which I wish I'd

never written.

A copper immug glass, a tanker chalice

or stein, a canteen 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 thing that

makes everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip. And it happens now.

Go.

Well, it's all looking good. So, uh,

Elon Musk is apparently very happy with

the development of his robots. Optimist.

Optimus. Not optimist. No optimus.

But, ironically,

which is the wrong word to use, but you

won't know the difference. Um,

he he's optimistic about Optimus. I

guess version three is looking good and

it already has a Grock AI built into it

for conversation purposes.

So 2026,

do you know what 2026 is going to look

like?

Oh my god, you're going to have auto

cabs, self-driving um Teslas everywhere.

You're gonna have the release of

Optimus.

Um, you could have AI that's going to

whatever new level it goes to by then.

And, uh,

what else? But basically, uh, all the

big stuff seems like it's it's going to

happen in 2026.

So, lots of stuff coming.

Well, Bernie Sanders was on uh Joe Rogan

show and uh Bernie was talking about

climate change and Joe Rogan sort of

challenged him on whether whether

climate change is real and he said this.

He said to Bernie, "Did you see the

Washington Post piece?" uh essentially

they found that we're in a cooling

period and this was like a very

inconvenient discovery uh but they had

to report the data and kudos to them for

doing that.

So then he uh he asked Jamie his

engineer to put up a chart and the chart

showed very clearly that with with or

without human involvement the

temperature of the earth has uh greatly

fluctuated

over the entire knowable period. So

there are periods when it's up, periods

when it's down. And so Rogan shows

Sanders

the Washington Post piece that you might

argue destroys the entire climate change

narrative.

And Sandra's response was, "Well, I'm

not sure. I didn't read that article,

but you know, the scientists who are out

there, I think I know."

So Sanders at the, you know, the end of

his career. He can't, I don't think

he'll last too much longer. He's a

certain age. But imagine your entire

career, one of your most important

things was pursuing climate change and

then the publication which is most

aligned with the left Washington Post

gives you essentially a debunk of the

thing that you spent your entire career

um chasing.

So that would uh predictably cause

um some cognitive dissonance which would

make uh Bernie say stuff like well the

Washington Post doesn't know and what

about those 97% of scientists.

So it's not like he's going to change

his mind but there it is. Does it does

it feel to you

like climate change is now so debunked

that you don't really see stories about

it even on CNN and MSNBC?

It feels like that entire narrative went

away. Is that my imagination? Did

anybody else notice that?

I don't know if that's entirely because

of Trump or just the news was too

inconvenient at some point.

Well, according to something called

Zatakan

by Ruben Andre, there's a uh survey. It

shows that uh Gen Z

uh likes flex hours and part um oh they

want to 38% of them want to have sex at

work

um which I believe means remote work.

And I'm saying to myself, Gen Z, only

38% of them want to have sex at work.

What part am I not understanding?

Is Is there really a a human being who

doesn't want to have sex instead of

working?

Who who would make that choice? Well,

you know, I could be having some sex

right now and getting paid for it, but

I'd rather be working on these reports.

47% of young people say remote work has

improved their sex lives,

even without a partner. I don't know.

Um, one one of the uh most let's say

inconvenient things about all the remote

work is that

for some number of people it it probably

caused a massive masturbation problem as

in they you know they couldn't they

couldn't get any work done because they

were looking at porn all day. You know

that happened. I don't know with what

percentage

but probably a big percentage of remote

workers found something else to do

during the day during Zoom calls.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting

that uh Gilead Science has got FDA

approval for an HIV vaccination that you

do twice a year that they claim is

nearly 100% effective in preventing HIV

transmission. Now, apparently there's

already a pill that does the same thing,

but people are not good at remembering

to take pills, so it's not as effective.

But if you remember to get your twice a

year shot,

um, if you believe in vaccinations, does

anybody believe in vaccinations?

Maybe, maybe it's the wrong audience.

Maybe every one of you are like, uh,

we're not really sure vaccinations are

even real.

But the, uh, the thing that I thought

was interesting is that the Wall Street

Journal said the breakthrough, uh,

cracks open the door to ending the HIV

pandemic. To which I said, wait a

minute, HIV was still a pandemic.

When was the last time

you had a friend or acquaintance or

co-orker who got AIDS?

I remember in the was it the 80s ' 80s

or 90s that you it happened all the

time. So the person on the other side of

my cubicle wall died of AIDS. um

people's relatives, their their cousins,

their friends, everybody seemed to be,

you know, dying of AIDS, but I don't

really hear about it anymore.

Is that because the pills weren't good

enough?

