Episode 2893 CWSA 07/10/25

Come on in.

Grab a seat.

There's always an available seat up front.

And it is wonderful to see you again.

Let me make sure I can see all your comments here.

And then we've got some fun for you.

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

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

But if you'd like to take a chance on taking this experience up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tankered shell sty canteen jugger flask vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.

Oh yeah, that was really good.

That was good.

Oh boy.

Well, I wonder if there's any scientific study about the benefits of magic mushrooms.

Oh, yeah.

Here's one.

Uh, according to uh if science, psilocybin shows potential in in slowing human cell aging.

So, not only will the magic mushrooms cure your depression, your anxiety, fix all of your fix all of your problems, but it might make you live longer.

Is there anything mushrooms can't do?

No.

No, there's not.

Apparently, they can do everything.

Well, this might seem like a nerdy little news thing, but it might be a big deal.

PJ media is reporting that uh four independent impleers have decided to join forces and some kind of an association of just the four of them.

There'll be the National Association.

Well, they might add some people, who knows?

There'll be the National Association of Independent Pollsters.

Now, you might say to me, why is that interesting?

that four pollsters and of the many many pollsters have decided to create their own little organization.

Why would they do that?

Well, here here are the pollsters.

Uh big data poll insider advantage uh Trafalar Group and Rasmusen.

Now, if you're a real nerd and you really watch your politics, you know where this is heading.

But for the rest of you, let me tell you what this means.

Um, these four are the ones who are calling out the other pollsters for being frauds.

Uh, Rasmusen, of course, has been doing it for a long time, but uh, these are all top 10 pollsters who tend to be accurate and not um, gaming the system.

So I believe their claim will be that these are four you can depend on and uh all the rest are likely to be gaming the system especially for the political stuff.

So I feel like this is a big move because if if one pollster says oh those other ones seem fraudulent how much are you going to pay attention to it?

But if there's an organization of pollsters, they have organized specifically because of the ones who are not frauds and they're calling out the rest of them in the industry for being frauds.

That's that's got a little bit of weight behind it.

So that that could get interesting next time there's a political poll.

Well, Grock 4 maybe is released or maybe they're just still talking about it.

I cannot tell by looking at my own Grock that I pay for what I have and what I don't.

I I think I have four, but there's a there's a heavy four.

There's one that's $300 a month.

I don't have that one.

So, um, Elon Musk says, "We're in the beginning of an immense intelligence big bang right now, and we're at the most interesting time to be alive any time in history." Now, you want to know how I know we're living in a simulation, right?

Just imagine this.

Imagine the depends where you want to go.

they'll say 300,000 years of human development.

What are the odds that you happen to be here at exactly the most interesting time?

What are the odds of that?

That that's really small, right?

Um, so it seems to me that whenever something this unusual happens in my lifetime, I say to myself, what are the odds that I was born in this time zone?

You not time zone, but you know, time period.

I feel like I feel like maybe, you know, this is proof for his simulation.

Well, Grock is also going to be put into Teslas very soon.

maybe next week.

And Elon has gone so far as to say that he'd be shocked if Grock hasn't discovered new physics by next year.

Apparently, Grock 4 is now the leading AI.

It benchmarks better than all the other AIs for now.

And uh Elon says that with respect to academic questions, Grock 4 is better than uh PhD level in every subject and it may be discovering new things that no AI has discovered before.

Um and it might discover new physics.

I mean just think about that.

So, according to Elon, the current version, the one they're releasing, I guess the expensive version, um, should be able to figure out things that do not exist already on the internet.

Now that would be a big deal because the large language models largely they look at what has gone before you know the the body of knowledge that humans already have and then it learns from what humans already know but it doesn't figure out new stuff.

The large language models don't do that.

If Grock can do that and I think it's still an open question.

If Grock can figure out new truths that do not exist already in human knowledge, that would be really scary and exciting and a really big deal.

So, the odds of Grock or AI.

Um, fixing cancer seems pretty good, but um, mushrooms will do that, too.

I forgot to tell you that the uh mushrooms that u might be operating on your telomers and and allowing you to live longer.

They're going to study mushrooms uh the magic mushrooms to see if they also are a treatment for cancer.

So, what do you think will work first?

Do you think the mushrooms or grock will cure cancer first?

I don't know.

Could be a dead heat.

Meanwhile, um Apple's stock is apparently down this year for the year even as the other big tech firms are doing great.

Um, and of course people are saying that the problem is that if uh Apple doesn't figure out AI and there's no evidence that they're even close that uh they will be left behind and that you can't be the big, you know, leading tech company if you don't even really have an AI platform.

So maybe some say that Apple will try to buy diverse or perplexity.

I don't know about that because it would be about $30 billion.

But I'm going to reup my prediction.

I feel like the risk to the uh the smartphone companies is that somebody with an AI platform is going to make a phone that uh doesn't use apps, at least not directly.

The biggest problem with the i.

Phone, the thing I hate is that I have to find an app first and then I do my thing.

And sometimes you got to update the app and sometimes you got to sign into the app and oh my god, imagine if you would a phone with AI as its operating system, if you will, but not really having an operating system.

And it's just a blank phone.

And if uh if you left your phone on the kitchen table and I picked it up by accident, it would look at my face and it would turn into my phone, but only as long as I'm using it.

As soon as I put it down again, it would become generic and then the owner could pick it up and it would be their phone.

So that's the first thing.

It could identify you with more certainty than a nonI entity could.

The other thing I want to say is I want to start working before I pick an app.

So for example, if I want to text somebody I know, I want a blank screen every time, nothing but a blank screen, and then just start typing a message.

And then the AI says, "Oh, he's making a short message um on this topic where he was just talking to Bob.

So, so then it will indicate as I work that it plans to open up a text send a text message to Bob.

Now, if that's not what I intended or if there maybe is more than one thing that I might be, you know, potentially hinting I want, it would give me a couple of choices, but I would do the selecting of the app at the end or not at all because AI would know.

Suppose I wanted to work on a spreadsheet.

So I've got some existing spreadsheets that you know I update now and then.

If the only thing I did is start writing the new data for the new spreadsheet, the new spreadsheet should just appear and then it ask me if I wanted that data to be on this column in this place.

So you see how awesome that would be.

But the problem is that Apple has commercialized this whole app um model which has been you know great for revenue I guess but I don't want apps.

I don't want any apps.

I want just stuff to work and I want to just start working as soon as I open the phone.

Now you might say to yourself that that would be a terrible idea but it depends on implementation.

Well, in other news, um DJI, that's a big uh drone maker in China, uh they have made a drone that can lift um about 176 pounds and transport it for 16 miles.

That's the weight of a human that can carry for 16 miles.

What?

And it's not that big.

The drone itself looks like I don't know, maybe a six foot wingspan or something like that.

But, uh, if you can carry 176 pounds for 16 miles, you've got yourself a pretty good assassination machine right there.

Because um you we know now that the Russians have the ability to have a drone that just loiters and just hangs around and looks for its targets without it's unjammable.

So imagine it being unjammable, can travel 16 miles, can find the target on its own after you've specified some stuff, I guess, and then it could drop 176 pounds of explosives in that area.

So that would be pretty bad.

But on the positive side, maybe they'll use it for rescuing people in remote locations.

Or maybe it will be delivering your lunch.

I don't know.

I I tell this story all the time, but I haven't told it in a while, so it's worth re-uping.

years ago um when drones were a little bit newer and less powerful, I attended a uh startup pitch event at Berkeley, you know, Berkeley the college and I was one of the uh judges of the pitches and one of the uh companies pitching had developed a new kind of blade for for Jones that they claimed would vastly improve its cargo carrying no ability from what it was at the time, which wasn't very much.

And uh I remember asking the uh the startup crew, now remember this is Berkeley, so it's the most lefty leaning group of people you've ever seen in your life.

And I said, "Wow, with this new ability to carry more cargo, I would think the military would be very interested in your product." Well, you should have seen their faces when this left-leaning group of entrepreneurs in Berkeley just realized that they had designed death weapons from above, but they weren't aware of what they had done.

Um, Lithuania got attacked by a Russian suicide drone.

I'm seeing somebody report that in the comments, but I wouldn't take that as a fact yet.

That sounds unusual.

All right.

Um, apparently, uh, T-Mobile had a, uh, thriving DEI program or set of programs, but they're going to get rid of all their DEI according to Newsmax because they need FCC approval for some mergers and deals they want to do.

So, once again, it it wasn't enough that DEI is illegal.

That wasn't enough to make them stop doing it.

It's just until they needed a approval from the government, they were just going to keep doing the illegal thing, I guess.

But now they they've agreed to wipe it clean and get rid of all that DEI illegal stuff so that they can get their deals done.

So, T-Mobile, you're a little bit slow, but maybe you got to the right place.

And uh I was listening to uh Alex Jones.

He had a guest on Kyle Sarapin.

He's a FBI whistleblower who's been around for a while on the uh podcasting and interview circuit.

So um he he's not a brand new FBI whistleblower.

He's a whistleblower from the not too distant past.

and he believes that the the announcement that Comey and uh Brennan will be investigated for criminal activity is a distraction from the Epstein case.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that it's not a coincidence that you heard about Brennan and Comey right at the time that uh the government wants to distract you from the Epstein situation?

I don't know maybe I always think u the government has a million things that they could use as a distraction.

So in a sense um maybe I mean it works as a distraction but that doesn't mean that they planned it that way or did they?

It's possible.

Um, and then, uh, Kyle was pointing out, Kyle Sarafan on Alex Jones show.

He was pointing out that uh Fox News was reporting that uh Comey Comey and Brennan would be um looked at for perjury for things that they said to I guess under oath to Congress.

That turned out not to be true except that there's a statute of limitations says Kyle Sarapin of 5 years.

