Episode 2890 CWSA 07/07/25

Can you hear my AC that just went on?

I hope not.

You don't hear the background noise, do you?

I usually turn it off, but it got me.

Game on just when I went live.

All right, come on in here.

Grab a seat up front.

It's going to be wild.

A good time will be had by everyone.

All right, let me get my comments going.

You sound great.

That's what I want to hear.

I want to hear that I sound great and look great and act great.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and it's the best thing that ever happened to you.

But if you'd like to try to elevate this experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

Well, for that you're going to need a copper mug or a glass of tanker gels a canteen jug or flask of vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

And it happens now.

Go.

So, so good.

All right.

What do we have here?

Thank you, Paul.

Well, I saw a trailer for the new Superman movie, and boy was I surprised.

Did anybody see the the ads for the new Superman movie?

I didn't know what I was seeing.

because it looks like they're actually going to do a movie where Superman will be played by.

And I don't know this for sure, but it looked like a straight white man is playing Superman in a new movie.

Honestly, I didn't see that coming.

I was really expecting kind of a albino black disabled lesbian kind of a situation, but no, they have boldly gone where nobody could go lately with a straight white protagonist.

So, I might check that out unless they have somebody tied to a chair.

That's that's my rule out for any movie.

Did you really need to tie that guy to a chair?

All right.

Well, if you watch soccer, you know that the Gold Cup concluded yesterday and Mexico and the US were in the finals.

And uh the better team won.

Mexico look like they're just a better team, frankly.

Um but was it predictable?

Was it predictable that Mexico would win?

Apparently, Mexico doesn't usually beat the US soccer team.

I didn't know that, but I learned that yesterday.

Uh, but this time they did.

Well, have I ever told you that the best story usually wins?

The best story usually wins.

Now, this is very related to my other point of view that the most entertaining uh outcome is the one that's most likely.

The best story and the most entertaining outcome are kind of the same.

Now, if you were going to use that to predict who would win in the context of Trump closing the border and getting tough with Mexico and the Mexicans being very unhappy, I would guess with at least the government of the United States at the moment, who is more likely to win?

the bully, which would be the United States, even though it had nothing to do with the soccer team, or the victims of the bully, which would be the Mexican soccer team, but again, not the actual players, just the idea of one country versus another.

And so, if you would use that standard, which is weirdly predictive, it is so predictive that the best story would win, the best story was Mexico winning.

And uh they they played like they wanted to win.

It was pretty pretty fun to watch.

Um we'll get to the news in a moment, but I have to tell you about the inedible sandwich.

Somebody invented a sandwich that's you can't eat.

I discovered this by door dashing that sandwich.

So, all you have to do to make a sandwich that actually can't be eaten is you get a nice uh crunchy hard baguette kind of a French bread roll.

And then you put in between the two pieces of bread, you put really soft things like avocado and tomato and um other things that are soft and squishy because when you bite into the hard part, your teeth won't go through the hard part because it just compresses the sandwich into the soft stuff.

So by the time you take one bite into the sandwich, 100% of the contents are on your lap.

Now, I tried everything.

I tried everything, but it was a sandwich that couldn't be eaten.

It was an inedible sandwich.

Have you ever had one of those?

And, you know, as long as the bun was much harder than the contents, there was no solution.

So, I ended up, you know, just eating with my eating the contents with my fingers and throwing away the bun.

But uh probably that was the healthiest thing I could do.

Throw away the bug.

Well, according to Elon Musk, the uh algorithm on X has been tweaked and improved so that you could uh maybe discover smaller accounts that have good posts.

But I'll tell you one thing it didn't do is it did not change my bubble.

I don't even remember the last time Democrats saw something I posted on Axe.

And I don't remember seeing anything that a Democrat posted.

I get exactly one troll every time I make a comment that's in any way positive about Trump or Republicans.

Always one.

And it always looks like they're they're operating off a a troll kind of instructions cuz they all say the same thing.

Now, you might see it.

So, if you if you see it in my account someday, you'll know what it is.

They say they don't even they don't even comment on what it is that I'm commenting on.

Instead, they leave one comment and it's always just one person and a different one each time.

That's how I know it's organized.

and they'll say, "Is this how you plan to spend your remaining days on Earth?" So, they mock me for being uh having a terminal disease.

And and then they don't even mention anything that's wrong with what I said.

They just try to shame me into thinking that I should not be spending my final minutes worrying about such things.

One a day.

Now, if I got 10 of those a day, I'd say, "Oh, that just must be people are terrible." But it's one on every political comment.

I It just looks programmed really.

So anyway, I have no access to any Democrats.

So nothing I say influences anything unless it gets to somebody like Trump and you know maybe he quotes it or something.

But I could talk all day long and no Democrat would ever see it.

Just a couple of trolls, that's it.

So that's not ideal.

Um so Elon has uh said he's thinking about building a solar gigafactory.

So that would make uh solar panels and the batteries that would uh store it.

Now I would like to go back to all of you who told me there is no economical way to introduce solar into the network you know for part of the grid.

But why would Musk be even thinking about it if there's no way to do it economically?

Do you think he would depend entirely on government subsidies?

I don't think he would gamble on government subsidies at the moment because he's pretty uh going pretty hard at the government.

We'll talk about that.

But uh it seems to me that betting on Elon Musk is a smarter bet, especially about technology and the economics of that technology.

It seems like agreeing with him is a smart play.

Um, but people have decided that he's the only person in the world who can do 50 genius things in a row.

And then the moment there's something that you feel like you care about, you think that you're smarter than him.

It's the damnest thing.

Like I love people's ego.

Oh yeah.

Well, on this topic that I don't know anything about, uh, I read an article once, so I guess I'm smarter than the smartest guy in the world.

Maybe not, maybe not.

Anyway, uh in a related news, according to interesting engineering, China, uh one of their big tech giants, Huawei, uh just filed a patent for a battery that they've juiced to have an 18,800 mile range for automobiles.

And it's solid state EV.

And uh they they filed a patent.

They think it can get over 1,800 miles in one charge and charge 80% of it up to 80% of it in five minutes.

Now, I'm not saying that Elon would use that technology because Tesla would probably invent its own stuff, but I would bet you that somewhere in Tesla, there's a laboratory where they're testing all kinds of new battery manufacturing and and storage.

And this one would be about three times better than normal, two to three times better than normal batteries.

So if you're betting on batteries and solar never being competitive economically, you really have to calculate in the fact that it could improve by, you know, 200 or 300% within a year.

I'm not saying it will, but its potential is it's going to improve, you know, maybe five times, 10 times in in 10 years.

Um, I changing the topic here for a second, I had an interview, uh, I guess you'd call it that, a podcast with Jordan Peterson the other day.

Now, it's not published.

It'll be on his site, not mine.

So Jordan Peterson was nice enough to um talk to me for a few hours.

I'll let you know.

I'll let you know when it's on You.

Tube.

But one of the things he mentioned is that envy um is a motivator.

Like if somebody envys something, it it'll get you off the couch, but not in a good way.

And I was thinking, you know, that really explains a lot of what we see that we think is politics because if you're doing fine yourself or you expect to do fine, then Trump doesn't bother you.

But if you're not doing fine and you don't expect to do fine, the fact that he's a billionaire who's had this privileged life and everything seems to work out for him and, you know, he's he's got beautiful women in his past, etc.

you probably have a lot of envy.

Same with uh Musk and also same with the MAGA base because the MAGA base at the moment is getting everything it wants.

Well, not quite.

We'll talk about that.

Um but they're also happy.

Imagine being one of the 50% of Democrats who are depressed and being treated by a therapist and you put out 200 job interview requests and got no answers at all.

So, you can't even get a job and pay for your groceries.

And those darn maggot people seem to be working and having babies and having a good time.

I wonder if envy is something like 80% of all political opinion.

If you're a socialist, it's really about bringing down the people who did better than you, right?

It it's not even as much about improving the people at the bottom as it is about reducing the distance between the top and the bottom.

So this kind of changed my uh my filter on life.

I used to think, oh, there must be a hundred reasons to not like somebody or something.

But what if there's only one?

If they're doing better than you, you just don't like it.

Now, I've got a uh unique um window into that because I was born in a town where I was not one of the the rich ones.

You know, we were we were on the lower end of the economic spectrum, but I was directly across from a ski slope where all the richest people hung out.

So, every every morning I'd look out this big window and uh I'd be standing in the house that my parents literally built with their own two hands because they couldn't afford to buy a house.

And I'm looking at all the rich people skiing because you actually see them skiing.

And you see their big houses on the mountain.

And I would I would be filled with envy and it would be very motivating.

And I I would think, damn it, I'm gonna have to be a lawyer or a business person.

I got to make some money.

I gotta compete with all these rich people on the mountain.

So, I definitely feel it.

Um, I think envy probably describes most of life, but there are two kinds of envy.

The benign type, which is what I just described, benign as in all it did was motivate me.

But it definitely motivated me.

And then there's the malicious type where somebody says, "Hey, wouldn't it be a good idea to destroy a Tesla dealership?" That would be the bad kind.

And you saw how easily people went into I mean, were were you amazed at how easy it was to get people to destroy Tesla automobiles?

Do you think that was just a political opinion?

No, that was envy.

I think that was envy disguised as some kind of political action.

Well, as you know, Elon Musk says he's going to start a third party called the America Party.

Um, I would like to apologize in advance that I will write that as American Party instead of America Party and I will get that wrong 100 more times because that's the problem with the name.

It's easily easily confused.

But, um, he hasn't filed the paperwork yet.

There was a hoax hoax online that showed some FAC paperwork filed, but that was not true.

That got debunked.

And I noticed that when people talk about Elon Musk and his third party thing that many people default to what I call analogy thinking.

Analogy thinking is where something reminds you of something else and then you mistakenly believe that because it reminds you of something else that the new thing will take the same direction as the thing it reminds you of.

That is not reason.

It's not argument.

It's not logic.

It's it's really just bad thinking.

Now, I do think that analogies can give you an idea where to look, you know, if you want to look for well, what are the problems with this idea?

But an analogy might suggest, oh, these other people tried to do that and they got this result, so maybe you should look into that.

So it might be useful the analogy but not for winning an argument and not for predicting.

Um however the third party um ambitions of Musk reminded a lot of people of um what's his name?

Ross Perau.

Now, the Ross Berau situation had so many differences from what it is that we're experiencing that if your only analysis was didn't work for Ross Bau, all he did was make it impossible for a Republican win.

So, that's what Musk is doing.

Same thing.

Well, I don't think you fully thought it through.

But it's possible.

It's possible that the only thing that comes out of it is that it makes it hard for Republicans to win.

It's possible, but as a prediction, it's not really a good prediction.

It's not like one thing leads to the other in some kind of, you know, unstoppable uh line of cause and effect.

There's a lot of lot of variables here.

So, I' I'd looked at Elon Musk's uh statements about his third party and I did a post in which I said the first thing you need to know, I'm paraphrasing, is that he's not say he's interested in running a presidential candidate.

He said he was interested in getting a handful of senators and house representatives who would be independent and you know not not wed to either party so that uh you know for important things that matter to the country they might be able to sway the total vote and uh then Elon retweeted my explanation that he was not not planning to have a presidential candidate in his third party.

And I thought to myself, "Oh, look at me.

I did something useful." So people were confused about that question.

And I accurately accurately determined that he wasn't planning to do that because he retweeted it.

Well, was it maybe an hour later he I found out I was wrong.

So about it wasn't long, it was the same day.

He he said, "Uh, just to clarify, again, I'm paraphrasing.

Just to clarify, uh, I might someday want to run a presidential candidate." To which I said, "Oh that's the Ross Barau problem.

If he runs a presidential candidate, that's just the Ross Barrow problem, right?" Um, and I it does seem more likely, although he's never said this, that he would pick people who were more likely to take votes from Republicans than Democrats.

But he's never said that.

What if it's exactly the opposite?

What if he went to uh get some exdemocrats who people who were also Democrats didn't find objectionable because these exdemocrats were not MAGA.

So even you know hypothetically let's say they join the third party and they win their election.

If you were a Democrat, you would know that they were not MAGA because they would never say any MAGA stuff.

And you might say, you know what, um, I just can't vote for Kla Harris, so I'm going to take a chance on this one.

So, the first thing we don't know is if he's going to be picking people that Republicans will like better than Democrats like him, or maybe it's a, you know, three of three of each.

We don't know.