But, uh, apparently the Wall Street

Journal says it's still a pandemic. All

right.

Well, let's talk about the uh uh bomb

damage assessment. The BDA

um I think the BDA and the TDS have

merged. Have you noticed that Trump

derangement syndrome and bomb damage

assessment

now sort of became the same topic?

Let me let me uh do bomb damage

assessment the way the public and maybe

even all of the intelligence people in

the military are doing it too. Are you

ready? Now I know what you're going to

say. You're going to say, "Scott,

you're no expert on military stuff."

True. You might say, "Scott, you don't

know anything about bomb damage

assessment and you not you don't even

have privy to all the private

information." True. True. But you want

to watch something impressive.

I'm going to give you the best, most

accurate bomb damage assessment that

you'll ever see. Better than the news,

better than the military, better than

Trump. Are you ready? Now, I know that's

a high bar, but this will be the best

bomb damage assessment. You ready?

If you like Donald Trump as your

president, he then the uh entire nuclear

program was obliterated and they will

not start up again for possibly decades

and they would be crazy to even try.

That's if you're a supporter of Trump.

If you were not a supporter of Trump or

maybe you were doubting him in the runup

to the uh ceasefire,

then uh you would say h there's no way

to know if anything got destroyed. I

suspect that they might be able to

reconstitute their entire program in 3

to 6 months.

There you go.

That do you think there will be anything

on the news that is better than that?

No, there will not be. Then the one

thing that you could predict with

complete certainty is that there would

not be agreement on how effective the

bombing was. Right? There was no chance,

no chance that the Democrats were going

to say, "Wow, you know, we don't like

this this authoritarian dictator Hitler

guy, but I got to admit, he's really

good at bombing away the risk of nuclear

war with other countries."

Was that going to happen in in any

reality? where Democrats going to say,

"Yeah, you know, got to say he really

nailed it with that, you know, limited

bombing run. So precise, got everything

obliterated.

Totally obliterated."

So,

um I remember on the uh you know when

the bombing was being talked about and

it first happened and I made some

comments on social media about how in

the world could you be sure that you got

everything?

Because how would you know if they had

something hidden that you didn't know

about? How would you know if maybe they

had removed some stuff but did it

cleverly so they the removal could not

be detected?

How would you know what's under that

mountain? If they start digging, are

they going to find anything left? How

would you know if maybe they had uh you

know various equipment for enriching

uranium that hadn't been connected to

you know their setup yet but it's new

and it was sitting there and they could

just connect it. How would you know? You

would not know.

So the your belief in the bomb damage

assessment and whether it worked or did

not work is entirely

based on guessing and political

preference.

If you think we're going to get to the

point where we're going to know for sure

if the bombing was a huge positive

success or it was a big failure, we'll

never know that. There will always be

two stories. One will be that it was the

best thing ever and the other will be

that it didn't work. And that will never

change and that was completely

predictable

before we got to this point.

So we've got uh and and basically the

the Dilbert filter is what I like to put

on these things. So you don't have to be

an expert on the military or politics to

know that big organizations

operate in similar ways, which is people

are going to disagree about what the

data is. That's just built into

everything from climate change to bomb

damage assessment.

So CNN is saying predictably uh

according to an early US intelligence

assessment the US military strikes on uh

the nuclear program did not destroy the

core components of the country's nuclear

program. Do do you think they know that?

Um that's based on one of what will be,

you know, maybe more than a dozen

different assessments that might change

over time. But do you really think

that CNN

has a source that can tell them that the

core components

have been spared?

You know, it's possible that somebody

told them that, but how would anybody

really know that? You know, it doesn't

seem knowable one way or the other at

this point.

Um, Iran says that their nuclear

installations were badly damaged by the

US according to the AP. So, if Iran says

badly damaged, does that mean that they

can't reconstitute it in six months?

Well, I don't know what does badly

damaged mean in this context.

Um,

so anyway, there Trump, here's what

Trump said. He said that the attacks set

them back decades

because they had such a bad experience.

So Trump's narrative now is not just

there's nothing they can do because

everything's destroyed, but he's

modified his narrative a little bit to

even if they could, they'd be insane to

do it because it worked out so poorly.

And uh Israel has also said, you know,

that if they see any nuclear

development, they'll be back to bomb

more.

And uh Trump says the sites that we hit

in Iran were totally destroyed and

everyone knows it. Do they? Does

everyone know it?

Um he says they didn't have a chance to

get anything out because we acted fast.

really

that there was no way to move that

enriched uranium. They didn't have

enough time.

I'm not even sure we knew where it was

in the first place, but okay.