So it wouldn't really make sense to investigate them for something they couldn't be charged for anyway.

So maybe there's more to it.

We don't know.

But um then I saw separately um I saw a CIA whistleblower.

I love the whistleblowers.

John Kiryaku.

You've probably seen him on social media.

He's there quite a bit.

And uh he he had a lot of uh contact with John Brennan because they were in the CIA at the same time.

And he describes John Brennan as a ruthless quote very bad guy.

He said, quote, "John was just torture, torture, torture.

We got to torture these guys." Talking about, you know, terrorists and stuff.

We got to do this.

We got to do that.

We need to start killing more people.

We need to get out there and start shooting.

John Brennan is a very bad guy from day one.

He was a bad guy.

Well, and I guess uh Brennan was notorious for expanding drone strikes um and brutal interrogation tactics.

Hm.

Well, John Brennan appeared on MSNBC, the network that we think is most associated with being a tool of the CIA.

And uh I've seen him I've seen John Brennan in a lot of interviews, but I've never seen him look this worried.

He acted like he was scared to death like like they have him.

And he uh lashed out in exactly the way you'd expect.

He uh compared the US to Nazi Germany, you know, under Trump.

And he said, "If the president of the United States is willing to weaponize intelligence and justice, we really are in deep, deep trouble." Now, do you recognize that approach?

Have we ever mentioned that the Democrats always project?

Literally the reason that he's being he's in the the public eye is because um he's being accused of the very thing he says that Trump is doing, which is weaponizing the CIA and the FBI and Department of Justice.

So, um, he might have a point that weaponizing those things would be a bad idea, but it doesn't mean that's what's happening now.

It seems to me that they're pretty credible accusations that would suggest he was behind an insurrection and and that Obama knew about it, was part of it, and that uh they were trying to overthrow or change the government of the United States without using the legal process.

Now, do you think he's guilty?

Well, I'm no expert, but I can tell you I thought he was guilty from the first time I saw him and he and Clapper doing their interviews.

They just looked guilty as hell.

I've never seen two people who acted more guilty from the start than those two guys.

But, you know, I'm not magic.

They can't read minds.

I just know that my impression of them from the start was, "Whoa, not only are you lying," it seemed to me.

But it looks like you're the the masterminds behold behind the whole thing.

And apparently they they're being accused of being the masterminds behold behind the whole thing.

Why did it take us years to get to this point?

Well, apparently the the way our government works and the justice system is that um it takes five years before somebody admits that something was wrong and action is taken and by then you're just tired of the story.

and it just doesn't have the impact it would if they had started from the the beginning.

So that's happening.

Um so we'll I guess we'll find out if uh if our system is completely rigged because doesn't it seem to you that no matter what kind of evidence they have against Brennan that he's not going to go to jail?

Don't you have that feeling that it really wouldn't make any difference how good the case was, how illegal it was?

The statute of limitation hasn't run out yet for some stuff, I suppose.

But do any of you believe that the justice system would lock him up?

It it seems unbelievably you do you believe he might get locked up and Comey, what do you what do you think?

I think no.

I I believe that at that level they're just always protected and that you know somebody's get blackmailed or bribed or something.

Um yeah, to me it seems impossible that Brennan will go to jail.

no matter what he did and no matter what the evidence is.

I just don't think we live in a country that can bring that kind of justice to this kind of situation.

We'll see.

That's that's my prediction.

My prediction is that you might see evidence that looks really really damning followed by h several years are going by and he spent some money on lawyers but he's still free.

We'll find out.

Well, Joe Biden's personal doctor from when he was in office um agreed to to go talk to the uh the committee, Comr's committee, and uh but he didn't answer questions.

Instead, he took the fifth.

Why would the personal doctor have to take the fifth?

because it wasn't like he was being asked, you know, HIPPA questions that were private, you know, private medical things.

Um, it looked like he was quite aware that if he answered honestly, there would be some some liability there for somebody, either his boss, you know, either Biden or him or the family.

So, let's add the let's add the uh Biden's doctor to the list of things that are probably exactly what they look like.

It's probably exactly what you think that he was in on it.

He knew that Biden was degraded.

He decided for whatever reason that he wasn't going to make a deal big deal of it and he just went with it.

But how much of that is because people like John Brennan told the public that Trump was Hitler and so that the only thing that mattered was that Trump didn't get back in office.

Probably everybody's was in infected by the same problem which may have started from Brennan.

Um, well, speaking of justice, do you remember Douglas Mackey?

So, he was the the fellow who went by the online name Ricky Vaughn and he was convicted um in 2023 because he said on a meme that said that the voting was for Democrats, the voting was the day after the election.

Now, it was a joke and it was a meme, but he was convicted.

Convicted for breaking a law which would be trying to interfere with an election.

It was a meme, a joke.

But here's the good news.

The uh second circuit court of appeals just threw out his conviction.

Just threw it out.

And the reason they gave for throwing out the conviction, there was no evidence that he did it for any reason other than it was funny.

There was no evidence that it was a crime because you would have to intend it.

You would have to intend that it misleads people.

And there was no evidence apparently during the trial that he got convicted for.

There was no evidence that he ever intended it as anything but a meme or a joke.

So he's a free man.

Good for him.

Yeah.

And it reminds us of just how dangerous it was to just be a Trump supporter during that period because people were just being targeted for destruction.

Wouldn't you say?

How many of you think that my cancellation is because of what I said versus I was just, you know, targeted as being a Trump supporter and they used whatever whatever they could use.

Well, I don't know.

But I will tell you that zero Republicans canled me.

None.

Zero.

Zero black Republicans.

Zero.

Not a not a single Republican said, "I won't talk to you or I won't book you on a podcast or I won't buy your stuff." None.

Do Do you think that Republicans somehow are such bad people that they can't tell what horrible things I thought or said?

No.

Actually, they looked at what I actually thought and said and didn't see a problem because nobody disagreed with what I said.

Nobody left or right.

They just use it as an excuse to cancel me.

So Douglas Mackey and a lot of us who got all kinds of you know public attacks sometimes physically sometimes people got you know um what do you call it?

Uh SL what do you call swat swat swatted?

Um, if you look at the abuse that Republicans were Trump haters or Trump supporters took during the last 10 years, we we had careers destroyed, reputations destroyed, the January 6 people put in jail.

Um, if you wore a MAGA hat outside, you got beaten up.

And the January 6 thing was the ultimate that they just, you know, massively started jailing the most ardent supporters of the president without ever asking them why they were there to protest in the first place.

Was it because they knew that Trump lost and they wanted him to be president anyway?

No.

Probably not one person had that thought.

Did we ever see in the news what they were thinking?

Which would be easy to determine.

You could just bring a few of them into a room and say, "What were you thinking?" And they would say, "Well, it looked to us like the election was irregular and we wanted uh and not to be certified until somebody in charge looked at it and determined that it was a good election." Nobody's ever reported that.

They've never reported the truth about that story.

And then of course there was the whole white supremacy thing and DEI so that people like me could be targeted for being what?

Just white and being alive.

So um I'm uh and and now the ICE officers are being attacked, you know, violently.

So, it's really easy.

I feel like I fell into a a trap that because these things happen you know one at a time and sometimes it doesn't affect me personally and you know then few weeks go by and there's a different situation and you don't like any of them but you don't realize that collectively they create uh a story that I don't know how historians are going to deal with it in the future because the truth is that half of the country got weaponized against the other half.

And it was a dark dark time.

And we're not necessarily out of it because, you know, we're having this little golden era because Trump's in office.

I don't know what happens when he leaves.

I don't know what happens unless there's another strong Republican there.

Do we just go back to this reign of terror where just waking up and being a Republican makes it dangerous to be an American?

Is that what's going to happen?

I don't know.

Um but apparently uh I saw Joshua Steinman made an observation that the uh deportations may have made the traffic in LA really manageable.

Now, um I guess it's just a fact that there are mass deportion deportations in effect in LA.

And also the traffic is the lightest it's been in anybody's recent memory.

Are those related or is it just because this is the peak vacation period of the year?

Is it just maybe people are on vacation?

I don't know.

Might be a little of both.

Um I saw a there was a viral clip from Sean Ryan's podcast.

He was talking to journalist Nick Bryant who believes that uh the reason the Epstein case is being covered up is because it would destroy the entire operational system of the government if they revealed it because the operational system of the government is that it's run by blackmail.

Did how many of you buy into that narrative that the reason that we can't know about the Epstein truth is that we would learn that the entire government is a blackmail operation and maybe always has been and maybe all of them are.

Yeah, if you remember the stories from uh Jed Garoover and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no historian, but don't we know for sure that Jed Garoover was controlling the government with blackmail?

We know that as a fact, right?

What exactly changed since Jar Hoover's time?

Anything?

Did any did any laws make that go away?

Is there a new system in place to prevent people from getting blackmailed?

I don't believe so.

So, if it worked for Jed Garoover, why would you ever imagine that people stop doing it?

It's probably the most effective thing that anything that happens in our government.

But I'm not willing to say that's the only reason that you're not seeing the uh the Epstein stuff.

Uh I believe that one of the things that Trump said, which rings true, is there might be a lot of names associated with Epstein, and Trump would be one of those names that uh are not implicated to any crimes.

But as soon as you made that public, then every single person he talked to who returned a phone call would look like a you know horrible sex criminal.

So you would destroy maybe I don't know maybe a hundred people's lives would be completely destroyed who didn't deserve it because they would have no criminal activities in their on their resume.

But they had some contact with EP Epstein maybe before they knew what he was up to.

So would that be a good enough reason to uh to not release the files?

I hate to say it, but it would be because that would very much be a case of well, you don't you don't throw away a 100 people's lives and their families and everything else.

You don't throw away a hundred people's lives because the public has a right to see some files.

I wouldn't go that far.