I'm not sure he knows.

It sounds like he's sort of figuring it out as he goes.

Um, so there is there is a hypothetical path where all he does is make the world a better place.

And that would be if he stays away from the presidential choice and he gets some uh some middle-of the road standard people who Democrats like and those Democrats say, "You know what?

I don't think we should spend a lot of money on climate change." I'll just pick that as my example.

But you still might get Democrats who say, "All right, but uh we like you because you used to be a Democrat and I can't vote for Trump and or I can't vote for whoever replaces Trump and I can't vote for Kla Harris or some other Democrat." So there is a there is a path where things get a lot better because Congress could make decisions and get majorities that uh match what the public wants.

It's possible, but it's really possible that it goes the other way, right?

That all he does is weaken the the Republican party and then nothing gets done.

It's just, you know, total total skunk fight.

But the uh the thing that amused me most there's a number of people who are sure that although Elon Musk has conquered a number of unrelated fields that this would be the limit of his ability that he could figure out how to you know put a rocket to Mars and build electric cars and put a put a chip in your skull.

He could do all that but you know there's no way that he understands people.

He only understands machines and software and hardware.

Does that sound anything like true to you?

Do you really believe that the guy who's one of the best posters on X doesn't understand people, the person who made products that people can't resist, such as Tesla?

Do you really think he doesn't understand the market or how people react?

Do you really think he got all those people to have tents in the hallway at his AI company and they're sleeping overnight and he, you know, he got that to work cuz he does the same thing.

He just sleeps there until a problem is solved.

Do you think that's because he doesn't understand people?

I would argue that he understands people as well as he understands hardware and software, which is a lot.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that he doesn't understand people.

Now, I do see evidence, certainly not conclusive, that there might be something bipolar going on that, you know, every now and then he he uh he goes further than even he wishes he had gone and pulls it back.

So, there's something going on, but I don't think that that's new.

And probably, you know, that's probably one of the driving forces behind his success that, uh, if you're bipolar, uh, if you're having, you know, the the manic phase, you can get a lot done.

I know this because I'm a little bit bipolar.

Um, it doesn't affect my life because I don't get the the down.

I only get the up.

But every now and then I'll get this what has to be a manic phase that my last two or three weeks and wow, can you get stuff done?

Unbelievable.

So, I'm not sure that any of that's going to predict what's going to happen.

But let let me just give you this caution.

If you believe that Elon Musk is brilliant enough to do all the things that he obviously has done, but you believe he has this one area that he's not brilliant and you know more than he does about it, you should check your thinking because the hypothesis that you know more than he does about anything about anything is a little sketchy, right?

And even if you do know more than he does about, let's say, politics, how long is it going to take him to figure out more than you know, an afternoon?

Politics isn't that complicated.

Neither are people.

People are not terribly complicated.

They they follow incentives.

If you knew that people followed incentives and they're they're also driven on envy, you would be almost done in understanding people.

How many times have I told you, "All right, let's predict predict something about this by saying follow the money." I say it all the time.

I mean, I didn't invent it, obviously.

It's an old saying, but it's an old saying because it works.

Are people really that hard to understand that you think that Elon Musk is the only person who can't figure it out because he's some sort of a a robot or something?

No, I don't know if it's going to work.

I don't know if he's bluffing.

I don't know if he is really just trying to create some leverage to get a few things he wants.

We don't know what's in his head and we definitely don't know how this third party thing is going to work out.

Um, if you want a take on it, I would say at the moment I'm not sold.

So, I wouldn't personally join it.

Uh, because I don't know what it's about or, you know, who's going to be in it.

But, could he upgrade it to the point where I would?

Yes.

It's within the realm of possibility.

I'm not I'm not tempted at the moment because there's not enough clarity.

But maybe someday I'd have to hear an argument I've never heard.

And the argument I've never heard would be the one that says this is how this makes the world a better place.

If he can sell me on that, that he's figured out some kind of clever workaround to make the world a better place with a third party, I'm all in.

I'm all in.

And I might be because the odds of him making a good argument are pretty good.

The other possibility is that after he's you know he's he's struggled with it a little bit that he decides there's no path that makes sense.

So that's possible.

So either one of those is possible.

So I'm going to reserve judgment.

But no, I'm not uh I'm not thinking can't wait to join.

All right.

Um, so I saw a post on X by U M A I R H and uh the poster said, "Do you guys think the fall of the Roman Empire was also this incredibly stupid?" Uh, I've spent way too much time watching History Channel and You.

Tube videos about ancient civilizations that were dominant during their time and then just disappeared.

You know, the the Romans, the Incans, the the Mayans, you could just go down the list.

And it's very sobering cuz when I was a child, I believed that I would never see the end of the American Empire.

But I'll bet you Great Britain once thought that too.

Oh, we've conquering half the world.

Probably the Mongols thought that.

So, it turns out that uh most of the dominant uh civilizations eventually fall.

Um Elon Musk answered this fellow on Acts when he said, "Do you think the Roman Empire was also this incredibly stupid?" And Elon said, "Yeah, they wrote about their own demise extensively." Did you know that?

That you don't have to wonder what caused the Roman Empire to fall.

They were writing about it as it was happening.

And guess what?

It was too much debt.

Guess why?

Because they needed too much of a military to defend themselves.

And there was too much envy.

I'm making up that last part.

But in the sense the people who wanted more kept pushing for more and as they got more they ran out of money and then it fell apart.

Now I may be of course oversimplifying it greatly.

It could be that other civilizations died because um these Spanish concungistadors came over and gave them deadly diseases and then six months later they were all dead.

So there are lots of reasons could be floods, could be natural disasters, could be wars, there are lots of things that can destroy a dominant empire.

But I'm going to summarize it this way.

Given all of the civilizations around the world, if you if you think about all the countries and all the micro civilizations within those countries everywhere, there would be thousands of them, right?

And there are only a few um countries that have dominant civilizations.

You know, US, China, maybe the European Union, you maybe maybe you throw in Russia, but they're they have kind of a tiny economy.

So my take is this.

It's very rare for all of the variables to line up for any one country to be a dominant civilization.

In other words, it's like me hitting putts from 15 ft.

Sometimes all three go in from 15t away.

I did that the other day.

But far more likely I miss all three or make only one.

So it could be just so obvious that what's going on is that if any civilization becomes dominant like the US is or was and the UK was that the odds of it staying that way are just vanishingly small because everything had to be right at the same time and that would be rare.

So I'm not so sure that you can you can look at somebody else's example like Rome and say well Rome had this set of problems so we might but again it's an analogy so whatever problems they did have you'd probably want to look there first say well I got an idea what we should look at should we look at our debt and uh that's why Elon Musk's contribution is so important cuz we were sleepwalking toward complete ruin from debt.

And he didn't stop it, but boy did he stop the way we talk about it and think about it and the priority we put on it.

And uh and look how hard he's fighting to try to reverse it.

So, I don't know.

Did Rome have that?

Did Rome have an Elon Musk with the X platform and billions of dollars uh fighting as hard as he could to stop the spending from ruining us?

Is it possible that we have the variable that fixes stuff and we're not the same as all those other civilizations that failed.

It's possible.

It's possible that we've attracted the right kind of people who are fixers that no matter how bad the problem is, as long as you have enough time that you can pull together the right people and say, "All right, we're dead if we don't fix this." So then you fix it.

I don't know if Rome could have done that because they didn't have the right kind of communication to find the smartest people and and motivate them, but we do.

So I always think that the existence of the internet which is allow which allows you to gather resources and information and wisdom from far places and concentrate them where they need to be that it could be that the internet is a thing that allows a dominant civilization to stay there a little bit longer.

you know, unless there's a nuclear war or new co that kills you, which might be.

Well, meanwhile, President Trump has threatened to impose a 10% extra tariff on top of his existing tariffs for any countries that align themselves with the bricks.

So, the bricks are those uh those smalish, not small, but nons superpower countries.

Uh well actually Russia's in there and China's in there so they are superpowers.

Take that back.

So there would be sort of like a anti-American block of powers trying to make sure that the US doesn't have all the economic um clout and uh Trump's making sure that they don't go too far by threatening them with tariffs.

Will that work?

I don't know.

It might.

They he already scared them off from pursuing a currency that's not the dollar.

They were definitely pursuing that and he threatened them and they said, "Oh, we'll put that on hold." So threats do work.

We we've seen the tariff threat work now a few times, right?

And uh I guess uh Trump is now sending out a hundred letters to various countries that did not uh get a trade deal done with us.

And uh Scott Basant is framing this rather cleverly.

Uh, Bent is really good on the interviews and on the public stuff, but instead of saying, "We gave up on getting deals, so we're just going to send them a letter telling them what they're going to pay in tariffs," he says, "That is the deal." And he's not wrong.

No, we have a deal with a 100 countries.

There's a hundred countries that had all the time in the world to make a deal with us, and we were willing to make a deal.

It didn't happen.

So now the new deal is we'll tell them what they're going to pay in tariffs and that's it.

That's the deal.

Now if they wanted in the next uh 3 weeks uh because I guess it won't go into effect until August 1st.

If they wanted to, the US would say, "Oh, do you want to try to get a proper trade deal that isn't just us charging you more with tariffs?" And uh we would say yes to that.

Yeah, we'll do that.

Absolutely.

But I like I love his reframe that instead of failing, so we're just sending them the bill, we have just succeeded, but in a shortcuted way.

The shortcut is we don't need a new trade deal.

We're just going to sign the bill.

That is the new trade deal.

I kind of love that.

Uh Basant is really good at framing issues.

Um and Dan Dana Bash asked Scott Bent.

She goes, "That's not a deal.

That's a threat.

That the threat would be that you know they're they're going to have to pay more in tariffs." And Bassen says, "No, that's the level.

That's the deal." Good reframe.

Thailand apparently did come up with a deal.

So Thailand negotiated a deal and uh they're going to import more US natural gas and more of our corn to reduce the uh trade deficit with Thailand.

So that's good.

And there they offered to cut levies to zero on many US imports, not 100% of them, but many of the important ones.

And uh they said it's not just about reducing tariffs, but also about opening up trade.

So there you go.

Thailand did the smart thing by negotiating when they had a chance to negotiate.

So probably they're getting a better deal than they would have gotten.

I hope they did.

All right.

All right.

You want to talk about Epstein, don't you?

So, apparently the Justice Department, if you haven't heard this yet, if this is the first time you're hearing this, it's going to make your head explode.

But the Justice Department just released a a 10-hour video or some say 11-hour video of the what they say is Epstein's jail cell to show that nobody went in or out.

And therefore, they have concluded that he did he must have taken his own life because there's no video of him going in and out.

Now, didn't you didn't you understand that there was no video of that?

But where did they suddenly come up with some video of that?

It wasn't a video of the cell.

It was a video of the access to the cell.

And then I looked at the video and I said to myself, I don't even know what door this is.

I don't know what I'm looking at.

What the hell is this?

And other people weighed in.

And apparently you do not see anything that would tell you whether anybody had access or not.

Some of it is because it looks like there's an edit that might have lost a minute.

Some of it is it wasn't even looking in the right place.

Uh some of it is if somebody was already in there before the 10-hour video, they could have got it done and then left afterwards.

So, no, the video that they're showing us has no persuasive value to any of us.

If if any of that convinced you, no.

Cuz we didn't even get really a straight story about what video existed.

And I guess they said that the video cameras didn't work in his cell.

Well, that's a pretty big coincidence.

Uh now, one of the possibilities that they didn't look into is that there was somebody already in that general area.

um you know before the video or or even that the video was in the wrong place.

May maybe it wasn't even where you could tell if somebody got in there.

But so we don't believe that.

But it gets better.

Not only has the Justice Department declared that it was definitely a suicide.

Um but the systemic review revealed no incriminating client list.

There's no client list.

You know how all of us for years have been saying, "Well, why don't you show us the client list?" And now their now their official pronouncement is there was never a client list.

Now, that might be true.

It might be true.

There was never a client list.

Maybe he didn't write that stuff down.

But uh so there was so he wasn't murdered and there was no client list.

Um and there was also no evidence that he blackmailed prominent individuals, no suicide, no client list, and no evidence that he blackmailed anybody.

Okay.

Um, and we did not uncover evidence.

This is a Department of Justice.

We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.

They didn't find any evidence that would make some non-Epstein person that was involved with him guilty of a crime.

Nothing.

Well, end wokeness.