Um and Trump said it's very hard and

very dangerous for them to remove that

kind of material.

Yeah, but they were in sort of a

dangerous situation in general. So, I

don't know.

B. Eggs says, quote, "Anyone who says

the bombs were not devastating is just

trying to undermine the president." So,

you know what I have to say to P

Exathth? you, you.

Uh, I can make up my own opinion about

whether or not our government is, you

know, lying or accurate about bomb

damage assessment and it does not have

anything to do with trying to undermine

the president. And when I see somebody

say something like that, that the facts

if if you disagree on the analysis that

you're trying to undermine the

president, you. Just yourself

as hard as you can with a with a bunker

buster bomb P B P B P B P B P B P B P B

P B P B P B Exath. You know, I I I've

not been a critic of PX, but no, you

don't get to say this.

Well, you can say it's a free country,

but if you tell me that my opinion of

the bomb damage assessment at this stage

is dependent on, you know, either trying

to support or undermine the president,

just you. Shut the up. We

don't want to hear any of it. So, no,

you fail. That's a fail ex messaging.

And uh like I said, Netanyahu says, "If

anyone in Iran thinks of rebuilding it,

we will strike again."

Then I was watching a uh video by Glenn

Greenwald

who was talking about, you know, the

prior, you know, the uh Obama agreement

on uh Iran.

And I don't know if I have the entire

argument that I can summarize, but the

the summary is that Iran was already

contained

and that it was Trump's fault for

removing an agreement that was working

and uh then Iran responded and you know

then war broke out. So, one narrative

is that they never intended to do

anything but domestic um development.

And that would make sense because they

wanted to sell their oil and they wanted

to use cheap electricity at home through

nuclear power. Now,

that sort of makes sense, but then you

switch the channel and listen to uh

Jesse Waters talk about it on his show

on Fox and he he asked the following

question. If it was only for peaceful

um domestic energy purposes, why they

have to hide it in a mountain?

And and I laughed when I heard that. Why

do they have to hide it in a mountain?

And I'm thinking, huh? Yeah. Does anyone

else who uses nuclear only for domestic

energy needs, does anybody else hide

their program in a mountain?

I don't think so.

And then on top of that, um, Israel has

been, I think everyone agrees, funding

proxies that would attack Israel.

Now, if you're funding proxies to attack

Israel,

and you're also you're also chanting,

you know, death to Israel.

And then the argument is that death to

death to Israel. No, no, that doesn't

mean kill all the people. It just means

they would like to have a one-state

solution. Do you buy that? Do you buy

that? Chanting death to Israel, what it

really means is a one-state solution.

Okay, let's say you do believe that.

Now, now explain death to America.

Oh, it got a little harder, didn't it?

Do they want a one-state solution that

includes America, Israel, and the the

West Bank

and Gaza? Is that what they want?

Why did they throw America in the death

category? If we're only talking about

Israel as being a one-state solution,

what's that got to do with America and

us being put to death? All right, so

here's my take.

If Iran genuinely had only domestic

nuclear power ambitions, if that were

real, how easy would it have been for

them to avoid war?

And the answer is really really easy.

If they seriously

did not plan to at least have the

threshold capability, which would be a

threat to the region or to have, you

know, actually make the bomb.

If they didn't intend that,

it would be the easiest thing in the

world to talk the rest of the world out

of attacking them.

How hard would that be?

Here's what you would do. You would

first of all say, "All right, we're

going to stop funding all these uh

proxies." Next thing you would do is you

would ask your own public to stop doing

this chanting death to America, death to

Israel thing because it's being

misinterpreted,

right? But you don't see that. And then

you wouldn't put it hidden in a

mountain.

You wouldn't do anything that they did

if you were just really just trying to

get some innocent, you know, cheap

electricity.

So I don't think uh Glenn Greenwald is

got the entire picture there.

Although it's worth it's worth listening

to his narrative just so you've heard

it. Um,

apparently Iran has reportedly,

according to World Source News 24/7,

um, they've arrested more than 700

Iranians,

um, and accused them of as agents for

Israel over the past 12 days.

So, how much does Israel have them

spooked that they arrested 700 of their

own their own citizens

and you know, who knows what's going to

happen to them? Probably death. I don't

know. Um, but in just 12 days, they

arrested 700 people. What is your guess

of how many of those 700 people were

actually spies for Israel?

My best guess would be maybe some of

them, maybe a few dozen, but out of 700,

I've got a feeling they're arresting a

lot of people who had nothing to do with

anything. But if there really were 700

Iranian spies that they could catch,

how many did they not catch?