Suppose suppose that the Trump administration is uh very serious about protecting the country and protecting the Republican, you know, view of what how things should be.

And they realize that if they release the Epstein files, it could destroy the entire government, maybe bring down every government, you know, not just the current one, but maybe all the ones in the past.

Um, if we found out what was really going on, what would be the right play for Trump?

Now, this is just speculation, hypothetical, but suppose that revealing the full story about Epstein would crash the United States as a as a government.

Like, we would just lose everything.

Is that possible?

It's totally possible.

It's totally possible that if we found out we were a blackmail operation, um, and always were, it's totally possible it would crash the whole country.

What about if if Trump was trying to protect some other country, let's say France or the UK or uh Israel or some other ally?

Would it be a good enough reason to not tell the the citizens of the US what the truth is if it would destroy an ally?

I mean, just just absolutely devastate another country.

Would that be a good enough reason to keep it a secret?

Here's my take.

If you trust Trump, you have to also trust him to lie to you when it's in your best interest.

I know it's uncomfortable, but how many of you know that there's something called the CIA?

Have you heard of it?

If you know that there's a CIA and you have not been railing to completely eliminate them from our system, then you've already bought into the idea that your government can lie to you.

So, don't act like you're all you're all above it.

We're not above it.

I I wake up knowing that my country has a CIA and that their job is to not tell the truth.

I mean, it's built into the job and I don't expect them to tell me the truth, but I do I do expect them to keep me safe.

So, you know, they're not going to be perfect and there'll be some corruption that gets into every system.

But if you trust Trump to handle the country's interests first, um then you should also trust him to know when to lie to you and that when that's in your best interest or the best interest of the country as a whole.

So that's where I'm at.

Uh to me it's obvious that um Bino and Bondi and Cash Patel and Trump are all lying.

I I just accept that as a fact because they could not wink at us any harder, could they?

Wink wink.

We didn't find anything.

Wink wink wink.

To me, to me, they're doing the best they can, which is letting you know without letting you know that they're lying to you.

And you would have to trust that all four of those people, because we presume they all have some version of the truth.

I don't think they're sup I don't think they're in the dark.

I think they know the truth.

And would you trust that all four of them with nobody defecting cuz that's important.

None of them turned whistleblower.

None of them resigned.

None of them said, "Well, I disagree with this decision." They all got right on the same page, which suggests that they probably think that the country is better off if they just don't let us know the full truth.

Now it could also be that there is no full truth to find because all the records have been scrubbed long ago.

So there was nothing to find.

So it could be that they simply have their own suspicions about you know the data being deleted and the files disappearing and stuff.

They may have their own suspicions but it's also possible they don't have any proof of any crimes that we don't know about.

So, if they didn't have any proof, because it'd all been removed from the files, what are they going to do?

What what would you do?

Because it's not your job to spread rumors or hunches.

You would unfortunately do what they did.

You'd say, "Well, I looked at all the files and I didn't see anything to show you." Anyway, so um my current take is that I'm going to trust that the four of them are more patriots than weasels because I don't think any of them lack bravery.

Would you agree with me on that?

Would you would you say that the four of them, Trump, Bondi, Patel, and Bino, they don't lack bravery.

So they're not afraid.

They're probably protecting us.

Now, is that the most generous take you could ever imagine?

Probably.

But have have those four people earned earned a little extra trust?

And the answer is yes.

Yes, I have.

Now, does that mean I'm right?

I don't know.

But you know, you have to take a you have to take a position because you have to live in this world and you're going to have to accept some interpretation as more likely than the other.

The I I feel like the most likely interpretation is that they know it would be bad for the country to be fully disclosing what they know.

Um it doesn't mean that they're bad people.

could be it could mean the opposite that they're protecting us, but I don't know.

Maybe someday we'll find that out.

Um, as Alex Jones says and others have said, maybe the other the other possibility is that Trump found it really useful to have all that blackmail for himself.

So, let's say you wanted to do a deal with some other country that's an ally.

Wouldn't it be useful if that ally was fully knowledgeable that you knew everything in the Epstein file and if you wanted to, you could release it.

You you could leak it or you could announce it.

Wouldn't that make you very flexible when dealing with the United States?

Yes, it would.

So, one possibility is that once uh Trump found out what the actual blackmail was all about, and we have no evidence that he did this, by the way.

I'm just This is more of a what if.

Um wouldn't it make sense for him to use it instead of ruining the asset?

Because imagine how valuable that asset would be.

What if I what if it felt like the difference between getting the Abraham Accords done and not I'm I'm not saying, you know, Israel's the target or anything like that.

I'm just saying there are things that are way bigger way bigger than what Epstein knew or videoed or or blackmailed about.

What if um keeping that blackmail alive is what allows Trump to get a peace deal between Ukraine and and Russia, which I don't think is going to happen anytime soon.

But what if it did?

Wouldn't you be better off if he didn't tell you and just used that leverage and got got a peace deal for the world that kept us out of World War II and a nuclear holocaust?

I don't know.

I I wouldn't feel bad about it.

So, we'll probably never know what the truth is, but let's see.

Um, so the uh apparently there are several uh healthc care organizations.

I saw this on a post by the vigilant fox who's a real good follow on X.

If you're not following the Vigilant Fox, you might be missing a lot of stories, but um so RFK Jr.

had uh said that the people um kids and pregnant women should not be getting the COVID vaccination.

Now, you probably said to yourself, well, I'm pretty sure the science strongly indicates that it doesn't make sense for pregnant women and children, young children, to get the shot.

But you might be wrong.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Asso Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, because they all got together and they are filing a federal lawsuit against Kennedy um for banning the COVID vaccine from kids and pregnant women.

Now, do you think that they have the data to back up that lawsuit?

Because the reason for banning it was the data.

Is there two sets of data?

One that says it's a great idea and one that says it's not.

How in the world is this even a decision?

Is there really just two completely different worlds of data?

And one says that, "Oh yeah, give these to those pregnant women for sure." And the other says, "Whatever you do, don't give it to pregnant women." What?

How is it even possible?

Well, the thing that you would have to wonder about is are these four associations heavily funded by big pharma?

H I wonder.

And is it really just big pharma trying to increase their revenue and they're doing it indirectly through these, you know, organizations that look, they look to us like they're legit, right?

If I told you that the American Academy of Pediatrics decided that it was something was safe for children, wouldn't you automatically think, well, doesn't they don't sound like criminals to me.

It's the American Academy of Pediatrics.

So, if I were a big pharma, I would use my clout with big organizations that I fund or I fund maybe speaking fees for people in the organizations, that sort of thing.

And I would use them to go after RFK Jr.

um so that it didn't look like it was me.

I don't know if that's what's happening, but that's how I would see the world.

Um, Christy Gnome, head of homeland security, uh, said that after the Maui fires and, uh, while Biden was in charge of FEMA, I don't know if I believe this, but one in six survivors of the Maui fires had to trade sexual favors for basic supplies to survive.

Do you believe that one in six?

Now I assume that we're not counting men in that.

So if you eliminate men, you know, there might have been some gay men or whatever who were offering sex for food.

But it feels like it'd be more like one in three.

If one in six survivors, but let's say half of them are women, half of them are men, wouldn't that suggest since mostly the women would be offering the uh sex for supplies?

I don't know.

I'm not buying it.

One and three.

Does that sound right to you?

You know, it's it's a horrible world, but one in three and we're just hearing about it.

I don't know.

Oh, the article says one in six women.

I'm seeing in the comments.

Um, what I see is one in six survivors.

So, that's the quote I got from the news.

One in six survivors.

So, I don't know.

I'm going to say I don't believe that one.

It if it happened to even one person, it's horrible.

So, you know, let me let me make sure that I'm not minimizing the potential of how bad that was, but seems a little exaggerated.

Um, Marjorie Taylor Green is wondering about Galain Maxwell's Little Black Book that has over 2,000 names in it, we believe, and that would include the rich and the powerful.

And I guess that her little black book was sealed by the court as part of her legal defense there.

But this would be a perfect example of um if there are 2,000 names in her book and she was known to be a, you know, big networker.

Uh how many of the 2,000 names committed any kind of a crime?

How would you like to be somebody that she met at a party and you traded phone numbers and you didn't know anything about any bad behavior and next thing you know you're being outed in the news for being in her little black book?

That would be pretty bad.

So I guess I would disagree with Margerie Taylor Green that the uh Galain Maxwell's Little Black Book should be made public.

Because people would just draw conclusions and all it would be would be a name and a phone number or an email address and we would go nuts saying, "Well, look who's in that book.

Look what people did.

We're just seeing the flight information to the island." I assume that there were people who went to the island and committed no crimes whatsoever.

I assume so.

But don't we treat it like they all did?

Like everybody who was on his, you know, flight thing, anybody who was ever on his plane, anybody who ever whispered in his ear at a party like Trump did, don't we use that to say, well, you know, there you go, they must have been involved in that bad behavior.

So, yeah, that'd be a little uh dicey to release those names.

Um, here is something interesting.

Um, so, uh, Hakeim Jeff, Democrat, uh, he would be the minority leader, I guess.

Um, he says he trusts Democrats to run the next election legally and appropriately in the Democrat managed states.

But he believes that the Republican managed states, the states where the Republicans were handling the election in those states, he doesn't trust them.

So, do you realize what a big deal that is?

We've been the whole January 6 thing depends entirely on the question of whether our elections are uh unriggable because if they're unriggable then the people involved in um you know storming the capital that day should have known that the election was pristine because they're unriggable and therefore it would look a lot like an insurrection.

Because hey, there's nothing to complain about the election.

It's unriggable.

And the Democrats on the news, who are all have been telling us with a straight face that there is no way that the election was anything but factually good in 2020.

And now the same are telling us that they think the Republicans can rig an election in their states.