One of my favorite accounts to follow on X pointed out that in 2019 the FBI raided Epstein's home in New York City, not the island, but his home, and discovered hidden safes with computer discs and stashes of footage.

Um, do you know what happened to all those computer tapes and uh computer discs?

Take a guess.

You want to guess?

They went missing.

Yep.

Went missing.

So now we've got the video.

The video of a cell was accidentally erased.

There were no videos on the island apparently or they went missing.

And the ones from his home in New York City, they definitely exist, but then they went missing.

So apparently Galileain Maxwell got convicted for doing something that had no victims and no evidence of any crime.

What did they convict her of?

I'm a little confused.

And do you remember Virginia Joffrey who recently died tragically?

She was claiming that, you know, she was victimized many times and there were many other people on the island who were victimized.

Did they talk to all of those other people?

Did they talk to all of the young women who were allegedly victimized on the island and not one of them?

Not one of them named a name.

Does that sound right?

So, let's just say um and then this old man, which is the name of an account on X, posted this.

I can't believe Apistine killed himself right before he was about to be acquitted due to a complete lack of evidence.

Yeah, why would he kill himself if there was no evidence he did any crime?

It it's so bad.

You know, this is a obviously it's a crime against the public.

Don't you feel like the crime is against you at this point?

Yes, you do.

The crime is against us, but it's so bad.

This just seems funny.

And then Mike Benz uh reminds us on X the Alex Acasta.

So he was the DOJ off DOJ official who gave Epstein the sweetheart plea deal back in 2008.

So you remember there were sort of two waves of uh of justice against Epstein.

one got wrapped up by Ellen Dersowitz who did a good job of lawyering for him apparently and he got sort of a good deal that nobody believed it could be that good and so he you know got out of jail free.

Um but Alex Siccasta the DOJ DOJ person in charge of that um was quoted as saying he was told to quote back off of Epstein because he belonged to intelligence.

So that's the DOJ guy telling us directly that he was told to back off because he's part of the intelligence network.

Do you think he would make that up?

Do you think that the Department of Justice person who was working on the case would just make up just completely vent or hallucinate that he had been told to back off because Epstein's part of the intelligence world?

Well, it's not likely, but it gets better.

Apparently, uh, Acasta had 11 months of emails that that were for that time period that also fill in the blank.

What happened to 11 months of his emails?

What do you think?

Let's see how well you can guess.

Oh, yeah.

They disappeared.

So, how many things have disappeared now?

V.

Virginia Joffrey, the the main witness, she disappeared because she died young for reasons that I don't know were I don't know were innocent, but it's part of a pattern.

So, we lost all this guy's emails.

We lost the uh all the videos and tapes that were at Epstein's house, and we lost the video of the cell.

And apparently the um Epstein did not keep records of his clients.

Does any of that sound real to you?

Well, how many of you remember that I've been telling you since the beginning that even though Trump was now claiming that you're going to see all the everything that could be seen and even though I believe that Cash Patel meant it when he said we're going to release everything and even though I told you that I think Dan Bino is an honest guy and when he told you that they're going to get to the bottom of it and release it, they meant it.

And even though you knew there was something there and you trusted Trump and you trusted Bonino and you trusted Cash Patel for this topic, I still predicted that there would be nothing coming out from the Epstein files.

Does anybody remember me making that prediction over and over again?

I think I probably said it 20 times in public or posted it that we'll never see the Epstein stuff.

Well, what do you think now?

Now, I'm sure some of you felt the same thing, but do you have any doubt what's going on here?

It It's almost so clownishly obvious what's going on.

It's almost as if Cash Patel and Bino want you to know the truth.

Because I'll say again, I believe that Bonino and Cash Patel are honest guys who meant it when they said we're going to tell you everything, but they're clearly not telling us everything.

So, what would change that?

It's it's exactly what it looks like.

Somebody got to them and said, "I know you want to do this.

I know you want to do the right thing.

I know you're honest people and I know you promised the public.

Here's why you can't do it.

There would be real problems.

Like really, really big problems.

As in, it might take down a government.

It might take down a government, but not ours, but it might take down some government.

So I don't even know if we're protecting our own people or our own CIA or you know that's the obvious thing you think of but it could be we're protecting some other government or governments and uh that's not nothing.

So let me give uh Cash Patel and Dan Banchino um and Pam Bondi too.

I'm going to give them a little bit of cover.

It goes like this.

if you put me in their situation and I had promised you I'm definitely going to show you all of this stuff that that we find and then somebody came to me and said, "Look, you're not going to believe this, but if you release this stuff, one of our NATO allies will go down and we just can't do that." Could they talk me into not releasing it and also lying about why I couldn't release it?

And the answer is yes.

They absolutely could talk me into it.

Now maybe my example is not the greatest one, but if they had an example where people would die or nations would fall and they're nations that are our allies or um I don't know, somebody would be murdered.

Um, I could be convinced that there was a national security reason to lie to the public because remember if you are a spy or you are protecting national security secrets, you are allowed to lie, right?

You're allowed to lie.

You're not just allowed.

It's your job description.

You better lie because you're protecting the country or some big national interest.

So obviously the uh I think it's obvious that the Epstein situation must have touched at least one um one electrified rail and that somebody got to the people who were investigating and said, "Nope, nope.

I know you mean well, but this is not going to happen." And it could be that they were threatened with death.

You wouldn't I wouldn't rule that out.

It could be that the people investigating it, including the management, found out that no, you're going to you would be assassinated if you continue pushing this.

So, um, they may have reasons, but I was pretty sure we'd never find out.

And then in a related news, the Daily Caller is reporting that Trump says he's quote satisfied with the FBO FBI probe into the the Butler attempted assassination of him.

Let me say that again.

The same day we're finding out that it looks like our government's going to lie to us about Epstein forever, Trump says that of this very sketchy kind of weird assassination attempt where none of us believe that he did it alone and he had I don't know, he had some apps and and all that and none of it kind of made sense.

Do you believe that Trump is legitimately convinced that there's nothing there to see?

It was just a crazy guy acting independently.

Do you believe that?

I don't.

I think that probably it was the same phenomena.

Don't know.

I mean, this is just a gut feeling, but probably there's plenty dirty in that story and somebody got to Trump or Trump figured it out on his own and he realized that pushing that button would get somebody killed and he decided not to get somebody killed, especially him or his family.

So, no, I don't believe that he's satisfied with the FBI probe on the Butler assassination attempt.

I don't believe it at all.

I believe he said it and I believe he wants you to believe it, but I don't believe it.

Now, um, so I'm going to summarize what I've just been talking about this way.

when I started talking about politics back in 2016 um and I got a little bit of traction and people started listening to me and reading my blog posts and stuff.

Uh that caused a series of events where I got to meet people who knew the real story behind a variety of things.

You know, not the Epstein thing necessarily, but just the real story behind a variety of things.

How often was the real story the same as the one that was in the news?

And the answer is never, not once.

The every story that is sort of a big story is certainly has elements that are true.

I mean, I believe the president really did take a bullet in the ear, uh, etc.

So, there are parts of it that are definitely true.

I do believe that airplanes hit the uh world trade towers.

I mean that part's true.

But generally speaking, the interpretation or the real story behind everything is fake.

Let me say that again.

The real story behind everything, just everything is fake.

So no, you're never going to know about Epstein.

You're never going to know about JFK.

You'll probably never know about uh Martin Luther King.

You'll probably never know about Bobby Kennedy senior.

Um you're never going you're never going to know for sure about the Warren report.

Um and I don't think we'll even know for sure if we landed on the moon.

So I've now gone full Joe Rogan.

full Joe Rogan, which is I used to think it was obvious we had landed on the moon.

I did not question that for one second.

And when I saw people saying, "Oh, I'm not so sure," I would say to myself, "Wow, well, people who will believe anything, they actually think we didn't, you know, didn't really go to the moon." You know what I believe now?

Same thing that Joe Rogan believes.

I think I don't like to I don't like to characterize other people's opinions, but I think I got this one right that he doesn't know that we didn't go to the moon and I would agree with that.

I don't know that.

But if tomorrow I learned that we had not gone to the moon and it was somehow confirmed, would I act surprised or would I say, "Damn it, you can see the signs.

I should have known that." It would be the latter.

It would be me saying, "Ah, I I should have been more forceful in saying that that was probably fake." So, let me be really clear.

I don't have any evidence that I personally find convincing that it was faked.

But everything's in play.

Everything from the food pyramid to the vaccinations to everything.

It all looks fake to me.

It just all looks fake.

I don't know if we know why the Ukraine war is happening.

I don't know if we really know what was happening in Gaza.

I don't think we really know what was the full situation with Iran and its nuclear weapons.

I feel like it's all fake.

And when we're talking about the news, we're just doing some kind of parlor game where people who don't know anything about anything act like we do just so we have something to talk about.

That's what it feels like.

But I want to be clear.

While I don't believe the official version of any big story, just none of them, I also don't automatically believe the conspiracy theory.

So if I tell you I don't believe, you know, one of the big stories like the moon landing, it doesn't mean that I believe that Stanley Kubri filmed it.

He might have maybe, but it doesn't mean I automatically believe that.

Well, I guess uh Trump is meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House, and I think they're going to be taking a a victory lap for, you know, their good work with Iran.

But again, just so I'm consistent with what I said, the official story is that we destroyed all of their nuclear programs.

Do you believe that?

How would we know?

It's the same as saying that the 2020 election was not rigged because nobody found any conclusive evidence that a court has ruled means it was rigged.

How would you know if there was something that you couldn't find?

It's unknowable.

You You could determine if something was rigged if you found the evidence and it it tested out.

But if you don't find evidence and you know that things like elections have been rigged in the past and probably the United States has rigged elections in other countries.

If you didn't find any sign of election rigging, it doesn't mean a thing.

It doesn't mean a thing.

It just means you didn't find it.

It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So likewise with the nuclear program, I do believe that um it's very likely that all the things they tried to bomb were completely destroyed.

But does that mean they didn't have anything left?

Nothing hidden?

Nothing in the warehouse?

A different warehouse?

No way to know.

Anyway, um there's talk about uh I saw some talk that Gaza um the Hamas leadership in Gaza is completely decimated.

No, wrong word.

Decimated means reduced by 10%.

The real number was 95%.

So the leadership of Hamas is down 95% most of them dead but they you know don't have good communication or command and control at this point.

So maybe maybe there's a way to make a deal now.

Don't know.

Um, and then there's some some indication that Iran wants to talk about its nuclear program, but it wants to do it on its terms.

I believe its terms are that we can talk about it all day long, but we're definitely going to have a nuclear program, and you're not going to inspect it.

So, I don't think there's any place to go on that, but they will talk.

So, I mentioned this the other day, but um I feel like I understand a little bit better.

Um, there's an idea that instead of having a two-state solution where the Palestinians have their own one state and Israel has the state next to it and they live in peace next to each other since nobody thinks that that's going to work.

Um there there's these shakes who came up with the idea of having a emirate at least in one place and presumably you could have other emirates in other parts of the West Bank but one of them would be in Hebron and uh there's a specific shake who who they're proposing would be in charge and he would be the Amir.

But here's the part I maybe didn't mention or didn't know yesterday that uh a big part of their their pitch is that they would uh instantly recognize Israel's right to exist.

The Emirate would and they would look to join the u the Abraham Accords.

So I guess you wouldn't have to be a nation state necessarily to say hey we want to accept Israel and we want to be part of this trading block that you know gets extra advantages of trading with each other I guess and uh we'll do it as an emirate now I don't know if that has any legs because I I would have to know a lot more about that area to know if that idea could go.

I feel like Israel probably would resist that idea.

On the other hand, if you got, let's say, two or three Emirates uh who consolidated power and said, "Well, we don't want to rule the entire West Bank where the Palestinian Authority is, but but this little area will be our own little emirate and we'll also accept Israel and we'll also be part of the Abraham Accords." If you did that, you might accomplish Israel's goal of not having a two-state solution because they would probably be happier if there were bunch of smaller emirates that were unlikely to attack them because the Emirates apparently don't want any war.

So that's that's a step in the right direction.

So maybe it's a divide and conquer situation.

So maybe Israel might consider it.

I don't know.

On the other hand, they might not want um the Emirates to get too powerful and maybe they're lying about their their ambitions.

So lots of variables.

Um, so there's there's some factchecking going on on the claim that uh mayoral candidate uh Zoran Mamani for New York City.