Are there 20,000 Iranian spies, you

know, for Israel?

I don't know.

Um, here's I'm going to double down on

something I predicted.

I've got a feeling that the regime has

already changed

and here's my working hypothesis. So,

you've got an 86year-old supreme leader

and he has made decisions that have

brought your country to, you know, the

the verge of complete destruction

and you're an underling

and you're you're sort of no longer

trusting his opinion because at 86, you

know, he needs naps more than he needs

anything.

And he might he might be losing a step

cuz you know 86 is different for

different people. So there might be a

Joe Biden situation where there are only

a few advisors you know and trusted

people who even talk to him. So it could

be that it's not like he's having

meetings with all of his people all the

time. So now imagine that he needed to

be protected

because you know the bombs are falling.

If if you took this 86y old and you

locked him in a bunker underground

for his own good, for his own safety,

and then you took away from him his

phone,

so there was no phone with an advisor or

anybody else in the same room. And then

you would say, "No, you can't have us a

phone."

Either because it doesn't work

underground or or it would be uh too

easy for Israel to identify you via the

phone. So now now you've talked the

Supreme Leader into being in an

underground locked room with no form of

communication.

Now, who would be in charge of

protecting

the Supreme Leader? Would it be

political

friends? No. It would be some part of

the military force of Iran and whoever

was most trusted. Now, if you were the

head of that military

and maybe you used to be not anywhere

near the head of it, but all the people

above you have already been

assassinated.

and you say to yourself, "Okay, I need

to do something right now or I'm gonna

get assassinated and my whole family

will be wiped out, too."

How hard would it be for you to just

take over without people even knowing?

Well, you would need two guards. You

would need one on the inside of the door

in the same room as the ayatollah to

say, "No, you can't go out and you can't

have a phone and you can't talk to

anybody." And then you would need one on

the outside of the door to tell people

that everything's fine, but the

Ayatollah doesn't want to talk to you.

If you have a question, um, we'll make

sure that he hears the question and that

he gets back to you with some

instructions.

So the military head,

whoever was in charge of protecting him,

could have taken over the country with

two guards. One on the inside of the

door where the supreme leader is and one

on the outside and all they'd have to do

is Joe Biden the situation cuz we

watched it happen. As long as you didn't

suspect there was something wrong,

you would think, "Oh, well, obviously

the Ayatollah is not going out in public

and obviously the the people who were

protecting him are just passing along

the messages and obviously he's still

running things. If that was your belief,

then whoever the top military person

who's left is could have easily

taken over the country.

So even if that didn't happen, just the

way I explained it, he's still 86

and we don't know who he listens to.

Does he have his own Jill Biden or

Hunter Biden situation where there's

somebody sketchy who's the only person

he talks to?

Maybe by the time you're 86, you don't

you just don't act the same. You don't

trust the same. You know, you've got

less energy, everything else.

So, I'm going to put the put it out

there that we might be not hearing from

the Supreme Leader in a video

and that it might be a long time before

we know if the Supreme Leader is still

in charge.

He's probably still alive,

but uh I suspect maybe other forces have

have emerged because they're trying to

protect themselves from assassination

basically. So that is my speculation.

there's already been a regime change

and maybe that's the only reason there's

a ceasefire that seems to be holding so

far.

According to Blaze media,

um the the ICE in in America, the ICE

people have uh busted 11 illegal Iranian

nationals in our country.

Um, one is a terror suspect, one's an ex

sniper, and other has hasbol ties.

Really,

if you if you were to just uh round up a

bunch of Iranian, you know, immigrants

who came through our open border, how

many of them would be terror suspects,

ex snipers, and have ties?

Would most of them or would most of them

just be people trying to get a better

life or something?

That uh that's pretty scary.

Now, I feel like the only thing

protecting the United States from a a

terror attack from some Iranian sleeper

cell is that Iran knows that our our

revenge for that would be so extreme

that, you know, couldn't possibly be a

good idea. So, unless they're actually

crazy,

I don't think they're going to go big on

any kind of, you know, state sponsored

terrorism in in the US. That's the thing

I'm least worried about. It might be

something, but you know, I don't think

anything that will change the nature of

the country.

Well, Trump is going after CNN and what

he calls MSDNC

and the New York Times, and he's over at

NATO right now, and when asked, he said

that they're all scum.

and he says that they're disrespecting

the military geniuses and the pilots

um and they're not getting credit

because the news are fake news and

they're all scum.

Now,

is that is that the right way to treat a

bunch of people who are just reporting

that we're not sure if the bomb damage

assessment is correct?