Really?

So you think the Republicans can do that, but that the Democrats can't or wouldn't?

That is a complete surrender on the question of whether we know for sure our elections are rigable or unriggable.

If the if everybody from Rosie O'Donnell to, you know, I think Hillary Clinton said it at one point and now Hakee Jeff is saying it, they're saying out loud that they that they believe the elections could be rigged by Republicans and it sort of implies they could do it without getting caught.

Now, they don't say that.

They don't say the part about they could do it without getting caught.

But why would Republicans or Democrats or anybody attempt to rig something if they didn't have a really good way to get away with it?

It's not it's not going to be like if you knew enough about the system to have a way to rig it, wouldn't you know enough about the system to know whether they could easily catch you or not?

you know, wouldn't you say, "Well, here's all the ways they could catch us, so if we can't get around this, we won't do it." So, of course, the Democrats have now admitted that it was possible that any election was rigged and we don't know it.

Well, Tom Cotton has introduced the bill to uh make it easier to mine rare earth minerals in the US, which as you know um for for whatever reason that I don't understand u mining for rare earth minerals is way more ecologically damaging and dangerous than a lot of different things.

So Tom Cotton's bill would make it easier for uh a number of these uh environmental laws to be looked at individually and if it makes sense to be uh let's say uh to do a workaround to those.

Now why did it take so long for this?

Is there something I don't know about this story?

I feel like we should have, you know, had this bill a long time ago.

It's not even passed.

It's just introduced.

So, again, yeah, I I can't I can't give Congress full, you know, full credit for doing what makes sense because they haven't voted on it yet.

Who knows if they will.

Um, and why did it take so long?

Haven't we been talking about China and their rare earth mineral monopoly for now years?

It's been years, right?

And just now they're coming around.

Hey, I've got an idea.

Why Why don't we make it easier to do it in the US?

Yes.

Yeah.

Why don't you do that?

All right.

Um Trump had uh the leaders of five African nations over at the White House and uh he declared Trump did that it's uh time to benefit Africa by trading with them as opposed to just sending them money.

So the US aid thing is winding down and some say that that was, you know, uh, keeping people alive in other countries.

And others say it was just a CIA cutout and any anything that looked like charity was really just a trick to get control over the area.

Um, but uh, Trump is saying, "No, how about now?

You might be better off if we just trade with you." So, let's do that instead.

So, that's a new way.

So, I saw that Trump took a bunch of questions at it at that meeting yesterday, but I'm very impressed how tight his answers are to some kinds of questions.

So, I'm just going to read you a few of his answers.

Um he was asked about Harvard and going after Harvard, the government going after them for being anti-Semitic and stuff.

So here's what Trump said.

He said, quote, "Harvard's been very bad, totally anti-Semitic, and yeah, they'll absolutely reach a deal, saying that they'll come up with some kind of deal with the government." Now, isn't that a tight answer?

Harvard's been very bad, totally anti-Semitic.

Yeah, they'll absolutely reach a deal.

nothing else to say.

I love how tight that is.

And then Peter Ducey asked about uh the fact that Cory Booker and Alex Padilla uh want the uh border police and ICE officers to have uh IDs so you can tell who they are and to not cover their faces.

And uh so Trump says quote uh they wouldn't be saying that if they didn't hate our country and they obviously do what now I don't believe that you can know what people are thinking and that you can know that they hate the country but but the fact that that's his only answer to that and it's so tight.

They wouldn't be saying that if they didn't hate our country and they obviously do.

Next question.

It does it does seem that they act as if they hate the country because if you're trying to stop the people who are stopping the the flood of immigrants coming across the border, it doesn't really look like you're on the same side as the country.

It feels like you're against your own country.

And why would you be against your own country?

Well, Trump suggests that they hate the country.

Do you think that's true?

Do you think that Cy Booker and Alex Padilla hate the country?

Well, you know, if there were some way to find out for sure, I'd probably bet against it.

But it's such a good response.

Yeah, they wouldn't do it unless they hate the country.

Obviously, they do.

Um, Peter Ducey asked Trump if he wanted to see uh James Comey and John Brennan behind bars.

Now, imagine all the ways that Trump could answer that wrong.

Would you like to see Brennan and Comey behind bars?

Brennan and Comey are people who tried to put Trump out of office if not behind bars.

And what's he say?

Uh, I think they're very dishonest people.

I think they're crooked as hell and maybe they have to pay a price for that.

But he acted like he didn't know the details.

So, pretty tight.

Good answer.

Remember, you don't have to you don't have to agree with his answer.

I'm just impressed at how tight they are.

No word salad there.

Um, Trump has threatened 200% tariffs, according to the New York Post, on uh pharmaceuticals if they're being made in other countries.

But he might wait a year and a half before imposing that to give them time to try to reshore it in the United States.

But a 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals come in.

Now obviously the purpose of that is to encourage them to move to the US to manufacture that stuff.

I don't know if they can do that in a year and a half.

And I don't know how this will not raise prices.

It doesn't seem likely to me that this will have no impact on prices.

So you might see your some of your pharmaceutical drug drugs go up in price.

Um, speaking of which, have I told you how expensive my uh my testosterone blockers are?

Oh my god.

With health care.

This is with health care.

So, this is not the full price.

I paid $1,400 for a month of supply.

$1,400.

Now, that's with healthcare.

Apparently, the real price might have been I think it was like $10,000 for just for something that you would need every month for years.

What what how would somebody who didn't have a lot of money even afford that?

I I guess there are alternatives that don't cost that much but have side effects.

So, you would have to pick the one that had side effects and not good side effects either because you wouldn't be able to afford the good stuff.

Now, I I sort of blundered into it.

I didn't know I didn't know it was the good stuff until I got it, but wow, does it work well.

I mean, that's my experience.

Um, but can you imagine it?

$1,400 a month for a person with a normal income and a normal job.

Just like put that right on top of everything else.

Unbelievable.

Anyway, um according to a news nation, Trump is considering some uh harsher sanctions on Russia or the Congresses or somebody else.

But I asked Grock, what kind of sanctions are left?

like what are they even thinking about?

And Grock, this is not the smart new Grock, but the old the old Grock, um said it would be maybe potentially secondary sanctions for any financial institute that's dealing with Russia or maybe a 500% tariff on any country buying Russian oil or natural gas or uranium.

Um but how are we going to do that?

We're just going to slap a 500% tariff on China and India.

That That's not going to happen.

Holy cow.

Wow.

I'm seeing somebody else's drug expense.

Wow.

So, to me, it doesn't look like Oh, and then the other thing would be to seize Russia's 300 billion.

I guess we have frozen Russian assets and then use them for arms purchases in Ukraine.

Well, I don't believe that any of these harsher sanctions are practical.

I don't believe we're going to put a 500% tariff on everything that comes from China and India because they buy gas from Russia.

Does that sound like something we could actually do and get away with?

I don't think so.

and uh penalizing the banks maybe, but wouldn't we have done that already if there were no problem with doing that?

So, I I'm kind of thinking that maybe there are any harsher sanctions.

There's a story in Newsmax that Russia is turning Ukrainian teenagers into unwitting uh suicide bombers.

So the one the way they do that would be be they'd say, "I'll give you $1,000 if you go do some uh let's say some uh what would they call it?

uh to vandalize a police station in Ukraine.

So imagine you're uh you're a teenager in Ukraine and some Russian contact offers you $1,000 to go vandalize a Ukrainian police station.

Well, it would be pretty hard to turn down $1,000 if you're a teenager and all you had to do is do some graffiti or something on a police station and then they give you a backpack and say, "All right, here are your supplies for vandalizing." And then when you get to the police station, you realize that the backpack they gave you was explosives and they just detonated it.

So, they basically just turned these teenagers into suicide bombers, but they don't know they're suicide bombers.

They think they're just doing some other thing for money.

And uh but apparently some of them maybe they're just flipping and uh they don't mind, you know, they're not being killed themselves, but they're doing some work for Russia.

I'll tell you these are the the it's hard to root for Ukraine if their own teenagers are attacking them at least in small numbers.

Well, the uh ex CEO of X Oh, that's funny.

the ex CEO of X who's the let's call her the ex CEO Linda Yakarino it's about X and uh Elon Musk said a little bit less something like thank you for all the contributions so I don't think they left on the best of terms, just a guess.

And we don't know exactly what the uh we don't know exactly what the problem was or why she left, but we do know that the timing was after uh Grock got accused of being anti-Semitic.

So, it could be, although we'd only be guessing, that she just didn't like that kind of heat and didn't think she needed it in her life.

Maybe.

Um, it could be that she's got some other opportunity that she hasn't mentioned.

Maybe.

Uh it could be it was just too hard to work with Elon Musk because uh as much as we love him, I don't know that I would want him to be my boss cuz he'd be pretty tough.

So we don't know why, but she's uh on her way.

and uh the US Secret Service suspended six of the agents who were working at that Butler event where Trump got shot in the ear.

So after the long investigation, they decided that there were six people who should have done something different than what they did.

Six.

That's kind of hard to believe, isn't it?

that for one event there would be six individuals who all didn't do their job at the same time and it was enough that they would get um at least for a while they got suspended from 10 to 42 days I don't know about that u I think that was from CBS news according to CNBC Germany has agreed to import more liqufied natural gas from uh from America.

And uh now the US is officially Germany's largest supplier of LNG.

So I assume that that had been Russia in the past.

And so I I I see about one story every day where some country agreed to buy more of our stuff, often energy, because that's the easiest thing.

Everybody needs some.

Um so that's uh that goes to uh Trump's benefit.

Um I saw a uh interesting article by Orin Mc.

Intyre who was at the Blaze and he said uh the right is facing a serious problem about how to handle its intellectuals and I thought the right has intellectuals who are these intellectuals and what is this problem?