Um, some say he's a communist and some say he isn't.

And uh a lot of it rests on the fact that he once said in 2019 I think um that the real goal was to seize the means of production and uh the fact checker which fact checker politact.

Do you think Politact is a reliable factchecking entity or is it a Democrat tool?

Well, did I just tell you that every single story in the news is fake?

This is not an exception.

So, yeah, it's a fact-checking organization that if you asked any Republicans, they would say, "No, it's the opposite.

It's a it's a lying organization.

They're they're there to certify lies that make Democrats happy." So, this would be one of those situations if that's what you believe.

So they said that uh that the u the manifesto the communist manifesto Karl Marx's work they say that that's not in there.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that?

Nowhere in the communist manifesto does it say that they want to seize the means of production.

So therefore, it's fake and it does not represent a desire to be a communist because that's not even in the communist manifesto.

Do you believe that?

Well, here's what is in the in the manifesto.

According to Grock, the proletariat will use its political supremacy to rest wre as in you know grab away by degree all capital from the bourgeois to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.

That's chapter two.

That's what it does say.

Um, was it do I have the the wrong author?

I'm looking at the comments.

I think you're factecking me.

I'm just working from memory, so I probably got some of the facts.

Anyway, so there's your fact check.

Your fact check is nowhere does it say seize the means of production.

No, no, it doesn't say that.

It only says uh the proletariat will use its political supremacy to rest by degree all capital from the bourgeois to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.

Oh well, I feel a lot better now.

I'm glad they didn't want to seize the means of production.

Thank goodness.

So there you go.

What about that no tax on tips?

How many of you believe that no tax on tips, which is what got approved in the big beautiful bill, meant no tax on tips?

Well, here again, the the real story behind the curtain is different from the one you've been told.

First of all, it only goes up to the first $25,000 in tips.

If you were a uh let's say a waiter in a restaurant that had a lot of tips, how fast would you get to 25,000?

Well, if you were a full-time waiter, um you could make $150,000 a year from mostly tips.

So maybe 50 would be your base pay and 100 would be your tips.

Now, this would be unusual.

That'd be a high-end restaurant with just tons of tipping, but it would be in that range.

So, does that sound like no tax on tips to you?

I mean, it's better than nothing.

And a lot of people who are working part-time especially will enjoy it.

Um, but uh they're still going to have to pay the payroll tax and their social security and Medicare.

So even though there's no tax on tips, there's an 8% tax on tips because little under 8% is your payroll taxes and social security and Medicare.

So there's still a tax on tips and there's lots of tax on tips, but it's better than better than it was.

It's just not what you thought it was.

All right, here's something that I know um I've done wrong.

Um, when the Democrats say that the big beautiful bill is going to cut healthcare, sometimes I would see Medicaid and sometimes I would say Medicare and they're different.

And I would read the story and it would say, "But the mean old Republicans and Trump are going to cut your Medicaid." And then I would see another story that says um leader Jeff says they're going to cut your Medicare.

And I actually started to think maybe there were typos in the stories because some of it would be on social media and I'd like oh it's just a typo.

And I thought it was one or the other.

I didn't realize it was both.

So apparently the big beautiful bill cuts both.

But what what uh Democrats call cutting, the uh Republicans call making sure that only the people who deserve it and are qualified for it are getting it.

But they've added the added work requirement.

So if you're able-bodied, you've got a certain amount of time to either sign up for classes or do some volunteer work or or get a job.

So you've got some options.

uh and if you're an uh undocumented citizen of this country uh you would lose in that case I think in both cases.

So how many of you knew um how many of you thought the same thing I did that it was one of them but not the other and then you found out it was both of them.

Now I'm not saying that that's a mistake.

it probably needed to be both of them, but they're very they're treated very differently.

Um, and then I thought Republicans are going to have a real problem in the midterm because all the Democrats have to do is say Republicans took away healthcare from 12 million people.

That's what they say now.

And who knows how long before they take it away from you.

And that's pretty scary.

Pretty scary.

How do I know that's scary?

cuz yesterday I got to experience having no healthc care.

So I I have Kaiser Permanente and I think I've got shingles.

So I've got this insanely painful set of u skin problems on one side.

It looks like a shingles probably.

So, I used my app to contact my health care provider to set up a in-person appointment because I'd already send in photos of it and they had not guessed shingles, but now it looks like it's almost certainly shingles cuz I checked AI.

AI says, "Yeah, probably shingles." Um, and then my app said, um, that there's no availability of appointments for in person.

And I thought, really?

None?

Not a month from now or two months from now?

Like, just none?

I I really can't get any healthcare.

And I thought, oh, oh, they're trying to make me do a Zoom call because you can do almost everything on Zoom.

So, I go to the other part of the app to set up a Zoom appointment.

And it comes back with there are no available appointments ever.

So, and of course, this always happens on the, you know, the the long weekends that are a holiday.

How many of you have not noticed that somebody in your family, maybe you, always has a health problem on a holiday?

Always, because that's when all the doctors go on vacation and you're lucky if you can get anything.

So, I got to experience having no health care and also having a pretty painful health problem.

I mean, it really hurts.

If you ever get shingles, good luck.

It hurts like a mofo.

Um, now, fortunately, I had AI and I had other mechanisms to get what I need.

So, I'm being treated, you know, as well as I think I need to be, but I didn't have any healthcare.

So, um, I got to I got to tell you that when you realize you don't have health care even though you've been paying for it, it's a it's a scary thing.

So, if the Democrats scare voters by saying they're going to take away your healthcare next, that's going to really be effective.

So, I was trying to think, what could Republicans do to get ahead of the messaging?

And I don't have a suggestion yet, but um something like this came to mind.

So, this will just be a brainstorming.

This is not a good suggestion, but it might might make you think of a better one.

Um what if Republicans said everyone who supports the country by working, going to school, or following their laws gets to keep their health insurance?

everyone who supports America by working, going to school or volunteering, I guess, or following our laws, which would take care of the non-citizens who were getting it.

Um, they get to keep their health insurance or their healthcare.

Would that work?

Maybe that's a little bit too uh conceptual.

It would be a lot better if there was some picture or something scary.

So, Republicans are going to have a tough time.

We'll keep working on that.

Well, uh, Representative Comr is going to bring Biden's physician in for a uh conversation to find out what did he know and what was the real situation with Biden's health behind the scenes.

I can't wait.

I suspect that he will be reluctant to answer questions because if he does, he's going to have to lie like hell and I don't know that he's going to want to do that under oath.

All right.

Um, so you know that we killer that American bread seems to have in it um called glyphosate.

And some say it's the reason that the bread is healthy in Europe but not healthy in America is that gly glyphosate was used as a weed killer.

Well, I didn't know this but uh a lot of US bread companies had replaced glyphosate already.

So uh they replaced it with uh what's it called?

Uh, dickwat.

D I qu u a t.

Um, dickwat.

I just like saying dickwat.

Anyway, but apparently that replaced glyphosate is widely employed employed in the US as a weed killer.

Um, except the there's a new report that that might even be worse for you according to the Guardian.

So, the gardening has an article that says uh this new thing that replaces the thing that you thought was the bad thing that the new thing can damage your organs and gut bacteria according to new research.

Why is it everybody in the world can make bread except Americans?

Can we really not make bread that isn't poisonous, man?

Um, yeah, I don't like that story.

Um, Taiwan's got a company that has a uh tech platform they build to detect schizophrenia.

So, apparently they can scan your brain and then use AI.

And the AI can um accurately up to 91% accuracy identify people with schizophrenia.

Huh.

And apparently it can identify other patterns as well.

So that's interesting.

Um, if they can identify that you probably have schizophrenia by looking at your brain, how long will it be before they find the part of your brain that handles free will?

They haven't found it yet, but I know it's in there somewhere.

I'm joking.

Free will doesn't exist.

It's an illusion.

All right.

Um, and then I saw an article by Antonio Grace.

Um, he was in Damn it, I didn't write down the publication, but um, he's talking about the problems with measuring the temperature of the earth.

Um, let let's see if uh, any of these sound like things I've told to you before.

So this would be in the topic of climate change.

Um did you know according to Antonio Grasshifo that 96% of US temperature stations fail to meet NOAA's own sighting standards and are often surrounded by essentially heat islands.

Did you know that is 96% of them don't meet the standard?

I didn't know that.

I knew I knew a lot of them didn't, but I didn't know it was 96%.

So that's not 96% who were by heat islands, but just 96% that for whatever reason don't meet the standard.

Then did you know that those uh thermometers transitioned from mercury to digital sensors um between 1980 and the 2000s and that that same period where they took out one kind of thermometer and put in another uh introduced what he calls discontinuities in the data and that happens to be the period of accelerated warming.

So the very period that they were replacing the technology they used to measure the temperature, that's the period that the temperature suddenly went up.

Okay.

Why were they replacing the old thermometers?

Was it because they were totally accurate?

No.

Then how about this?

The early measurements were geographically concentrated in Europe and North America, ignoring vast regions, especially the 71% of the planet covered by oceans.

So until recently, the temperature of the oceans were ignored for climate change.

The oceans, the world is mostly ocean.

and then measurement errors of plus or minus uh half a degree centigrade um often exceeded the very climate signals being used to justify the policies.

So in other words even where they found some warming it was below below the level that your accuracy could have told you is real if that makes sense.

Uh, worse still, says Antonio, much of the raw data has been adjusted or homogenized.

Do you know what that means?

When the data from the temperature sensors was homogenized.

Have you ever heard that term?

When I tell you what it means, you're just going to shake your head.

You go, "Oh, God.

God, what a world.

What a world." Homogenized means made up.

It means for example if you had one temperature station that had failed you know let's say a car ran into it and it wasn't available instead of saying oh we don't have that data they would look at other measurements and then they would look at what that used to say and then they would estimate what that probably was the temperature in that in that uh measuring device that didn't exist.

So homogenized means somebody used assumptions assumptions to figure out what the temperature was.

So assumptions.

Okay.

Now those are the problems that you know about.

We haven't even talked about the the models.

Do you remember what I keep telling you about the d the temperature models for climate change?

So, I used to say there's no way that they're accurate.

And I would try to make my argument.

And now I just say this.

Wait till you find out about the climate models cuz you will find out there.

There's no chance that you won't find out.

And when you find out, you're going to say, "God, that cartridge guy was on this early." Yeah.

There is no way that the complicated multivariable climate models are even a little bit reliable.

There is not really any way that's possible.

But you've been told, the world has been told that the scientists can do that.

So there will be there will be a whistleblower.

I guarantee it.

And that whistleblower will say, you know, we just sort of make these assumptions and force it to fit where we expect people to to expect it.

And uh that's how we get our funding.

That's what's it's going to happen.

Wait till you find out.

All right, ladies and gentlemen.

I went too long, so I'm going to say goodbye.

Thanks for joining.

Um locals say hi very quickly.

Uh the rest of you I'll see you same time tomorrow I hope.

and uh locals coming at you privately.

Can you hear my AC that just went on? I

hope not. You don't hear the background

noise, do you? I usually turn it off,

but it got me. Game on just when I went

live.

All right, come on in here. Grab a seat

up front.

It's going to be wild.

A good time will be had by everyone. All

right, let me get my comments going.

[Music]

You sound great. That's what I want to

hear. I want to hear that I sound great

and look great and act great.

Good morning everyone and welcome to the

highlight of human civilization. It's

called Coffee with Scott Adams and it's

the best thing that ever happened to

you.

But if you'd like to try to elevate this

experience up to levels that no one can

even understand with their tiny shiny

human brains. Well, for that you're

going to need a copper mug or a glass of

tanker gels a canteen jug or flask of

vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join

me now for the unparalleled pleasure of

the dopamine end of the day. The thing

that makes everything better. It's

called the simultaneous sip. And it

happens now. Go.

So, so good.

All right. What do we have here? Thank

you, Paul.

Well, I saw a trailer for the new

Superman movie, and boy was I surprised.

Did anybody see the the ads for the new

Superman movie?

I didn't know what I was seeing.

because it looks like they're actually

going to do a movie where Superman will

be played by. And I don't know this for

sure, but it looked like a straight

white man is playing Superman in a new

movie. Honestly, I didn't see that

coming. I was really expecting kind of a

albino black disabled lesbian kind of a

situation, but no, they have boldly gone

where nobody could go lately with a

straight white protagonist.

So, I might check that out unless they

have somebody tied to a chair. That's

that's my rule out for any movie.