I don't know. Um he's right.

that no matter what they knew or

whatever sources they had, they probably

would be running non-stop content saying

it didn't work because they're

anti-Trump.

So, as I, you know, said in the

beginning, I can tell you what your bomb

damage assessment is if you tell me what

your political preference is. That's all

you need to know. And we will all treat

that like we know it and it's true. And

it's just the facts. We don't know. We

couldn't possibly know.

But uh Republican Buddy Carter, he's a

representative.

Um he's nominated Trump for the Nobel

Peace Prize for his work in Israel with

Iran.

And uh the Israeli ambassador to the UN,

Danny Dannon,

um he agrees. He says, "I think that

President Trump deserves a Nobel Peace

Prize." So, imagine how frustrating it

would be to be Trump when you believe

you've pulled off one of the greatest

peacemaking things of all time, you

know, albeit with a bomb or lots of

bombs.

And you got some people promoting you

for a Nobel Peace Prize, which I feel

like he would love. I feel like he would

like that.

Um, and other people saying, "Ah, no, it

didn't even work." Oh my god, that would

drive me crazy if I were him. So, I

could see why he's a little bit miffed.

Anyway, so Trump is over at the NATO

meeting and uh apparently NATO has uh

designed itself around Trump.

Um,

so, uh, apparently NATO is saying good

stuff about him. They're complimenting

him. The secretary general of NATO said,

uh,

to Trump, while Trump was on stage, uh,

he said, "I just want to recognize your

decisive action on Iran. You were a man

of strength, but you're also a man of

peace."

Um

and he said the fact that you're now

getting this ceasefire, I really want to

commend you for it. This is important

for the whole world. And he said that

without President Trump, this would not

have happened. So that's the secretary

general of NATO. He's basically just

really buttering up Trump. And then

separately, NATO said that they've gone

to 5% funding. you know, 5% of GDP, I

guess, and not right away. You know,

it's there's a schedule to get there,

but they're crediting Trump for what

will be a huge uh increase in funding

for NATO.

So, they're praising him for what he's

doing outside of NATO. They're praising

him for getting funding for NATO. And

then the best part, Zalinski shows up

wearing a suit.

Do you think that Zalinski would have

worn a suit to NATO except for Trump?

I don't think so. I think everything

from Zilinski to the Secretary General

to all the leaders of NATO to all the

countries, they're all adjusting their

approach

for Trump.

Have you ever seen anything like this?

This is the most the most remarkable

um persuasive

I don't know influence you've ever seen

in your life. Everything that people are

doing from the news to NATO to Israel to

Iran

to Zilinski to Putin.

They're all modifying what they're doing

based on keeping Trump happy.

Even Putin.

Now, have we ever seen anything like

this? I don't think so. There's there's

definitely never been a president

in my lifetime that was so such a big

footprint on just everything.

I've never seen it. Amazing.

So, yeah, Zilinski wore a suit. Um,

and Trump said that his uh his

negotiator Wickoff told him that uh a

Gaza deal was very close.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that a deal for Gaza is

close? What would that even look like?

And there's not much left of Gaza.

So, how can you possibly make any kind

of a deal? What is Hamas gonna surrender

and be shaw or jailed?

Is israel gonna let the military wing of

Hamas just reconstitute somewhere?

Now remember I said the same thing about

uh the Israel Iran conflict. I said,

"There's no obvious way this could ever

stop."

And then Trump finds a non-obvious way

to do it by putting, you know, 12 bombs

in six holes and then, you know,

claiming victory and then forcing Israel

to agree to it and, you know, basically

beating up everybody who disagreed. That

worked. I mean, it looks like it worked.

We don't know if it's we bought three

months or or 40 years

But do you think he could pull off the

impossible again with whatever is left

of Gaza?

I don't even know what a a deal would

look like because Israel is not going to

return all those people to their prior

homes. There's no home to return them

to.

And if they uh put all of the um the

prior residents of Gaza in some kind of

concentrated area,

it's going to be called a concentration

camp. So is the world going to say,

"Yeah, that's a good peace deal there."

So I don't know what that's could look

like. My guess would be we're not very

close to a Gaza deal. at least not one

that the Gaza residents exits would have

agreed to.

According to the uh Wall Street Journal,

um China is and Russia a little bit more

interested in having a pipeline so that

Russia can supply oil to China with you

know full control of the of the

mechanism of delivery. They don't want

to don't want to depend on the straight

of horos or anything else that could get

easily attacked by other countries.