Well I I think I'll just read you his opinion and then I'll give you mine.

Right.

So he says Orin Mc.

Intyre says uh the right is facing a serious problem about how to handle its intellectuals.

The left has the university where it can assign smart people goodpaying high status jobs where they can explore and cultivate ideas.

But the right has no similar institutions.

So right-wing intellectuals end up in think tanks or content production.

This creates a the public intellectual who comes onto the scene with a burst of insight.

But content production is a grind.

Even if you're saying intelligent things, eventually the need to say something about everything leaves you little time to think deeply about anything.

Academics are also not really equipped to be public figures.

They are not built to do battle with the hostile public on a regular basis.

So, what I'm reading into this is that if you get on the uh the grind of having to say something about everything that you just don't have the ability to, you know, do what you might be able to do in a university, which is take some time to really think through something more deeply.

But I have a completely different view.

My view is that you should not look at the smart people on either side as individuals.

Rather, you should see them as a system or one intelligence.

What I see on the left is uh that their system of how to deal with smart people on the left is that they are minimized and that the left surfaces the worst takes from the dumbest people.

Now you've seen it, right?

The the people on the left are not being driven by their smartest people.

I mean very clearly they are literally they they have some kind of upside down system where the loudest most prominent voices are are actually their dumbest people the Jasmine Crockett etc.

Right?

And you see it consistently if if somebody's really dumb and they're a Democrat you're going to hear from them a lot.

Okay.

But it seems to me that the smartest people on the right operate like one brain.

You know, your own brain wrestles with things and disagrees with itself all the time, right?

You you have that experience.

If it's just you thinking about a new topic in the news, you probably go back and forth in your own mind.

Well, could it be this?

Could it be that?

What if it's this?

What if it's that?

the political right.

And I'm not going to use the word intellectuals.

I'm going to say the smartest people.

All right?

So, I'm going to include like your Charlie Kirks, your Steve Bannons, your Tucker Carlson's.

Nobody would say that they're intellectuals per se.

They're just some of the many smart people on the right.

But what happens when the right disagrees, which has happened a few times recently, um the conversation is all public and we all look at each other and uh you know, I might be looking at what Charlie Kirk says.

I might be looking at uh Jack Pasabek, what he says.

I might be looking at a couple of other podcasters.

You know, Me, maybe I'm looking at what Megan Kelly says.

and and then I'm forming my opinion which is informed by all of their opinions and I might make some mistakes.

I might make some corrections, but overall, doesn't it seem to you that the right has a a system in which you get to see a pretty good debate over what's real and what's not and uh they don't all agree, but that you get to a point where where the smartest people seem to have surfaced.

And there might be more than one.

So there might be smart people that say we should do A and smart people say we should do B.

I think that happened with the big beautiful bill that you saw not a smart opinion and a dumb opinion.

I think you saw two smart opinions.

One smart opinion is we have to deal with the deficit.

That's just got to be top priority.

And another smart opinion has said, "We will, but not on this bill because we have these other priorities." But trust us, we're going to get to it.

We understand that that's top priority.

Now, to me, that's a system that is really, really good.

And part of it is driven by the fact that we know that Trump listens.

I don't know how he does it.

Um, you presumably it's people talking in his ear that did the listening.

But Trump is paying attention to all these people I mentioned plus, you know, dozens more.

And because he pays attention, it kind of makes your game a little bit better.

You know, you you know that somebody important might be listening to you.

So you kind of make sure you think it through as well as you can.

So, I would argue that it's not so much the grind of producing because I do this every day.

I mean, seven days a week and I don't feel it a grind at all.

In fact, you know, the more I interact with content, the more I see the connections.

So, I would argue that the right has developed a system somewhat accidentally.

I don't think it was conscious in which the smartest people act like one brain that often has more than one opinion, but the smartest opinions eventually bubble to the top and consistently so.

And on the left, the least capable thinkers, for whatever reason, bubble up to the top.

It's a big big difference.

So that's my take but uh I appreciate Orin Mc.

Intyre's uh raising well actually a perfect perfect example.

So you know we might have a different opinion of of this intellectual stuff but we both get to say our thing and then you get to decide which one bubbles to the top.

All right.

Um, so Axios is saying that uh that the top mega influencers are warning that uh this this Epstein stuff is going to cause a loss of trust in Trump.

Well, we already talked about that, but do you believe that?

Do you believe that the top MAGA influencers are going to lose trust?

Maybe a little bit temporarily, but I'll bet they'll get over it because the alternative is to trust Democrats.

Not much of an alternative.

So, I think I think a disagreement looks completely different on the right.

It doesn't look like it's a game ender.

We just go forward with a little disagreement about what we just saw.

That's it.

It It doesn't It doesn't drive the MAGA apart.

It doesn't it's not some long-term beginning of the end.

It's just we recognize that there are other smart people who have a different opinion and that's it.

And then we allow that and then we go forward.

Um, the College Fix, which is a publication, um, has an article that says, uh, that college grads are now, uh, unprepared and more unpopular with hiring managers than ever.

Now, doesn't that feel like a story you heard every year of your life, for your entire life, that the young people are worse than they've ever been?

And I thought to myself, if it's true every single year that the young people are worse, you worse character, they're lazier, they have the wrong priorities, etc.

If every year, I remember when I was the college graduate, I'm positive that we were being blamed for being the worst generation of all time.

You hippies, get a haircut.

You've ruined everything.

You've ruined America.

So, do you believe even though there are plenty of examples and you may have seen plenty of them yourself, do you believe that the recent batch of uh job applicants are the worst we've ever seen?

Do you believe that?

I I always have this view that the people who matter in commerce and science is maybe 1%.

And everybody else is just keeping the lights on and that it doesn't matter that much how many bad ones there are because they weren't moving the the needle anyway.

But if the top 1% is as good as they've always been, and I would argue that they're better than they've ever been, better because we have more people to choose from, and now they have AI tools to boost their intelligence, etc.

As long as our top 1% is the best it's ever been, everybody else is just making sure that, you know, the garbage gets picked up and the lights stay on and that's fine.

So, I'm not too worried, but maybe I should be.

Um, you know how I keep telling you that there all these breakthroughs in battery technology?

I saw a uh a counter to that um on what's up with that.

Willis Echenbach is uh did an article saying that one one of the recent stories I told you about about a new battery that could charge in you know very short time.

Um that there's no practical way to do it.

It's just something you can do in the lab.

But if you wanted to do that fast charging in the real world, you would have to vastly change the entire charging network in ways that would be impractical to change them.

So, just be aware that whenever you hear these stories about amazing breakthroughs in battery technology, they might be a little exaggerated and they may might not be so practical to actually roll out in our lifetime.

Um, so here's another difference between uh Democrats and Republicans.

I always tell you that Democrats get the incentives wrong, that they don't understand people for some some reason.

I mean, it's weird.

Like, who could live in the world their whole their whole life surrounded by people and then not understand people at least a little bit?

So, here's an example.

um compared to the Republicans.

So, uh Brooke Rollins, the a psych secretary, was noting that um the new rules about Medicaid that were part of the big beautiful bill, which would cause people to need to work if they were able-bodied, they would have to work to get their health care, to get their Medicaid.

Now, at the same time, Republicans are doing a mass deportation, which is taking workers away from uh employers.

At the same time that the Medicaid rule should, if everything goes right incentive-wise, make people who were, you know, sleeping on the couch say, "All right, all right.

I guess I'll take these jobs have now been opened up by the deportations." So that would be an example of two policies that are complimentary.

Here we're getting rid of the people.

I don't want to say get rid of because that's that's sort of um demeaning, but rather there's a mass deportation of workers that opens up a bunch of jobs that can be filled by people who want to keep their Medicaid and all they needed was a job.

Very compatible systems, right?

Now, let's compare that to the Democrats who want to push climate change and affordability at the same time.

Is is the climate change agenda, you know, which would suck up tremendous amount of resources and put them in more expensive forms of energy and would decrease your ability to get the less expensive energy?

Uh, is that compatible with we want to make things more affordable?

No, it's not compatible.

So once again, you see the Republicans build this beautiful system where they understand the incentives of human beings and then they build a system that matches those incentives.

And then you look at the Democrats and it looks random.

It just looks random.

Like it's like they hadn't thought through anything.

So look for that pattern.

You'll see it.

Well, according to the Public Library of Science, there's an article there saying that loneliness predicts poor mental and physical health outcomes.

Are you surprised that people who are lonely um it affects their mental health and physical health?

Now, you know that I usually say, well, maybe that's backwards correlation.

Maybe people who have bad mental and physical health have trouble making friends.

So, they would end up being lazier.

Not lazier, lonelier.

So, it probably works both ways, but I'm totally willing to believe that loneliness can cause you less good health.

Um, and I'm going to offer you a solution to that.

Um many of you come to watch this show every day and you see that uh the reason I do it live is because of this loneliness factor.

Don't you feel as if I'm sort of your morning friend who visits with you every morning in the in the comments that are going by live right now.

I know you feel that because you tell me that all the time and I have very consciously.

It's it's not an accident.

I've uh presented myself as your daily friend because you are my friends, but you've also made friends with the other people in the comments.

And before I do the show that you're watching, you know, my regular live stream, uh, for my subscribers on Locals, I do about a half an hour of a pre-show.

Now, I used to have a little bit of a resistance to doing the pre-show because people weren't listening to me.

I, you know, all I'm doing is preparing for the show and getting my coffee and I go down to my little putting room downstairs and I shoot three putts to see how the day will go.

But if I look at the comments, 90% of them are people talking to other people in the comments and they've made friends with each other.

So, they don't know each other except in the comments, although some of them have actually gotten together.

Um, but they they feel this community of people who are just there because they're lonely.

And it's really not about what content that I give them during the pre-show.