Did you really need to tie that guy to a

chair? All right.

Well, if you watch soccer, you know that

the Gold Cup concluded yesterday and

Mexico and the US were in the finals.

And uh the better team won. Mexico look

like they're just a better team,

frankly. Um but

was it predictable?

Was it predictable that Mexico would

win? Apparently, Mexico doesn't usually

beat the US soccer team. I didn't know

that, but I learned that yesterday. Uh,

but this time they did. Well, have I

ever told you that the best story

usually wins?

The best story

usually wins. Now, this is very related

to my other point of view that the most

entertaining

uh outcome is the one that's most

likely. The best story and the most

entertaining outcome are kind of the

same. Now, if you were going to use that

to predict who would win

in the context of Trump closing the

border and getting tough with Mexico and

the Mexicans being very unhappy, I would

guess with at least the government of

the United States at the moment,

who is more likely to win? the bully,

which would be the United States, even

though it had nothing to do with the

soccer team, or the victims of the

bully, which would be the Mexican soccer

team, but again, not the actual players,

just the idea of one country versus

another. And so, if you would use that

standard, which is weirdly predictive,

it is so predictive that the best story

would win, the best story was Mexico

winning.

And uh they they played like they wanted

to win. It was pretty pretty fun to

watch. Um we'll get to the news in a

moment, but I have to tell you about the

inedible sandwich.

Somebody invented a sandwich that's you

can't eat. I discovered this by door

dashing that sandwich.

So, all you have to do to make a

sandwich that actually can't be eaten is

you get a nice uh crunchy hard baguette

kind of a French bread roll.

And then you put in between the two

pieces of bread, you put really soft

things like avocado and tomato and um

other things that are soft and squishy

because when you bite into the hard

part, your teeth won't go through the

hard part because it just compresses the

sandwich into the soft stuff. So by the

time you take one bite into the

sandwich, 100% of the contents are on

your lap.

Now, I tried everything.

I tried everything, but it was a

sandwich that couldn't be eaten. It was

an inedible sandwich. Have you ever had

one of those?

And, you know, as long as the bun was

much harder than the contents, there was

no solution. So, I ended up, you know,

just eating with my eating the contents

with my fingers and throwing away the

bun.

But uh probably that was the healthiest

thing I could do. Throw away the bug.

Well, according to Elon Musk, the uh

algorithm on X has been tweaked and

improved so that you could uh maybe

discover smaller accounts that have good

posts.

But I'll tell you one thing it didn't do

is it did not change my bubble.

I don't even remember the last time

Democrats saw something I posted on Axe.

And I don't remember seeing anything

that a Democrat posted. I get exactly

one troll every time I make a comment

that's in any way positive about Trump

or Republicans.

Always one. And it always looks like

they're they're operating off a a troll

kind of instructions cuz they all say

the same thing. Now,

you might see it. So, if you if you see

it in my account someday, you'll know

what it is. They say they don't even

they don't even comment on what it is

that I'm commenting on. Instead, they

leave one comment and it's always just

one person and a different one each

time. That's how I know it's organized.

and they'll say, "Is this how you plan

to spend your remaining days on Earth?"

So, they mock me for being uh having a

terminal disease.

And and then they don't even mention

anything that's wrong with what I said.

They just try to shame me into thinking

that I should not be spending my final

minutes worrying about such things. One

a day. Now, if I got 10 of those a day,

I'd say, "Oh, that just must be people

are terrible." But it's one on every

political comment. I It just looks

programmed really.

So anyway, I have no access to any

Democrats. So nothing I say influences

anything unless it gets to somebody like

Trump and you know maybe he quotes it or

something. But I could talk all day long

and no Democrat would ever see it. Just

a couple of trolls, that's it.

So that's not ideal.

Um so Elon has uh said he's thinking

about building a solar gigafactory. So

that would make uh solar panels and the

batteries that would uh store it. Now I

would like to go back to all of you who

told me there is no economical way to

introduce solar into the network you

know for part of the grid. But why would

Musk be even thinking about it if

there's no way to do it economically?

Do you think he would depend entirely on

government subsidies?

I don't think he would gamble on

government subsidies at the moment

because he's pretty uh going pretty hard

at the government. We'll talk about

that. But uh it seems to me that betting

on Elon Musk is a smarter bet,

especially about technology and the

economics of that technology. It seems

like agreeing with him is a smart play.

Um, but people have decided that he's

the only person in the world who can do

50 genius things in a row. And then the

moment there's something that you feel

like you care about, you think that

you're smarter than him.

It's the damnest thing.

Like I love people's ego. Oh yeah. Well,

on this topic that I don't know anything

about,

uh, I read an article once, so I guess

I'm smarter than the smartest guy in the

world.

Maybe not, maybe not.

Anyway, uh in a related news, according

to interesting engineering, China, uh

one of their big tech giants, Huawei,

uh just filed a patent for a battery

that they've juiced to have an 18,800

mile range for automobiles. And it's

solid state EV. And uh they they filed a

patent. They think it can get over 1,800

miles in one charge and charge 80% of it

up to 80% of it in five minutes. Now,

I'm not saying that Elon would use that

technology because Tesla would probably

invent its own stuff, but I would bet

you that somewhere in Tesla, there's a

laboratory where they're testing all

kinds of new battery manufacturing and

and storage.

And this one would be about three times

better than normal, two to three times

better than normal batteries.

So if you're betting on batteries and

solar never being competitive

economically,

you really have to calculate in the fact

that it could improve by, you know, 200

or 300%

within a year.

I'm not saying it will, but its

potential is it's going to improve, you

know, maybe five times, 10 times in in

10 years.

Um,

I changing the topic here for a second,

I had an interview, uh, I guess you'd

call it that, a podcast with Jordan

Peterson the other day. Now, it's not

published. It'll be on his site, not

mine. So Jordan Peterson was nice enough

to um talk to me for a few hours. I'll

let you know. I'll let you know when

it's on YouTube.

But one of the things he mentioned is

that envy

um is a motivator. Like if somebody

envys something, it it'll get you off

the couch, but not in a good way.

And I was thinking, you know, that

really explains a lot of what we see

that we think is politics

because if you're doing fine yourself or

you expect to do fine, then Trump

doesn't bother you.

But if you're not doing fine and you

don't expect to do fine, the fact that

he's a billionaire who's had this

privileged life and everything seems to

work out for him and, you know, he's

he's got beautiful women in his past,

etc. you probably have a lot of envy.

Same with uh Musk and also same with the

MAGA base because the MAGA base at the

moment is getting everything it wants.

Well, not quite. We'll talk about that.

Um but they're also happy. Imagine being

one of the 50% of Democrats who are

depressed and being treated by a

therapist and you put out 200 job

interview requests and got no answers at

all. So, you can't even get a job and

pay for your groceries. And those darn

maggot people seem to be working and

having babies and having a good time. I

wonder if envy

is something like 80% of all political

opinion. If you're a socialist, it's

really about bringing down the people

who did better than you, right? It it's

not even as much about improving the

people at the bottom as it is about

reducing the distance between the top

and the bottom.

So this kind of changed my uh my filter

on life.

I used to think, oh, there must be a

hundred reasons to not like somebody or

something. But what if there's only one?

If they're doing better than you, you

just don't like it.

Now, I've got a uh unique um window into

that because I was born in a town where

I was not one of the the rich ones. You

know, we were we were on the lower end

of the economic spectrum, but I was

directly across from a ski slope where

all the richest people hung out. So,

every every morning I'd look out this

big window and uh I'd be standing in the

house that my parents literally built

with their own two hands because they

couldn't afford to buy a house. And I'm

looking at all the rich people skiing

because you actually see them skiing.

And you see their big houses on the

mountain. And I would I would be filled

with envy and it would be very

motivating. And I I would think, damn

it, I'm gonna have to be a lawyer or a

business person. I got to make some

money. I gotta compete with all these

rich people on the mountain.

So, I definitely feel it. Um, I think

envy probably describes most of life,

but there are two kinds of envy. The

benign type, which is what I just

described, benign as in all it did was

motivate me. But it definitely motivated

me. And then there's the malicious type

where somebody says, "Hey, wouldn't it

be a good idea to destroy a Tesla

dealership?"

That would be the bad kind. And you saw

how easily people went into I mean, were

were you amazed at how easy it was to

get people to destroy Tesla automobiles?

Do you think that was just a political

opinion? No, that was envy. I think that

was envy disguised as some kind of

political action.

Well, as you know, Elon Musk says he's

going to start a third party called the

America Party. Um, I would like to

apologize in advance that I will write

that as American Party instead of

America Party and I will get that wrong

100 more times because that's the

problem with the name. It's easily

easily confused.

But, um, he hasn't filed the paperwork

yet. There was a hoax hoax online that

showed some FAC paperwork filed, but

that was not true. That got debunked.

And I noticed that when people talk

about Elon Musk and his third party

thing that many people default to what I

call analogy thinking. Analogy thinking

is where something reminds you of

something else and then you mistakenly

believe that because it reminds you of

something else that the new thing will

take the same direction as the thing it

reminds you of.

That is not reason. It's not argument.

It's not logic.

It's it's really just bad thinking. Now,

I do think that analogies can give you

an idea where to look, you know, if you

want to look for well, what are the

problems with this idea? But an analogy

might suggest, oh, these other people

tried to do that and they got this

result, so maybe you should look into

that. So it might be useful the analogy

but not for winning an argument and not

for predicting.

Um however the third party um ambitions

of Musk reminded a lot of people of um

what's his name? Ross Perau.

Now, the Ross Berau situation had so

many differences from what it is that

we're experiencing that if your only

analysis was didn't work for Ross Bau,

all he did was make it impossible for a

Republican win. So, that's what Musk is

doing. Same thing. Well, I don't think

you fully thought it through. But it's

possible.

It's possible that the only thing that

comes out of it is that it makes it hard

for Republicans to win. It's possible,

but as a prediction, it's not really a

good prediction. It's not like one thing

leads to the other in some kind of, you

know, unstoppable uh line of cause and

effect. There's a lot of lot of

variables here. So, I' I'd looked at

Elon Musk's uh statements about his

third party and I did a post in which I

said the first thing you need to know,

I'm paraphrasing, is that he's not say

he's interested in running a

presidential candidate. He said he was

interested in getting a handful of

senators and house representatives

who would be independent and you know

not not wed to either party so that uh

you know for important things that

matter to the country they might be able

to sway the total vote

and uh then Elon retweeted my

explanation that he was not not planning

to have a presidential candidate in his

third party. And I thought to myself,

"Oh, look at me. I did something

useful." So people were confused about

that question. And I accurately

accurately determined that he wasn't

planning to do that because he retweeted

it. Well, was it maybe an hour later

he I found out I was wrong.

So about it wasn't long, it was the same

day. He he said, "Uh, just to clarify,

again, I'm paraphrasing. Just to

clarify, uh, I might someday want to run

a presidential candidate." To which I

said, "Oh that's the Ross Barau

problem.

If he runs a presidential candidate,

that's just the Ross Barrow problem,

right?" Um, and I it does seem more

likely, although he's never said this,

that he would pick people who were more

likely to take votes from Republicans

than Democrats.

But he's never said that.

What if it's exactly the opposite?

What if he went to uh get some

exdemocrats

who people who were also Democrats

didn't find objectionable because these

exdemocrats were not MAGA. So even you

know hypothetically let's say they join

the third party and they win their

election.

If you were a Democrat, you would know

that they were not MAGA because they

would never say any MAGA stuff. And you

might say, you know what, um, I just

can't vote for Kla Harris, so I'm going

to take a chance on this one. So, the

first thing we don't know is if he's

going to be picking people that

Republicans will like better than

Democrats like him, or maybe it's a, you

know, three of three of each. We don't

know. I'm not sure he knows. It sounds

like he's sort of figuring it out as he

goes. Um,

so there is there is a hypothetical path

where all he does is make the world a

better place.

And that would be if he stays away from

the presidential choice and he gets some

uh some middle-of the road standard

people who Democrats like

and those Democrats say, "You know what?

I don't think we should spend a lot of

money on climate change." I'll just pick

that as my example. But you still might

get Democrats who say, "All right, but

uh we like you because you used to be a

Democrat and I can't vote for Trump and

or I can't vote for whoever replaces

Trump and I can't vote for Kla Harris or

some other Democrat." So there is a

there is a path where things get a lot

better because Congress could make

decisions and get majorities that uh

match what the public wants. It's

possible, but

it's really possible that it goes the

other way, right?