Um but they're not going forward with it

because apparently they can't agree on

percentage ownership. So they they can't

figure out how to make a deal. But

imagine how important that would be if

they did. if they if Russia just sent a

pipeline to China and then part of the

conversation is that uh Russia doesn't

want to be too dependent on having one

big customer and China doesn't want to

be too dependent on Russia.

So, they've got issues, but I think it's

interesting that we see Russia and China

becoming these great friends, and it's a

big risk to us. But apparently the big

friends, China and Russia, can't even

work out a pipeline deal,

which honestly doesn't seem like it

would be that hard. I feel like Trump

could do it.

You know, Trump's could work out a

pipeline deal, I think, but uh no, they

can't do it.

Well, we know now who was primarily

involved in managing the auto pen for

Biden.

Now, I can't believe that we had to wait

this long for the person who was

definitely in charge of it to come

forward and only because uh she was

compelled by congressional testimony

today. So, the some oversight committee

was uh querying her and she admitted

that she was in charge of making sure

the autopen process worked. Now, in

theory,

that does not mean that she was making

the decisions.

Um, in theory, she was just doing

whatever the president wanted to do. So,

you know, in the best case scenario,

there's no issue here at all.

But do you believe that? Do you believe

that she only did what um Biden asked

her to do? as in, well, I'm at the

beach. Use that auto pen.

Maybe it started that way.

But there are some accusations that I

would not consider yet uh credible, but

there are accusations that

um some entities that she was involved

with outside of her job got a little

extra funding thanks to that auto pen.

But I think it's too soon to to imagine

that those accusations are accurate.

Maybe. I mean, if if she had that power

and nobody was watching too closely,

maybe. You know, I I always tell you

that wherever corruption is possible, it

always happens.

But if there were other people watching

her all the time and it wasn't just one

person and an autopen,

well, maybe enough people were watching.

All right. So, we don't know. uh

pollster Mark Mitchell was on Betty

Johnson's podcast and Mark Mitchell uh

is from Rasperson

and uh he said that Trump is on base to

pass Obama as the most popular president

in US history.

Now hasn't happened but the uh the trend

line is looking like it might. So

according to Mark Mitchell at this

point, yeah, 100% Trump is about to

outperform him, meaning Obama, uh,

that's what's going to happen. Then

separately, I saw, but I didn't look

into, there's another, uh, another poll,

not Rasperson, they had Trump at a new

low.

So the pollsters do not agree. Is Trump

gonna be the most popular president or

did his popularity just go down? Well,

that's the way the world is working

right now.

Apparently, uh 128 Democrats

decided to vote against the idea of

pursuing impeachment over Trump. So, Fox

News is reporting this. So, it was not

only the Republicans who killed the uh

Al Green, Representative Al Green. He's

always looking for a Trump impeachment

no matter what. Um, but a whole bunch of

Democrats disagreed, so that's good. My

guess is

that it didn't work last time. The last

time they tried the impeachment, and

they they have really nothing to impeach

him over. So I guess they were just

being wise.

Um

there's a AI called uh Claude if you

haven't heard of it. It's one of the big

ones by Anthropic and Anthropic is

apparently Amazonbacked.

So Amazon's the money backer, one of

them. and uh they just won a uh court

ruling that they would be allowed to

train their AI on books that had been

legally purchased

um as long as they don't reproduce the

book.

So they can't reproduce it even if you

said to them um give me the first

chapter of that book. um instead it

would just be a method of trading them.

So I don't know how I feel about that.

It does feel like I have to admit that

feels like fair use because if you're

only using it to sort of generically

train your AI the same way it would

train looking at Reddit or looking at X

or something then I'm not too worried

about it. But uh as an author it does

make you wonder you know if if your

copyright value is shrinking with AI. I

think it's shrinking um but it's not

gone.

So

that's happening.

Meanwhile, according to the Guardian

uh the US House of Representatives has

banned WhatsApp.

So, it doesn't want any of his members

using the WhatsApp app to communicate.

Um, and the reasoning is that it's not

uh

doesn't have enough cyber security

or at least they're not confident has

enough cyber security.

So,

how many times have I told you that

there's no such thing as a protected

form of communication?

If you ever imagined that you had an app

that would encrypt things and nobody

could see it because it's all encrypted,

I don't think there was ever any chance

of that because the at the very least

the intelligence uh services of the host

company wherever the com wherever the uh

company resides at the very least

they're going to insist on a back door.

So,

I do agree that uh there's a risk, but

what else would they use?

I I feel like it would be like all it's

going to do is force them to use some

other app

that's just as unsecure, right? I don't

know. Maybe they'll just never talk to

each other.