It's really about just creating this little uh forum that people who would otherwise be sitting there lonely um they get to interact with the other people.

And it took me a long time to figure out why when I first fire up the pre-show, which is also a live stream, it took it took me a long time to figure out why everybody just said hi to each other.

So, for the first 10 minutes, it's nothing but good morning, how you doing?

Good morning.

And not just to me, but they're saying good morning to the other chatters as they see them coming online.

It's like, "Hey, magician, you know, hey, hey, this or that." Magician is one of the one of the uh common users.

Common as in every day.

Um, so here here's what I'm going to add to it.

Uh, loneliness is definitely dangerous and uh I've accidentally created a model where people can feel a little less lonely every day.

So, if you were not taking it in that vein, well, maybe you could because I'll be here every day as long as I can.

And uh you might be some people that uh you want to say good morning to every morning and you might feel a little bit less lonely.

All right, that's all I got for you.

I'm going to talk again privately to my local subscribers who are beloved as you know and uh the rest of you I'll see tomorrow.

Thanks for joining.

Sorry I went so long.

All right, locals coming at you privately in 30 seconds.

Come on in. Grab a seat. There's always

an available seat up front.

And it is wonderful to see you again.

Let me make sure I can see all your

comments here.

And then we've got some fun for you.

[Music]

Good morning everyone and welcome to the

highlight of human civilization. It's

called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on taking

this experience up to levels that no one

can understand with their tiny shiny

human brains. All you need for that

is a copper mug or a glass of tankered

shell sty canteen jugger flask vessel of

any kind. Fill it with your favorite

liquid. I like coffee. And join me now

for the unparalleled pleasure dopamine

of the day. The thing that makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip and it happens now.

Oh yeah, that was really good.

That was good. Oh boy.

Well, I wonder if there's any scientific

study about the benefits of magic

mushrooms. Oh, yeah. Here's one. Uh,

according to uh if science, psilocybin

shows potential in in slowing human cell

aging.

So, not only will the magic mushrooms

cure your depression, your anxiety,

fix all of your

fix all of your problems, but it might

make you live longer. Is there anything

mushrooms can't do? No. No, there's not.

Apparently, they can do everything.

Well, this might seem like a nerdy

little news thing, but it might be a big

deal. PJ media is reporting

that uh four independent impleers have

decided to join forces and some kind of

an association of just the four of them.

There'll be the National Association.

Well, they might add some people, who

knows? There'll be the National

Association of Independent Pollsters.

Now, you might say to me, why is that

interesting? that four pollsters and of

the many many pollsters have decided to

create their own little organization.

Why would they do that? Well, here here

are the pollsters. Uh big data poll

insider advantage uh Trafalar Group and

Rasmusen.

Now, if you're a real nerd and you

really watch your politics, you know

where this is heading. But for the rest

of you, let me tell you what this means.

Um, these four are the ones who are

calling out the other pollsters for

being frauds.

Uh, Rasmusen, of course, has been doing

it for a long time, but uh, these are

all top 10 pollsters who tend to be

accurate and not um, gaming the system.

So I believe their claim will be that

these are four you can depend on and uh

all the rest are likely to be gaming the

system especially for the political

stuff.

So I feel like this is a big move

because if if one pollster

says oh those other ones seem fraudulent

how much are you going to pay attention

to it? But if there's an organization of

pollsters, they have organized

specifically because of the ones who are

not frauds

and they're calling out the rest of them

in the industry for being frauds.

That's that's got a little bit of weight

behind it. So that that could get

interesting next time there's a

political poll.

Well, Grock 4

maybe is released or maybe they're just

still talking about it. I cannot tell by

looking at my own Grock that I pay for

what I have and what I don't. I I think

I have four, but there's a there's a

heavy four. There's one that's $300 a

month. I don't have that one.

So, um, Elon Musk says, "We're in the

beginning of an immense intelligence big

bang right now, and we're at the most

interesting time to be alive any time in

history."

Now, you want to know how I know we're

living in a simulation,

right? Just imagine this.

Imagine the

depends where you want to go. they'll

say 300,000 years of human development.

What are the odds that you happen to be

here at exactly the most interesting

time?

What are the odds of that? That that's

really small, right?

Um, so it seems to me that whenever

something this unusual happens in my

lifetime, I say to myself,

what are the odds that I was born in

this time zone?

You not time zone, but you know, time

period. I feel like I feel like maybe,

you know, this is proof for his

simulation.

Well, Grock is also going to be put into

Teslas very soon. maybe next week. And

Elon has gone so far as to say that he'd

be shocked if Grock hasn't discovered

new physics by next year.

Apparently, Grock 4 is now the leading

AI. It benchmarks better than all the

other AIs for now. And uh

Elon says that with respect to academic

questions, Grock 4 is better than uh PhD

level in every subject

and it may be discovering new things

that no AI has discovered before.

Um

and it might discover new physics. I

mean just think about that.

So, according to Elon, the current

version, the one they're releasing, I

guess the expensive version,

um, should be able to figure out things

that do not exist already on the

internet. Now that would be a big deal

because the large language models

largely they look at what has gone

before you know the the body of

knowledge that humans already have and

then it learns from what humans already

know but it doesn't figure out new

stuff. The large language models don't

do that. If Grock can do that and I

think it's still an open question. If

Grock can figure out new truths

that do not exist already in human

knowledge,

that would be really scary and exciting

and a really big deal. So, the odds of

Grock or AI.

Um,

fixing cancer seems pretty good, but um,

mushrooms will do that, too. I forgot to

tell you that the uh mushrooms that u

might be operating on your telomers and

and allowing you to live longer.

They're going to study mushrooms

uh the magic mushrooms to see if they

also are a treatment for cancer.

So, what do you think will work first?

Do you think the mushrooms or grock will

cure cancer first? I don't know. Could

be a dead heat.

Meanwhile,

um Apple's stock is apparently down this

year for the year even as the other big

tech firms are doing great. Um, and of

course people are saying that the

problem is that if uh Apple doesn't

figure out AI and there's no evidence

that they're even close that uh they

will be left behind and that you can't

be the big, you know, leading tech

company if you don't even really have an

AI platform. So maybe some say that

Apple will try to buy diverse or

perplexity.

I don't know about that because it would

be about $30 billion.

But I'm going to reup my prediction.

I feel like the risk to the uh the

smartphone companies is that somebody

with an AI platform is going to make a

phone

that uh doesn't use apps,

at least not directly. The biggest

problem with the iPhone, the thing I

hate is that I have to find an app first

and then I do my thing. And sometimes

you got to update the app and sometimes

you got to sign into the app and oh my

god, imagine if you would a phone with

AI as its operating system, if you will,

but not really having an operating

system. And it's just a blank phone.

And if uh if you left your phone on the

kitchen table and I picked it up by

accident,

it would look at my face and it would

turn into my phone, but only as long as

I'm using it. As soon as I put it down

again, it would become generic and then

the owner could pick it up and it would

be their phone. So that's the first

thing. It could identify you with more

certainty than a nonI entity could.

The other thing I want to say is I want

to start working

before I pick an app.

So for example, if I want to text

somebody I know, I want a blank screen

every time, nothing but a blank screen,

and then just start typing a message.

And then the AI says, "Oh, he's making a

short message

um on this topic where he was just

talking to Bob.

So, so then it will indicate as I work

that it plans to open up a text send a

text message to Bob. Now, if that's not

what I intended or if there maybe is

more than one thing that I might be, you

know, potentially hinting I want, it

would give me a couple of choices, but I

would do the selecting of the app at the

end or not at all because AI would know.

Suppose I wanted to work on a

spreadsheet.

So I've got some existing spreadsheets

that you know I update now and then. If

the only thing I did is start writing

the new data for the new spreadsheet,

the new spreadsheet should just appear

and then it ask me if I wanted that data

to be on this column in this place.

So you see how awesome that would be.

But the problem is that Apple has

commercialized this whole app

um model which has been you know great

for revenue I guess but I don't want

apps.

I don't want any apps. I want just stuff

to work and I want to just start working

as soon as I open the phone. Now you

might say to yourself that that would be

a terrible idea but it depends on

implementation.

Well, in other news,

um DJI, that's a big uh drone maker in

China, uh they have made a drone that

can lift um about 176 pounds and

transport it for 16 miles.

That's the weight of a human

that can carry for 16 miles.

What?

And it's not that big. The drone itself

looks like I don't know, maybe a six

foot wingspan or something like that.

But, uh, if you can carry 176 pounds for

16 miles,

you've got yourself a pretty good

assassination machine right there.

Because

um you we know now that the Russians

have the ability to have a drone that

just loiters and just hangs around and

looks for its targets without it's

unjammable. So imagine it being

unjammable,

can travel 16 miles, can find the target

on its own after you've specified some

stuff, I guess, and then it could drop

176 pounds of explosives in that area.

So

that would be pretty bad.

But on the positive side, maybe they'll

use it for rescuing people in remote

locations.

Or maybe it will be delivering your

lunch. I don't know.

I I tell this story all the time, but I

haven't told it in a while, so it's

worth re-uping. years ago um when drones

were a little bit newer and less

powerful, I attended a uh startup pitch

event at Berkeley, you know, Berkeley

the college and I was one of the uh

judges of the pitches

and one of the uh companies pitching had

developed a new kind of blade for for

Jones that they claimed would vastly

improve its cargo carrying no ability

from what it was at the time, which

wasn't very much. And uh I remember

asking the uh the startup crew, now

remember this is Berkeley, so it's the

most lefty leaning group of people

you've ever seen in your life. And I

said, "Wow, with this new ability to

carry more cargo, I would think the

military would be very interested in

your product."

Well, you should have seen their faces

when this left-leaning group of

entrepreneurs in Berkeley just realized

that they had designed death weapons

from above, but they weren't aware of

what they had done.