That all he does is weaken the the

Republican party and then nothing gets

done. It's just, you know, total total

skunk fight.

But the uh the thing that amused me most

there's a number of people who are sure

that although Elon Musk has conquered a

number of unrelated fields that this

would be the limit of his ability that

he could figure out how to you know put

a rocket to Mars and build electric cars

and put a put a chip in your skull. He

could do all that but you know there's

no way that he understands people. He

only understands machines and software

and hardware.

Does that sound

anything like true to you? Do you really

believe that the guy who's one of the

best posters on X doesn't understand

people, the person who made products

that people can't resist, such as Tesla?

Do you really think he doesn't

understand the market or how people

react? Do you really think he got all

those people to have tents in the

hallway at his AI company and they're

sleeping overnight and he, you know, he

got that to work cuz he does the same

thing. He just sleeps there until a

problem is solved. Do you think that's

because he doesn't understand people?

I would argue that he understands people

as well as he understands

hardware and software, which is a lot.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that

he doesn't understand people.

Now, I do see evidence,

certainly not conclusive, that there

might be something bipolar going on

that, you know, every now and then he he

uh he goes further than even he wishes

he had gone and pulls it back. So,

there's something going on, but I don't

think that that's new. And probably, you

know, that's probably one of the driving

forces behind his success that, uh, if

you're bipolar,

uh, if you're having, you know, the the

manic phase, you can get a lot done. I

know this because I'm a little bit

bipolar. Um, it doesn't affect my life

because I don't get the the down. I only

get the up. But every now and then I'll

get this what has to be a manic phase

that my last two or three weeks and wow,

can you get stuff done? Unbelievable.

So, I'm not sure that any of that's

going to predict what's going to happen.

But let let me just give you this

caution.

If you believe that Elon Musk is

brilliant enough to do all the things

that he obviously has done, but you

believe he has this one area that he's

not brilliant and you know more than he

does about it, you should check your

thinking

because the hypothesis that you know

more than he does about anything

about anything is a little sketchy,

right? And even if you do know more than

he does about, let's say, politics, how

long is it going to take him to figure

out more than you know, an afternoon?

Politics isn't that complicated. Neither

are people. People are not terribly

complicated. They they follow

incentives. If you knew that people

followed incentives and they're they're

also driven on envy, you would be almost

done in understanding people. How many

times have I told you, "All right, let's

predict predict something about this by

saying follow the money."

I say it all the time. I mean, I didn't

invent it, obviously. It's an old

saying, but it's an old saying because

it works. Are people really that hard to

understand that you think that Elon Musk

is the only person who can't figure it

out because he's some sort of a a robot

or something? No, I don't know if it's

going to work. I don't know if he's

bluffing. I don't know if he is really

just trying to create some leverage to

get a few things he wants. We don't know

what's in his head and we definitely

don't know how this third party thing is

going to work out. Um, if you want a

take on it, I would say at the moment

I'm not sold.

So, I wouldn't personally join it. Uh,

because I don't know what it's about or,

you know, who's going to be in it. But,

could he upgrade it to the point where I

would? Yes. It's within the realm of

possibility. I'm not I'm not tempted at

the moment because there's not enough

clarity.

But maybe someday I'd have to hear an

argument I've never heard. And the

argument I've never heard would be the

one that says this is how this makes the

world a better place. If he can sell me

on that, that he's figured out some kind

of clever workaround to make the world a

better place with a third party, I'm all

in. I'm all in. And I might be because

the odds of him making a good argument

are pretty good.

The other possibility is that after he's

you know he's he's struggled with it a

little bit that he decides there's no

path that makes sense. So that's

possible. So either one of those is

possible. So I'm going to reserve

judgment. But no, I'm not uh I'm not

thinking can't wait to join.

All right. Um,

so I saw a post on X by

U M A I R H and uh the poster said, "Do

you guys think the fall of the Roman

Empire was also this incredibly stupid?"

Uh, I've spent way too much time

watching History Channel and YouTube

videos

about ancient civilizations that were

dominant during their time and then just

disappeared. You know, the the Romans,

the Incans, the the Mayans, you could

just go down the list. And it's very

sobering cuz when I was a child, I

believed that I would never see the end

of the American Empire.

But I'll bet you Great Britain once

thought that too. Oh, we've conquering

half the world. Probably the Mongols

thought that.

So, it turns out that uh most of the

dominant uh civilizations eventually

fall.

Um Elon Musk answered this fellow on

Acts when he said, "Do you think the

Roman Empire was also this incredibly

stupid?" And Elon said, "Yeah, they

wrote about their own demise

extensively." Did you know that? That

you don't have to wonder what caused the

Roman Empire to fall. They were writing

about it as it was happening.

And guess what? It was

too much debt.

Guess why? Because they needed too much

of a military to defend themselves. And

there was too much envy. I'm making up

that last part. But in the sense the

people who wanted more

kept pushing for more and as they got

more they ran out of money and then it

fell apart. Now I may be of course

oversimplifying it greatly. It could be

that other civilizations died because um

these Spanish concungistadors came over

and gave them deadly diseases and then

six months later they were all dead. So

there are lots of reasons could be

floods, could be natural disasters,

could be wars, there are lots of things

that can destroy a dominant empire.

But I'm going to summarize it this way.

Given all of the civilizations around

the world, if you if you think about all

the countries and all the micro

civilizations within those countries

everywhere, there would be thousands of

them, right?

And there are only a few um countries

that have dominant civilizations.

You know, US, China,

maybe the European Union, you maybe

maybe you throw in Russia, but they're

they have kind of a tiny economy.

So my take is this. It's very rare for

all of the variables to line up for any

one country to be a dominant

civilization.

In other words, it's like me hitting

putts from 15 ft. Sometimes all three go

in from 15t away. I did that the other

day.

But far more likely I miss all three or

make only one. So it could be just so

obvious that what's going on is that if

any civilization becomes dominant like

the US is or was and the UK was that the

odds of it staying that way are just

vanishingly small because everything had

to be right at the same time and that

would be rare.

So I'm not so sure that you can you can

look at somebody else's example like

Rome and say well Rome had this set of

problems so we might but again it's an

analogy so whatever problems they did

have you'd probably want to look there

first say well I got an idea what we

should look at should we look at our

debt

and uh that's why Elon Musk's

contribution is so important

cuz we were sleepwalking toward complete

ruin from debt. And he didn't stop it,

but boy did he stop the way we talk

about it and think about it and the

priority we put on it. And uh and look

how hard he's fighting

to try to reverse it. So, I don't know.

Did Rome have that? Did Rome have an

Elon Musk with the X platform and

billions of dollars uh fighting as hard

as he could to stop the spending from

ruining us?

Is it possible

that we have the variable that fixes

stuff and we're not the same as all

those other civilizations that failed.

It's possible. It's possible that we've

attracted the right kind of people who

are fixers that no matter how bad the

problem is, as long as you have enough

time that you can pull together the

right people and say, "All right, we're

dead if we don't fix this." So then you

fix it. I don't know if Rome could have

done that because they didn't have the

right kind of communication to find the

smartest people and and motivate them,

but we do. So I always think that the

existence of the internet which is allow

which allows you to gather resources and

information and wisdom from far places

and concentrate them where they need to

be that it could be that the internet is

a thing that allows a dominant

civilization to stay there a little bit

longer. you know, unless there's a

nuclear war or new co that kills you,

which might be. Well, meanwhile,

President Trump has threatened to impose

a 10% extra tariff on top of his

existing tariffs for any countries that

align themselves with the bricks. So,

the bricks are those uh those smalish,

not small, but nons superpower

countries.

Uh well actually Russia's in there and

China's in there so they are

superpowers. Take that back. So there

would be sort of like a anti-American

block of powers trying to make sure that

the US doesn't have all the economic

um clout

and uh Trump's making sure that they

don't go too far by threatening them

with tariffs. Will that work? I don't

know. It might. They he already scared

them off from pursuing a currency that's

not the dollar. They were definitely

pursuing that and he threatened them and

they said, "Oh, we'll put that on hold."

So threats do work. We we've seen the

tariff threat work now a few times,

right?

And uh I guess uh Trump is now sending

out a hundred letters to various

countries that did not uh get a trade

deal done with us. And uh Scott Basant

is framing this rather cleverly. Uh,

Bent is really good on the interviews

and on the public stuff, but instead of

saying, "We gave up on getting deals, so

we're just going to send them a letter

telling them what they're going to pay

in tariffs," he says, "That is the

deal."

And he's not wrong. No, we have a deal

with a 100 countries. There's a hundred

countries that had all the time in the

world to make a deal with us, and we

were willing to make a deal. It didn't

happen.

So now the new deal is we'll tell them

what they're going to pay in tariffs and

that's it. That's the deal. Now if they

wanted in the next uh 3 weeks uh because

I guess it won't go into effect until

August 1st. If they wanted to, the US

would say, "Oh, do you want to try to

get a proper trade deal that isn't just

us charging you more with tariffs?" And

uh we would say yes to that. Yeah, we'll

do that. Absolutely. But I like I love

his reframe that instead of failing, so

we're just sending them the bill, we

have just succeeded, but in a shortcuted

way.

The shortcut is we don't need a new

trade deal. We're just going to sign the

bill. That is the new trade deal. I kind

of love that. Uh Basant is really good

at framing issues.

Um

and Dan Dana Bash asked Scott Bent. She

goes, "That's not a deal. That's a

threat. That the threat would be that

you know they're they're going to have

to pay more in tariffs." And Bassen

says, "No, that's the level. That's the

deal." Good reframe.

Thailand apparently did come up with a

deal. So Thailand negotiated a deal and

uh they're going to import more US

natural gas and more of our corn to

reduce the uh trade deficit with

Thailand. So that's good. And there they

offered to cut levies to zero on many US

imports, not 100% of them, but many of

the important ones. And uh

they said it's not just about reducing

tariffs, but also about opening up

trade. So there you go. Thailand

did the smart thing by negotiating when

they had a chance to negotiate. So

probably they're getting a better deal

than they would have gotten. I hope they

did.

All right. All right. You want to talk

about Epstein, don't you?

So, apparently the Justice Department,

if you haven't heard this yet, if this

is the first time you're hearing this,

it's going to make your head explode.

But the Justice Department just released

a a 10-hour video or some say 11-hour

video of the what they say is Epstein's

jail cell to show that nobody went in or

out. And therefore, they have concluded

that he did he must have taken his own

life because there's no video of him

going in and out. Now,

didn't you didn't you understand that

there was no video of that? But where

did they suddenly come up with some

video of that? It wasn't a video of the

cell. It was a video of the access to

the cell. And then I looked at the video

and I said to myself, I don't even know

what door this is. I don't know what I'm

looking at. What the hell is this?

And other people weighed in. And

apparently you do not see anything that

would tell you whether anybody had

access or not. Some of it is because it

looks like there's an edit that might

have lost a minute. Some of it is it

wasn't even looking in the right place.

Uh some of it is if somebody was already

in there before the 10-hour video, they

could have got it done and then left

afterwards. So,

no, the video that they're showing us

has no persuasive value to any of us. If

if any of that convinced you, no. Cuz we

didn't even get really a straight story

about what video existed. And I guess

they said that the video cameras didn't

work in his cell. Well, that's a pretty

big coincidence.

Uh now, one of the possibilities that

they didn't look into is that there was

somebody already in that general area.

um you know before the video or or even

that the video was in the wrong place.

May maybe it wasn't even where you could

tell if somebody got in there. But so we

don't believe that. But it gets better.

Not only has the Justice Department

declared that it was definitely a

suicide.

Um but the systemic review revealed no

incriminating client list.

There's no client list.

You know how all of us for years have

been saying, "Well, why don't you show

us the client list?"

And now their now their official

pronouncement is there was never a

client list.

Now, that might be true. It might be

true. There was never a client list.

Maybe he didn't write that stuff down.

But uh

so there was so he wasn't murdered

and there was no client list.

Um and there was also no evidence that

he blackmailed prominent individuals,

no suicide,

no client list, and no evidence that he

blackmailed anybody.

Okay. Um, and we did not uncover

evidence. This is a Department of

Justice. We did not uncover evidence

that could predicate an investigation

against uncharged third parties.

They didn't find any evidence

that would make some non-Epstein person

that was involved with him guilty of a

crime.