Well, uh, Tucker Carlson, uh, mentioned

on his podcast

that, uh, and I'd never heard this

before. I don't know if anybody heard it

before, that right after he got fired

from Fox News, the owners of Fox News,

the Murdoch,

uh, offered to back him for president if

he ran against Trump

and suggested that they would use their

media assets to back him. that would

include Fox News and the Wall Street

Journal among others.

Now, apparently, according to Tucker,

and I don't think he would lie about it,

according to Tucker, even though they

had just fired him, they still thought

he was a better choice for president

uh than Trump. Now Tucker of course

laughs it off as you know not him not

being qualified for that. But what does

it tell you

that the Murdoch believe they could make

him president

based on never having held any office?

Does it feel like people keep making the

President Trump analogy and it just

doesn't work? The analogy would be,

well, if this one person who was never

elected before and is only a popular

media star, if this one person can

become president of the United States

without going through the normal, you

know, senator, governor channels, then

why not do it with another celebrity?

And I think that has that always has the

wrong um well the problem with that

analysis

is that there's only one Trump.

If if Tucker Carlson were also Trump,

like exactly Trump, you know, not not

somebody who reminds you of Trump, but

exactly Trump. Well, if he were exactly

Trump, that might work.

But I don't think

I don't think you can take some media

personality, whether it's a Stephen A.

Smith or uh John uh what's his name from

the Daily Show. Um, I don't think you

could take your average TV popular media

person and turn them into a president,

you know, even if you had the entire Fox

News, Wall Street Journal machine behind

it. Or am I being naive?

Am I being naive? Is it possible they

could make anyone president if you if

they have name recognition

uh on the one side that you know they

care about and they backed it hard?

Maybe they could. What do you think? My

my instinct is that there's only one

Trump. So imagining that you could

reproduce, you know, that kind of

phenomenon would just be you folly. I

think but the fact that the Murdoch

thought they could turn a a TV talking

head opinion guy into a president

just by adding their resources.

Boy, that is a peak behind the curtain,

isn't it? That's that's some scary

stuff.

Well, I keep seeing on social media and

and the news references to the woke

right. How many of you even know what

that means? The woke right.

I did not know what that meant. So, I've

tried now twice

to figure out what it is to find out if

I'm part of it or somebody else thinks

I'm part of it. So here's what uh here's

what Grock says. So these are the

characteristics of somebody who's in the

quote woke right.

Um and there are several of them. They

have identitydriven rhetoric.

Well, that's sort of everybody, isn't

it? Is there anybody who doesn't have

identity driven rhetoric?

No.

If you're woke, as in the left woke, you

have identitydriven rhetoric. If you're

opposed to it, you also have

identitydriven rhetoric. But in this

case, you're trying to make the identity

not the main thing,

but you're it's still part of your

messaging.

Uh, you would be anti-woke.

Okay, a lot of people are anti-woke.

Does that make them woke? Right?

Um, you have outrage and moralism. Okay,

that's everybody online. There's a

victimhood narrative. Again, that's

everybody who talks about politics talks

about how their own group is being

disadvantaged by other groups. That's

sort of everything that social media is.

You're you're always talking about how

the group you're in or the group you

care about or some other group is being

disadvantaged by some other group. Isn't

that everybody? Is there a way to not

talk about that? If you're talking about

politics,

there's a populist appeal. Really,

populism is going to be part of a woke

right. There's a cancel culture tactics,

meaning trying to cancel people for

their views.

But isn't that just anti-woke?

And then there's social media

amplification. Again, that's just people

online who are doing a good job. And

performative activism.

Performative.

Is Robbie Starbucks performative?

If he's actually getting, you know, real

corporations to change their policies,

that's not really performative. That's

actually real stuff.

And then I asked the Grock to give me a

list of people that would be considered

woke. Right. Now you tell me what have

all these people have in common other

than being rightleaning.

Um Clay Travis, Charlie Kirk, Jack

Pobic, the libs of Tik Tok. Um, that's

Chia Rachek, Marjgerie Taylor Green, Ron

DeSantis, Candace Owens, and Tucker

Carlson.

I'm pretty sure they don't even agree

with each other.

Is that the list of people that have so

much in common that they get their own

label?

I don't see it. So this whole woke right

thing, it just seems so artificial and

I don't know, it just seems like

somebody's trying to find a way to come

up with an insult for people who are

doing a good job getting attention for

their point of view. If the only thing

you're doing is a really good job of

getting clicks because people really

care about your opinion,

it's not exactly,

you know, we don't need a a label for

that.