Um,

Lithuania got attacked by a Russian

suicide drone.

I'm seeing somebody report that in the

comments, but I wouldn't take that as a

fact yet. That sounds unusual.

All right. Um, apparently, uh, T-Mobile

had a, uh, thriving DEI program or set

of programs, but they're going to get

rid of all their DEI according to

Newsmax because they need FCC approval

for some mergers and deals they want to

do. So, once again, it it wasn't enough

that DEI is illegal. That wasn't enough

to make them stop doing it. It's just

until they needed a approval from the

government, they were just going to keep

doing the illegal thing, I guess. But

now they they've agreed to wipe it clean

and get rid of all that DEI illegal

stuff so that they can get their deals

done. So, T-Mobile,

you're a little bit slow,

but maybe you got to the right place.

And uh I was listening to uh Alex Jones.

He had a guest on Kyle Sarapin. He's a

FBI whistleblower who's been around for

a while on the uh podcasting and

interview circuit. So um he he's not a

brand new FBI whistleblower. He's a

whistleblower from the not too distant

past. and he believes that the the

announcement that Comey and uh Brennan

will be investigated for criminal

activity is a distraction from the

Epstein case. Do you believe that? Do

you believe that it's not a coincidence

that you heard about Brennan and Comey

right at the time that uh the government

wants to distract you from the Epstein

situation?

I don't know maybe I always think u the

government has a million things that

they could use as a distraction.

So in a sense

um maybe I mean it works as a

distraction but that doesn't mean that

they planned it that way or did they?

It's possible. Um,

and then, uh, Kyle was pointing out,

Kyle Sarafan on Alex Jones show. He was

pointing out that uh Fox News was

reporting that uh Comey Comey and

Brennan would be um looked at for

perjury for things that they said to I

guess under oath to Congress. That

turned out not to be true except that

there's a statute of limitations says

Kyle Sarapin of 5 years.

So it wouldn't really make sense to

investigate them for something they

couldn't be charged for anyway.

So maybe there's more to it. We don't

know. But

um then I saw separately

um I saw a CIA whistleblower. I love the

whistleblowers. John Kiryaku. You've

probably seen him on social media. He's

there quite a bit. And uh he he had a

lot of uh contact with John Brennan

because they were in the CIA at the same

time. And he describes John Brennan as a

ruthless quote very bad guy. He said,

quote, "John was just torture, torture,

torture. We got to torture these guys."

Talking about, you know, terrorists and

stuff. We got to do this. We got to do

that. We need to start killing more

people. We need to get out there and

start shooting. John Brennan is a very

bad guy from day one. He was a bad guy.

Well,

and I guess uh Brennan was notorious for

expanding drone strikes um and brutal

interrogation tactics. Hm.

Well, John Brennan appeared on MSNBC,

the network that we think is most

associated with being a tool of the CIA.

And uh I've seen him I've seen John

Brennan in a lot of interviews, but I've

never seen him look this worried.

He acted like he was scared to death

like like they have him. And he uh

lashed out in exactly the way you'd

expect.

He uh compared the US to Nazi Germany,

you know, under Trump. And he said, "If

the president of the United States is

willing to weaponize intelligence and

justice, we really are in deep, deep

trouble."

Now, do you recognize that approach?

Have we ever mentioned that the

Democrats always project?

Literally the reason that he's being

he's in the the public eye is because um

he's being accused of the very thing he

says that Trump is doing, which is

weaponizing the CIA and the FBI and

Department of Justice. So,

um, he might have a point that

weaponizing those things would be a bad

idea, but it doesn't mean that's what's

happening now.

It seems to me that they're pretty

credible accusations that would suggest

he was behind an insurrection

and and that Obama knew about it, was

part of it, and that uh they were trying

to overthrow

or change the government of the United

States without using the legal process.

Now, do you think he's guilty?

Well, I'm no expert, but I can tell you

I thought he was guilty from the first

time I saw him and he and Clapper doing

their interviews. They just looked

guilty as hell. I've never seen two

people who acted more guilty from the

start than those two guys. But, you

know, I'm not magic. They can't read

minds. I just know that my impression of

them from the start was, "Whoa, not only

are you lying," it seemed to me. But it

looks like you're the the masterminds

behold behind the whole thing.

And apparently they they're being

accused of being the masterminds behold

behind the whole thing.

Why did it take us years to get to this

point? Well, apparently

the the way our government works and the

justice system is that

um it takes five years before somebody

admits that something was wrong and

action is taken and by then you're just

tired of the story.

and it just doesn't have the impact it

would if they had started from the the

beginning.

So

that's happening. Um

so we'll I guess we'll find out if uh if

our system is completely rigged

because doesn't it seem to you that no

matter what kind of evidence they have

against Brennan

that he's not going to go to jail?

Don't you have that feeling that it

really wouldn't make any difference how

good the case was, how illegal it was?

The statute of limitation hasn't run out

yet for some stuff, I suppose. But do

any of you believe that the justice

system would lock him up?

It it seems unbelievably

you do you believe he might get locked

up and Comey, what do you what do you

think? I think no. I I believe that at

that level they're just always protected

and that you know somebody's get

blackmailed or bribed or something. Um

yeah, to me it seems impossible that

Brennan will go to jail.

no matter what he did and no matter what

the evidence is. I just don't think we

live in a country that can bring that

kind of justice to this kind of

situation.

We'll see. That's that's my prediction.

My prediction is that you might see

evidence that looks really really

damning followed by h several years are

going by and he spent some money on

lawyers but he's still free. We'll find

out.

Well, Joe Biden's personal doctor from

when he was in office um agreed to to go

talk to the uh the committee, Comr's

committee, and uh but he didn't answer

questions. Instead, he took the fifth.

Why would the personal doctor have to

take the fifth?

because it wasn't like he was being

asked, you know, HIPPA questions that

were private,

you know, private medical things. Um, it

looked like he was quite aware

that if he answered honestly, there

would be some some liability there for

somebody, either his boss, you know,

either Biden or him or the family. So,

let's add the let's add the uh Biden's

doctor to the list of things that are

probably exactly what they look like.

It's probably exactly what you think

that he was in on it. He knew that Biden

was degraded. He decided for whatever

reason that he wasn't going to make a

deal big deal of it and he just went

with it.

But how much of that is because people

like John Brennan told the public that

Trump was Hitler and so that the only

thing that mattered was that Trump

didn't get back in office.

Probably everybody's was in infected by

the same problem which may have started

from Brennan.

Um, well, speaking of justice, do you

remember Douglas Mackey?

So, he was the the fellow who went by

the online name Ricky Vaughn

and he was convicted

um in 2023

because he said on a meme that said that

the voting was for Democrats, the voting

was the day after the election.

Now, it was a joke and it was a meme,

but he was convicted.

Convicted for breaking a law which would

be trying to interfere with an election.

It was a meme, a joke.

But here's the good news. The uh second

circuit court of appeals just threw out

his conviction. Just threw it out. And

the reason they gave for throwing out

the conviction, there was no evidence

that he did it for any reason other than

it was funny.

There was no evidence

that it was a crime

because you would have to intend it. You

would have to intend that it misleads

people.

And there was no evidence apparently

during the trial that he got convicted

for. There was no evidence that he ever

intended it as anything but a meme or a

joke. So he's a free man. Good for him.

Yeah. And it reminds us of just how

dangerous it was to just be a Trump

supporter during that period

because people were just being targeted

for destruction. Wouldn't you say? How

many of you think that my cancellation

is because of what I said versus I was

just, you know, targeted as being a

Trump supporter and they used whatever

whatever they could use. Well, I don't

know. But I will tell you that zero

Republicans canled me.

None. Zero.

Zero black Republicans. Zero. Not a not

a single Republican said, "I won't talk

to you or I won't book you on a podcast

or I won't buy your stuff." None. Do Do

you think that Republicans somehow are

such bad people that they can't tell

what horrible things I thought or said?

No. Actually, they looked at what I

actually thought and said and didn't see

a problem because nobody disagreed with

what I said. Nobody left or right. They

just use it as an excuse to cancel me.

So Douglas Mackey and a lot of us who

got all kinds of you know public attacks

sometimes physically sometimes people

got you know um what do you call it? Uh

SL what do you call swat swat swatted?

Um, if you look at the abuse that

Republicans were Trump haters or Trump

supporters took during the last 10

years,

we we had careers destroyed, reputations

destroyed, the January 6 people put in

jail. Um, if you wore a MAGA hat

outside, you got beaten up.

And the January 6 thing was the ultimate

that they just, you know, massively

started jailing the most ardent

supporters of the president without ever

asking them why they were there to

protest in the first place. Was it

because they knew that Trump lost and

they wanted him to be president anyway?

No. Probably not one person had that

thought. Did we ever see in the news

what they were thinking? Which would be

easy to determine. You could just bring

a few of them into a room and say, "What

were you thinking?" And they would say,

"Well, it looked to us like the election

was irregular and we wanted uh and not

to be certified until somebody in charge

looked at it and determined that it was

a good election."

Nobody's ever reported that.

They've never reported the truth about

that story.

And then of course there was the whole

white supremacy thing and DEI so that

people like me could be targeted for

being what? Just white and being alive.

So

um I'm uh and and now the ICE officers

are being attacked, you know, violently.

So, it's really easy. I feel like I fell

into a a trap that because these things

happen you know one at a time and

sometimes it doesn't affect me

personally and you know then few weeks

go by and there's a different situation

and you don't like any of them but you

don't realize that collectively they

create

uh a story

that I don't know how historians are

going to deal with it in the future

because the truth is that half of the

country

got weaponized against the other half.