Nothing.

Well, end wokeness. One of my favorite

accounts to follow on X

pointed out that in 2019 the FBI raided

Epstein's home in New York City, not the

island, but his home, and discovered

hidden safes with computer discs and

stashes of footage.

Um, do you know what happened to all

those computer tapes and uh computer

discs?

Take a guess. You want to guess?

They went missing.

Yep. Went missing. So now we've got the

video.

The video of a cell was accidentally

erased. There were no videos on the

island apparently or they went missing.

And the ones from his home in New York

City, they definitely exist, but then

they went missing.

So

apparently Galileain Maxwell got

convicted

for doing something that had no victims

and no evidence of any crime.

What did they convict her of? I'm a

little confused. And do you remember

Virginia Joffrey who recently died

tragically?

She was claiming that, you know, she was

victimized many times and there were

many other people on the island who were

victimized. Did they talk to all of

those other people? Did they talk to all

of the young women who were allegedly

victimized on the island and not one of

them? Not one of them named a name.

Does that sound right?

So,

let's just say

um and then this old man, which is the

name of an account on X, posted this. I

can't believe Apistine killed himself

right before he was about to be

acquitted due to a complete lack of

evidence.

Yeah,

why would he kill himself if there was

no evidence he did any crime?

It it's so bad. You know, this is a

obviously it's a crime against the

public. Don't you feel like the crime is

against you at this point? Yes, you do.

The crime is against us, but it's so

bad. This just seems funny.

And then Mike Benz uh reminds us on X

the Alex Acasta. So he was the DOJ off

DOJ official who gave Epstein the

sweetheart plea deal back in 2008.

So you remember there were sort of two

waves of uh of justice against Epstein.

one got wrapped up by Ellen Dersowitz

who did a good job of lawyering for him

apparently and he got sort of a good

deal that nobody believed it could be

that good and so he you know got out of

jail free. Um but Alex Siccasta the DOJ

DOJ person in charge of that um was

quoted as saying he was told to quote

back off of Epstein because he belonged

to intelligence.

So that's the DOJ guy telling us

directly that he was told to back off

because he's part of the intelligence

network.

Do you think he would make that up?

Do you think that the Department of

Justice person who was working on the

case would just make up just completely

vent or hallucinate that he had been

told to back off because Epstein's part

of the intelligence world? Well, it's

not likely,

but it gets better. Apparently, uh,

Acasta had 11 months of emails that that

were for that time period that also fill

in the blank. What happened to 11 months

of his emails? What do you think? Let's

see how well you can guess. Oh, yeah.

They disappeared.

So, how many things have disappeared

now? V. Virginia Joffrey, the the main

witness, she disappeared because she

died young for reasons that

I don't know were I don't know were

innocent, but it's part of a pattern.

So, we lost all this guy's emails. We

lost the uh all the videos and tapes

that were at Epstein's house, and we

lost the video of the cell.

And apparently the um Epstein did not

keep records

of his clients.

Does any of that sound real to you?

Well, how many of you remember that I've

been telling you since the beginning

that even though Trump was now claiming

that you're going to see all the

everything that could be seen and even

though I believe that Cash Patel meant

it when he said we're going to release

everything and even though I told you

that I think Dan Bino is an honest guy

and when he told you that they're going

to get to the bottom of it and release

it, they meant it.

And even though you knew there was

something there and you trusted Trump

and you trusted Bonino and you trusted

Cash Patel for this topic,

I still predicted that there would be

nothing coming out from the Epstein

files.

Does anybody remember me making that

prediction over and over again? I think

I probably said it 20 times in public or

posted it that we'll never see the

Epstein stuff. Well, what do you think

now?

Now, I'm sure some of you felt the same

thing, but do you have any doubt

what's going on here? It It's almost so

clownishly obvious what's going on. It's

almost as if Cash Patel and Bino want

you to know the truth.

Because I'll say again, I believe that

Bonino and Cash Patel are honest guys

who meant it when they said we're going

to tell you everything, but they're

clearly not telling us everything.

So, what would change that? It's it's

exactly what it looks like. Somebody got

to them and said, "I know you want to do

this. I know you want to do the right

thing. I know you're honest people and I

know you promised the public. Here's why

you can't do it. There would be real

problems. Like really, really big

problems. As in, it might take down a

government.

It might take down a government, but not

ours, but it might take down some

government. So I don't even know if

we're protecting our own people or our

own CIA or you know that's the obvious

thing you think of but it could be we're

protecting some other government or

governments

and uh that's not nothing. So let me

give uh Cash Patel and Dan Banchino

um and Pam Bondi too. I'm going to give

them a little bit of cover. It goes like

this. if you put me in their situation

and I had promised you I'm definitely

going to show you all of this stuff that

that we find and then somebody came to

me and said, "Look, you're not going to

believe this, but if you release this

stuff,

one of our NATO allies will go down and

we just can't do that."

Could they talk me into not releasing it

and also lying about why I couldn't

release it? And the answer is yes. They

absolutely could talk me into it. Now

maybe my example is not the greatest

one, but if they had an example where

people would die or nations would fall

and they're nations that are our allies

or

um I don't know, somebody would be

murdered.

Um, I could be convinced that there was

a national security reason to lie to the

public because remember if you are a spy

or you are protecting national security

secrets, you are allowed to lie,

right? You're allowed to lie. You're not

just allowed.

It's your job description.

You better lie because you're protecting

the country or some big national

interest. So obviously the uh I think

it's obvious that the Epstein situation

must have touched at least one um one

electrified rail

and that somebody got to the people who

were investigating and said, "Nope,

nope. I know you mean well, but this is

not going to happen." And it could be

that they were threatened with death.

You wouldn't I wouldn't rule that out.

It could be that the people

investigating it, including the

management, found out that no, you're

going to you would be assassinated if

you continue pushing this.

So, um, they may have reasons, but I was

pretty sure we'd never find out. And

then in a related news, the Daily Caller

is reporting that Trump says he's quote

satisfied with the FBO FBI probe into

the the Butler attempted assassination

of him.

Let me say that again. The same day

we're finding out that it looks like our

government's going to lie to us about

Epstein forever,

Trump says that of this very sketchy

kind of weird assassination attempt

where none of us believe that he did it

alone and he had I don't know, he had

some apps and and all that and none of

it kind of made sense. Do you believe

that Trump is legitimately convinced

that there's nothing there to see? It

was just a crazy guy acting

independently.

Do you believe that? I don't.

I think that probably it was the same

phenomena.

Don't know. I mean, this is just a gut

feeling, but probably

there's plenty dirty in that story and

somebody got to Trump or Trump figured

it out on his own and he realized that

pushing that button would get somebody

killed

and he decided not to get somebody

killed, especially him or his family.

So, no, I don't believe that he's

satisfied with the FBI probe on the

Butler assassination attempt. I don't

believe it at all. I believe he said it

and I believe he wants you to believe

it, but I don't believe it.

Now,

um, so I'm going to summarize what I've

just been talking about this way.

when I started talking about politics

back in 2016

um and I got a little bit of traction

and people started listening to me and

reading my blog posts and stuff. Uh that

caused a series of events where I got to

meet people who knew the real story

behind a variety of things. You know,

not the Epstein thing necessarily, but

just the real story behind a variety of

things.

How often was the real story the same as

the one that was in the news? And the

answer is never, not once.

The every story that is sort of a big

story is certainly has elements that are

true. I mean, I believe the president

really did take a bullet in the ear, uh,

etc. So, there are parts of it that are

definitely true. I do believe that

airplanes hit the uh world trade towers.

I mean that part's true. But generally

speaking, the interpretation or the real

story behind everything is fake.

Let me say that again. The real story

behind everything, just everything is

fake. So no, you're never going to know

about Epstein. You're never going to

know about JFK. You'll probably never

know about uh Martin Luther King. You'll

probably never know about Bobby Kennedy

senior. Um

you're never going you're never going to

know for sure about the Warren report.

Um

and I don't think we'll even know for

sure if we landed on the moon.

So I've now gone full Joe Rogan.

full Joe Rogan, which is I used to think

it was obvious we had landed on the

moon. I did not question that for one

second. And when I saw people saying,

"Oh, I'm not so sure," I would say to

myself,

"Wow,

well, people who will believe anything,

they actually think we didn't, you know,

didn't really go to the moon." You know

what I believe now? Same thing that Joe

Rogan believes. I think I don't like to

I don't like to characterize other

people's opinions, but I think I got

this one right that he doesn't know that

we didn't go to the moon and I would

agree with that. I don't know that. But

if tomorrow I learned that we had not

gone to the moon and it was somehow

confirmed,

would I act surprised

or would I say, "Damn it, you can see

the signs. I should have known that." It

would be the latter. It would be me

saying, "Ah, I I should have been more

forceful in saying that that was

probably fake." So,

let me be really clear. I don't have any

evidence that I personally find

convincing that it was faked.

But everything's in play. Everything

from the food pyramid to the

vaccinations

to everything. It all looks fake to me.

It just all looks fake. I don't know if

we know why the Ukraine war is

happening. I don't know if we really

know what was happening in Gaza. I don't

think we really know what was the full

situation with Iran and its nuclear

weapons. I feel like it's all fake. And

when we're talking about the news, we're

just doing some kind of parlor game

where people who don't know anything

about anything act like we do just so we

have something to talk about.

That's what it feels like.

But I want to be clear. While I don't

believe the official version of any big

story, just none of them, I also don't

automatically believe the conspiracy

theory.

So if I tell you I don't believe, you

know, one of the big stories like the

moon landing, it doesn't mean that I

believe that Stanley Kubri filmed it. He

might have maybe,

but it doesn't mean I automatically

believe that.

Well, I guess uh Trump is meeting with

Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White

House, and I think they're going to be

taking a a victory lap for, you know,

their good work with Iran. But again,

just so I'm consistent with what I said,

the official story is that we destroyed

all of their nuclear programs.

Do you believe that?

How would we know? It's the same as

saying that the 2020 election was not

rigged because nobody found any

conclusive evidence that a court has

ruled means it was rigged. How would you

know if there was something that you

couldn't find? It's unknowable.

You You could determine if something was

rigged if you found the evidence and it

it tested out. But if you don't find

evidence and you know that things like

elections have been rigged in the past

and probably the United States has

rigged elections in other countries.

If you didn't find any sign of election

rigging, it doesn't mean a thing. It

doesn't mean a thing. It just means you

didn't find it. It doesn't mean it

doesn't exist.

So likewise with the nuclear program, I

do believe that um it's very likely that

all the things they tried to bomb were

completely destroyed.

But does that mean they didn't have

anything left? Nothing hidden? Nothing

in the warehouse? A different warehouse?

No way to know.

Anyway,

um there's talk about uh

I saw some talk that Gaza

um the Hamas leadership in Gaza is

completely decimated. No, wrong word.

Decimated means reduced by 10%. The real

number was 95%.

So the leadership of Hamas is

down 95% most of them dead but they you

know don't have good communication or

command and control at this point.

So maybe

maybe there's a way to make a deal now.

Don't know.

Um, and then there's some some

indication that Iran wants to talk about

its nuclear program, but it wants to do

it on its terms. I believe its terms are

that we can talk about it all day long,

but we're definitely going to have a

nuclear program, and you're not going to

inspect it. So, I don't think there's

any place to go on that, but they will

talk. So, I mentioned this the other

day, but um I feel like I understand a

little bit better.

Um, there's an idea that instead of

having a two-state solution where the

Palestinians have their own one state

and Israel has the state next to it and

they live in peace next to each other

since nobody thinks that that's

going to work. Um

there there's these shakes who came up

with the idea of having a emirate at

least in one place and presumably you

could have other emirates in other parts

of the West Bank but one of them would

be in Hebron

and uh there's a specific shake who who

they're proposing would be in charge and

he would be the Amir. But here's the

part I maybe didn't mention or didn't

know yesterday that uh a big part of

their their pitch is that they would uh

instantly recognize Israel's right to

exist. The Emirate would and they would

look to join the u

the Abraham Accords.

So I guess you wouldn't have to be a

nation state

necessarily to say hey we want to accept

Israel and we want to be part of this

trading block that you know gets extra

advantages of trading with each other I

guess and uh we'll do it as an emirate

now I don't know if that has any legs

because I I would have to know a lot

more about that area to know if that

idea could go. I feel like Israel

probably would resist that idea.