Well, Steven Miller is pointing out that

um New York City may be on the verge of

getting a what is called an anarchist

socialist mayor

and uh a Muslim and an immigrant

uh who wants to

basically freeze housing costs and build

a government grocery store. Basically a

socialist

And uh Steven Miller is pointing out

that the only way that he could be ahead

in the polls and likely likely about to

be uh uh the next mayor is because of

massive um illegal probably illegal

immigration into New York City. I think

I saw that 38% of New York City uh the

residents were born in other countries.

38%.

That's a big number that that would be

enough to make sure that the uh the

undocumented people would come into the

country are determining local politics.

It looks like that's what's happening.

And uh I think Andrew Cuomo has already

dropped out.

So that's who was running against him

for the primary. And then

it looks like he would be the Democrat

candidate and in New York City that

pretty much means you're going to win.

So yeah, get out of the cities. Get out.

Well, you remember uh the Doge employee,

the young man named Big Balls. That was

one of his names he used online.

He has uh resigned from working on Doge

according to Wired.

Um, so there will no longer be any big

balls associated with Doge, just in case

you wondered. In other news, uh, Germany

has cracked down on,

um, hate speech in their own country and

the police are knocking down doors and

arresting people. and they've raided 170

private homes

for saying things online that the

government considers hateful or

inflammatory.

Uh the interior minister calls it

digital arsonist.

My goodness. Uh and points out that the

hate postings are, you know, way up

compared to prior years. Now, how lucky

do you feel if you live in America and

free speech is still for the most part

legal

so far? But can you even imagine your

government, you know, breaking down

doors because of something you said

online? How bad was it? I don't know.

There's a uh report in the New York Post

that AI powered hiring tools, which are

more and more being used, um are racist

and sexist and they favor black and

female job applicants over white and

male applicants. So, if you don't tweak

them, the large language models look at

the world because that's what they're

trained on. They look at everything

that's being written and everything

that's being allowed to be written. And

uh they decided that black and female

candidates were superior to white and

to white people and male applicants.

But the good news is that they're aware

of the problem and the people who run

these ais

uh working hard to get rid of that

discrimination. So I guess they've found

some workarounds. But what does it tell

you? That if you train a large language

model on the allowed things online and

the allowed things in books that it

discriminates against uh white males.

It tells you that the world

discriminates against white males

because that's what the world is what

they're trained on. They don't come up

with it on their own.

According to something called study

finds,

nearly one in four Americans want a

break from physical intimacy.

So I could have asked you what

percentage and you would have guessed

25% and you would have been close. But

24% of Americans want a break from

sexual activity and half have already

taken extended breaks averaging six

months.

So there's a little experiment that I

sometimes do if I'm in public, if I'm in

the mall or just somewhere where people

are walking down the street and they're

coupled up. I look at the couples, well,

they don't even need to be couples,

could be individuals, and I say to

myself, how many people would want to

have sex with that person?

And you can walk past a lot of Americans

before you see one that you can even

imagine that someone else would want to

have sex with them. Forget about you.

So, it's not even whether you would have

sex with them. You look at him and you

go, "Who who would?" Like who would want

to have sex with that? And so I'm not

surprised.

And 69% of single Americans are content

being single and not actively looking

for relationships.

It had to be 69%, didn't it? All right.

All right.

Um, Argentina's GDP is soaring at 5.8%,

the highest in the Western world.

and even higher than China whose numbers

I don't trust anyway. So is Argentina

and their their leader MLE is it a

miracle everything's working?

Maybe. Or maybe he controls the

reporting of what their GDP is. Or maybe

that the way anybody can make their GDP

sore is by removing social services for

the poor. Because I do think that the

you know the the counternarrative

to MLE being a economic genius who saved

Argentina

is that uh in order to do that I think

he had to cut a lot of social services

to the poor which might be the only way

to do it. It might be the only way out

but uh we we tend to leave out what did

it cost them to get that 5.8% 8% growth.

Well, Morgan Stanley

um is expecting the Fed to deliver seven

rate cuts in 2026.

So, remember I told you that 2026 could

be lit because you got you can have robo

taxis and robots and AI. Well, you might

also have a series of interest rate

cuts.

So,

um, things are looking really positive

for 2026.

And I thought this already happened, but

um, did Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez

already get married? Because the report

is that they're throwing a three-day,

$55 million wedding in Venice with uh,

90 private jets and 200 VIPs and all

kinds of stuff.

Now that's a wedding. I was not invited.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's

all I have for you. I'm going to talk to

the uh locals people privately for a

moment because they're beloved.

And the rest of you, thanks for joining

and I will see you same time tomorrow.

And I hope you enjoyed it. All right, in

30 seconds.