On the other hand, if you got, let's

say, two or three Emirates

uh who consolidated power and said,

"Well, we don't want to rule the entire

West Bank where the Palestinian

Authority is, but but this little area

will be our own little emirate and we'll

also accept Israel and we'll also be

part of the Abraham Accords." If you did

that, you might accomplish Israel's goal

of not having a two-state solution

because they would probably be happier

if there were bunch of smaller emirates

that were unlikely to attack them

because the Emirates apparently don't

want any war. So that's that's a step in

the right direction.

So maybe it's a divide and conquer

situation. So maybe Israel might

consider it. I don't know. On the other

hand, they might not want

um the Emirates to get too powerful and

maybe they're lying about their their

ambitions. So lots of variables.

Um,

so there's there's some factchecking

going on on the claim that uh mayoral

candidate uh Zoran Mamani for New York

City. Um, some say he's a communist and

some say he isn't.

And uh a lot of it rests on the fact

that he once said in 2019 I think um

that the real goal was to seize the

means of production and uh the fact

checker which fact checker politact.

Do you think Politact is a reliable

factchecking entity or is it a Democrat

tool?

Well, did I just tell you that every

single story in the news is fake?

This is not an exception. So, yeah, it's

a fact-checking organization that if you

asked any Republicans, they would say,

"No, it's the opposite. It's a it's a

lying organization.

They're they're there to certify lies

that make Democrats happy." So, this

would be one of those situations if

that's what you believe. So they said

that uh

that the

u the manifesto the communist manifesto

Karl Marx's work they say that that's

not in there.

Do you believe that? Do you believe

that? Nowhere in the communist manifesto

does it say that they want to seize the

means of production. So therefore, it's

fake and it does not represent a desire

to be a communist because that's not

even in the communist manifesto.

Do you believe that?

Well, here's what is in the

in the manifesto. According to Grock,

the proletariat will use its political

supremacy to rest wre as in you know

grab away by degree all capital from the

bourgeois to centralize all instruments

of production in the hands of the state.

That's chapter two. That's what it does

say.

Um,

was it do I have the the wrong author?

I'm looking at the comments. I think

you're factecking me. I'm just working

from memory, so I probably got some of

the facts.

Anyway, so there's your fact check. Your

fact check is nowhere does it say seize

the means of production. No, no, it

doesn't say that. It only says uh the

proletariat will use its political

supremacy to rest by degree all capital

from the bourgeois to centralize all

instruments of production in the hands

of the state. Oh well, I feel a lot

better now.

I'm glad they didn't want to seize the

means of production. Thank goodness.

So there you go. What about that no tax

on tips? How many of you believe that no

tax on tips, which is what got approved

in the big beautiful bill, meant no tax

on tips?

Well, here again,

the the real story behind the curtain is

different from the one you've been told.

First of all, it only goes up to the

first $25,000 in tips.

If you were a uh let's say a waiter in a

restaurant that had a lot of tips, how

fast would you get to 25,000?

Well, if you were a full-time waiter,

um you could make $150,000 a year from

mostly tips. So maybe 50 would be your

base pay and 100 would be your tips.

Now, this would be unusual. That'd be a

high-end restaurant with just tons of

tipping, but it would be in that range.

So, does that sound like no tax on tips

to you?

I mean, it's better than nothing. And a

lot of people who are working part-time

especially will enjoy it.

Um, but

uh they're still going to have to pay

the payroll tax and their social

security and Medicare. So even though

there's no tax on tips, there's an 8%

tax on tips because little under 8% is

your payroll taxes and social security

and Medicare.

So there's still a tax on tips and

there's lots of tax on tips, but it's

better than better than it was. It's

just not what you thought it was. All

right, here's something that I know um

I've done wrong.

Um, when the Democrats

say that the big beautiful bill is going

to cut healthcare,

sometimes I would see Medicaid and

sometimes I would say Medicare

and they're different.

And I would read the story and it would

say, "But the mean old Republicans and

Trump are going to cut your Medicaid."

And then I would see another story that

says um leader Jeff

says they're going to cut your Medicare.

And I actually started to think maybe

there were typos in the stories because

some of it would be on social media and

I'd like oh it's just a typo. And I

thought it was one or the other. I

didn't realize it was both.

So apparently the big beautiful bill

cuts both. But what what uh Democrats

call cutting,

the uh Republicans call making sure that

only the people who deserve it and are

qualified for it are getting it.

But they've added the added work

requirement. So if you're able-bodied,

you've got a certain amount of time to

either sign up for classes or do some

volunteer work or or get a job. So

you've got some options. uh and if

you're an uh undocumented

citizen of this country uh you would

lose in that case I think in both cases.

So how many of you knew

um how many of you thought the same

thing I did that it was one of them but

not the other and then you found out it

was both of them. Now I'm not saying

that that's a mistake. it probably

needed to be both of them, but they're

very they're treated very differently.

Um, and then I thought Republicans are

going to have a real problem in the

midterm because all the Democrats have

to do is say Republicans took away

healthcare from 12 million people.

That's what they say now. And who knows

how long before they take it away from

you. And that's pretty scary. Pretty

scary. How do I know that's scary? cuz

yesterday I got to experience having no

healthc care.

So I I have Kaiser Permanente

and I think I've got shingles. So I've

got this insanely painful set of u skin

problems on one side. It looks like a

shingles probably. So, I used my app to

contact my health care provider to set

up a in-person appointment because I'd

already send in photos of it and they

had not guessed shingles, but now it

looks like it's almost certainly

shingles cuz I checked AI.

AI says, "Yeah, probably shingles."

Um, and then my app said, um, that

there's no availability of appointments

for in person. And I thought, really?

None? Not a month from now or two months

from now? Like, just none?

I I really can't get any healthcare. And

I thought, oh, oh, they're trying to

make me do a Zoom call because you can

do almost everything on Zoom. So, I go

to the other part of the app to set up a

Zoom appointment. And it comes back with

there are no available appointments

ever.

So,

and of course, this always happens on

the, you know, the the long weekends

that are a holiday. How many of you have

not noticed that somebody in your

family, maybe you, always has a health

problem on a holiday? Always, because

that's when all the doctors go on

vacation and you're lucky if you can get

anything. So, I got to experience having

no health care and also having a pretty

painful health problem. I mean, it

really hurts. If you ever get shingles,

good luck. It hurts like a mofo.

Um, now, fortunately, I had AI and I had

other mechanisms to get what I need. So,

I'm being treated, you know, as well as

I think I need to be, but I didn't have

any healthcare.

So, um, I got to I got to tell you that

when you realize you don't have health

care even though you've been paying for

it, it's a it's a scary thing. So, if

the Democrats scare voters by saying

they're going to take away your

healthcare next, that's going to really

be effective.

So, I was trying to think, what could

Republicans do to get ahead of the

messaging? And I don't have a suggestion

yet, but

um something like this came to mind. So,

this will just be a brainstorming. This

is not a good suggestion, but it might

might make you think of a better one. Um

what if Republicans said everyone who

supports the country by working, going

to school, or following their laws gets

to keep their health insurance?

everyone who supports America by

working,

going to school

or volunteering, I guess, or following

our laws, which would take care of the

non-citizens who were getting it. Um,

they get to keep their health insurance

or their healthcare. Would that work?

Maybe that's a little bit too uh

conceptual. It would be a lot better if

there was some picture or something

scary. So, Republicans are going to have

a tough time. We'll keep working on

that.

Well, uh, Representative Comr is going

to bring Biden's physician in for a uh

conversation to find out what did he

know and what was the real situation

with Biden's health behind the scenes. I

can't wait. I suspect that he will be

reluctant to answer questions

because if he does, he's going to have

to lie like hell and I don't know that

he's going to want to do that under

oath.

All right.

Um,

so you know that we killer that American

bread seems to have in it um called

glyphosate.

And some say it's the reason that the

bread is healthy in Europe but not

healthy in America is that gly

glyphosate was used as a weed killer.

Well, I didn't know this but uh a lot of

US bread companies had replaced

glyphosate already.

So uh they replaced it with uh what's it

called?

Uh, dickwat.

D I qu u a t. Um, dickwat.

I just like saying dickwat. Anyway, but

apparently that replaced glyphosate is

widely employed employed in the US as a

weed killer. Um, except the there's a

new report that that might even be worse

for you according to the Guardian. So,

the gardening has an article that says

uh this new thing that replaces the

thing that you thought was the bad thing

that the new thing can damage your

organs and gut bacteria according to new

research.

Why is it everybody in the world can

make bread except Americans?

Can we really not make bread that isn't

poisonous,

man?

Um,

yeah, I don't like that story.

Um, Taiwan's got a company

that has a uh tech platform they build

to detect schizophrenia.

So, apparently they can scan your brain

and then use AI. And the AI can um

accurately up to 91% accuracy identify

people with schizophrenia.

Huh. And apparently it can identify

other patterns as well. So that's

interesting.

Um, if they can identify that you

probably have schizophrenia by looking

at your brain, how long will it be

before they find the part of your brain

that handles free will?

They haven't found it yet, but I know

it's in there somewhere.

I'm joking. Free will doesn't exist.

It's an illusion.

All right.

Um, and then

I saw an article by Antonio Grace.

Um, he was in

Damn it, I didn't write down the

publication, but um, he's talking about

the problems with measuring the

temperature of the earth.

Um, let let's see if uh, any of these

sound like things I've told to you

before. So this would be in the topic of

climate change. Um did you know

according to Antonio Grasshifo that 96%

of US temperature stations fail to meet

NOAA's own sighting standards and are

often surrounded by essentially heat

islands. Did you know that is 96% of

them don't meet the standard? I didn't

know that. I knew I knew a lot of them

didn't, but I didn't know it was 96%.

So that's not 96%

who were by heat islands, but just 96%

that for whatever reason don't meet the

standard. Then did you know that those

uh thermometers transitioned from

mercury to digital sensors

um between 1980 and the 2000s

and that that same period where they

took out one kind of thermometer and put

in another uh introduced what he calls

discontinuities in the data and that

happens to be the period of accelerated

warming.

So the very period that they were

replacing the technology they used to

measure the temperature, that's the

period that the temperature suddenly

went up.

Okay.

Why were they replacing the old

thermometers?

Was it because they were totally

accurate?

No.

Then how about this?

The early measurements were

geographically concentrated in Europe

and North America, ignoring vast

regions, especially the 71% of the

planet covered by oceans.

So until recently, the temperature of

the oceans were ignored for climate

change. The oceans,

the world is mostly ocean.

and then measurement errors of plus or

minus uh half a degree centigrade

um often exceeded the very climate

signals being used to justify the

policies. So in other words even where

they found some warming it was below

below the level that your accuracy could

have told you is real if that makes

sense.

Uh, worse still, says Antonio, much of

the raw data has been adjusted or

homogenized.

Do you know what that means? When the

data from the temperature sensors was

homogenized. Have you ever heard that

term?

When I tell you what it means, you're

just going to shake your head. You go,

"Oh, God. God, what a world. What a

world." Homogenized means made up.

It means for example if you had one

temperature station that had failed you

know let's say a car ran into it and it

wasn't available instead of saying oh we

don't have that data they would look at

other measurements and then they would

look at what that used to say and then

they would estimate what that probably

was the temperature in that in that uh

measuring device that didn't exist.

So homogenized means somebody used

assumptions

assumptions to figure out what the

temperature was.

So assumptions. Okay.

Now those are the problems that you know

about. We haven't even talked about the

the models.

Do you remember what I keep telling you

about the d the temperature models for

climate change?

So, I used to say there's no way that

they're accurate. And I would try to

make my argument. And now I just say

this. Wait till you find out about the

climate models

cuz you will find out there. There's no

chance that you won't find out.

And when you find out, you're going to

say, "God, that cartridge guy was on

this early." Yeah. There is no way that

the complicated multivariable

climate models are even a little bit

reliable.

There is not really any way that's

possible. But you've been told, the

world has been told that the scientists

can do that.

So there will be there will be a

whistleblower.

I guarantee it. And that whistleblower

will say, you know, we just sort of make

these assumptions and force it to fit

where we expect people to to expect it.

And uh that's how we get our funding.

That's what's it's going to happen. Wait

till you find out.

All right,

ladies and gentlemen. I went too long,

so I'm going to say goodbye. Thanks for

joining. Um locals say hi very quickly.

Uh the rest of you I'll see you same

time tomorrow I hope. and uh locals

coming at you privately.