And it was a dark dark time. And we're

not necessarily out of it because, you

know, we're having this little golden

era because Trump's in office. I don't

know what happens when he leaves. I

don't know what happens unless there's

another strong Republican there. Do we

just go back to this reign of terror

where just waking up and being a

Republican makes it dangerous to be an

American? Is that what's going to

happen?

I don't know. Um

but apparently uh I saw Joshua Steinman

made an observation that the uh

deportations

may have made the traffic in LA really

manageable.

Now,

um I guess it's just a fact that there

are mass deportion deportations in

effect in LA. And also the traffic is

the lightest it's been in anybody's

recent memory. Are those related or is

it just because this is the peak

vacation

period of the year? Is it just maybe

people are on vacation?

I don't know. Might be a little of both.

Um

I saw a there was a viral clip from Sean

Ryan's podcast. He was talking to

journalist Nick Bryant who believes that

uh

the reason the Epstein case is being

covered up is because it would destroy

the entire operational system of the

government if they revealed it because

the operational system of the government

is that it's run by blackmail.

Did how many of you buy into that

narrative that the reason that we can't

know about the Epstein truth is that we

would learn that the entire government

is a blackmail operation and maybe

always has been and maybe all of them

are.

Yeah, if you remember the stories from

uh Jed Garoover

and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no

historian, but don't we know for sure

that Jed Garoover

was controlling the government with

blackmail?

We know that as a fact, right?

What exactly changed since Jar Hoover's

time? Anything? Did any did any laws

make that go away? Is there a new system

in place to prevent people from getting

blackmailed? I don't believe so. So, if

it worked for Jed Garoover, why would

you ever imagine that people stop doing

it? It's probably the most effective

thing that anything that happens in our

government.

But I'm not willing to say that's the

only reason that you're not seeing the

uh the Epstein stuff. Uh I believe that

one of the things that Trump said, which

rings true, is there might be a lot of

names associated with Epstein, and Trump

would be one of those names that uh are

not implicated to any crimes.

But as soon as you made that public,

then every single person he talked to

who returned a phone call would look

like a you know horrible sex criminal.

So you would destroy maybe I don't know

maybe a hundred people's lives would be

completely destroyed who didn't deserve

it because they would have no criminal

activities in their on their resume.

But they had some contact with EP

Epstein maybe before they knew what he

was up to. So would that be a good

enough reason to uh to not release the

files?

I hate to say it, but it would be

because that would very much be a case

of well, you don't you don't throw away

a 100 people's lives and their families

and everything else. You don't throw

away a hundred people's lives because

the public has a right to see some

files.

I wouldn't go that far. Suppose

suppose

that the Trump administration

is uh very serious about protecting the

country and protecting the Republican,

you know, view of what how things should

be. And they realize that if they

release the Epstein files, it could

destroy the entire government, maybe

bring down every government, you know,

not just the current one, but maybe all

the ones in the past. Um, if we found

out what was really going on, what would

be the right play for Trump?

Now, this is just speculation,

hypothetical, but suppose

that revealing the full story about

Epstein would crash the United States as

a as a government. Like, we would just

lose everything. Is that possible? It's

totally possible. It's totally possible

that if we found out we were a blackmail

operation,

um, and always were,

it's totally possible it would crash the

whole country. What about if if Trump

was trying to protect some other

country,

let's say France or the UK or uh Israel

or some other ally? Would it be a good

enough reason to not tell the the

citizens of the US what the truth is if

it would destroy an ally? I mean, just

just absolutely devastate another

country.

Would that be a good enough reason to

keep it a secret?

Here's my take.

If you trust

Trump,

you have to also trust him to lie to you

when it's in your best interest.

I know it's uncomfortable,

but how many of you know that there's

something called the CIA?

Have you heard of it? If you know that

there's a CIA and you have not been

railing to completely eliminate them

from our system, then you've already

bought into the idea that your

government can lie to you.

So, don't act like you're all you're all

above it. We're not above it. I I wake

up knowing that my country has a CIA and

that their job is to not tell the truth.

I mean, it's built into the job and I

don't expect them to tell me the truth,

but I do I do expect them to keep me

safe.

So, you know, they're not going to be

perfect and there'll be some corruption

that gets into every system. But if you

trust Trump

to handle the country's interests first,

um then you should also trust him to

know when to lie to you and that when

that's in your best interest or the best

interest of the country as a whole. So

that's where I'm at. Uh to me it's

obvious that um Bino and Bondi and Cash

Patel and Trump are all lying.

I I just accept that as a fact because

they could not wink at us any harder,

could they? Wink wink. We didn't find

anything. Wink wink wink.

To me, to me, they're doing the best

they can, which is letting you know

without letting you know that they're

lying to you.

And you would have to trust that all

four of those people, because we presume

they all have some version of the truth.

I don't think they're sup I don't think

they're in the dark. I think they know

the truth. And would you trust

that all four of them with nobody

defecting cuz that's important. None of

them turned whistleblower. None of them

resigned. None of them said, "Well, I

disagree with this decision." They all

got right on the same page,

which suggests

that they probably think that the

country is better off if they just don't

let us know the full truth. Now it could

also be that there is no full truth to

find because all the records have been

scrubbed long ago. So there was nothing

to find. So it could be that they simply

have their own suspicions about you know

the data being deleted and the files

disappearing and stuff. They may have

their own suspicions

but it's also possible they don't have

any proof of any crimes that we don't

know about.

So, if they didn't have any proof,

because it'd all been removed from the

files, what are they going to do?

What what would you do?

Because it's not your job to spread

rumors or hunches.

You would unfortunately do what they

did. You'd say, "Well,

I looked at all the files and I didn't

see anything

to show you."

Anyway, so um my current take is that

I'm going to trust that the four of them

are more patriots than weasels

because I don't think any of them lack

bravery. Would you agree with me on

that? Would you would you say that the

four of them, Trump, Bondi, Patel, and

Bino,

they don't lack bravery.

So they're not afraid.

They're probably protecting us. Now, is

that the most generous take you could

ever imagine? Probably. But have have

those four people earned earned a little

extra trust?

And the answer is yes. Yes, I have. Now,

does that mean I'm right? I don't know.

But you know, you have to take a you

have to take a position because you have

to live in this world and you're going

to have to accept some interpretation as

more likely than the other. The I I feel

like the most likely interpretation

is that they know it would be bad for

the country to be fully disclosing what

they know.

Um it doesn't mean that they're bad

people. could be it could mean the

opposite that they're protecting us, but

I don't know.

Maybe someday we'll find that out. Um,

as Alex Jones says and others have said,

maybe the other the other possibility is

that Trump found it really useful to

have all that blackmail for himself.

So, let's say you wanted to do a deal

with some other country that's an ally.

Wouldn't it be useful if that ally was

fully knowledgeable that you knew

everything in the Epstein

file and if you wanted to, you could

release it. You you could leak it or you

could announce it. Wouldn't that make

you very flexible when dealing with the

United States? Yes, it would.

So, one possibility is that once uh

Trump found out what the actual

blackmail was all about,

and we have no evidence that he did

this, by the way. I'm just This is more

of a what if. Um

wouldn't it make sense for him to use it

instead of ruining the asset? Because

imagine how valuable that asset would

be.

What if I what if it felt like the

difference between getting the Abraham

Accords done and not I'm I'm not saying,

you know, Israel's the target or

anything like that. I'm just saying

there are things that are way bigger way

bigger than what Epstein knew or videoed

or or blackmailed about. What if

um keeping that blackmail alive is what

allows Trump to get a peace deal between

Ukraine and and Russia, which I don't

think is going to happen anytime soon.

But what if it did?

Wouldn't you be better off if he didn't

tell you and just used that leverage and

got got a peace deal for the world that

kept us out of World War II and a

nuclear holocaust?

I don't know. I I wouldn't feel bad

about it. So, we'll probably never know

what the truth is, but let's see.

Um,

so the uh apparently there are several

uh healthc care organizations. I saw

this on a post by the vigilant fox who's

a real good follow on X. If you're not

following the Vigilant Fox, you might be

missing a lot of stories, but um so RFK

Jr. had uh said that the people um kids

and pregnant women should not be getting

the COVID vaccination.

Now, you probably said to yourself,

well, I'm pretty sure the science

strongly indicates that it doesn't make

sense for pregnant women and children,

young children, to get the shot.

But you might be wrong. According to the

American Academy of Pediatrics, the

American College of Physicians, the

American Public Health Asso Association,

and the Infectious Diseases Society of

America, because they all got together

and they are filing a federal lawsuit

against Kennedy

um for banning the COVID vaccine

from kids and pregnant women. Now, do

you think that they have the data to

back up that lawsuit?

Because the reason for banning it was

the data.

Is there two sets of data? One that says

it's a great idea and one that says it's

not. How in the world is this even

a decision?

Is there really just two completely

different worlds of data? And one says

that, "Oh yeah, give these to those

pregnant women for sure." And the other

says, "Whatever you do, don't give it to

pregnant women." What? How is it even

possible? Well, the thing that you would

have to wonder about is are these four

associations heavily funded by big

pharma? H I wonder. And is it really

just big pharma trying to increase their

revenue and they're doing it indirectly

through these, you know, organizations

that look, they look to us like they're

legit, right? If I told you that the

American Academy of Pediatrics

decided that it was something was safe

for children, wouldn't you automatically

think, well,

doesn't they don't sound like criminals

to me. It's the American Academy of

Pediatrics.

So, if I were a big pharma, I would use

my clout with big organizations that I

fund or I fund maybe speaking fees for

people in the organizations, that sort

of thing. And I would use them to go

after RFK Jr.

um so that it didn't look like it was

me.

I don't know if that's what's happening,

but that's how I would see the world.

Um, Christy Gnome,

head of homeland security, uh, said that

after the Maui fires and, uh, while

Biden was in charge of FEMA,

I don't know if I believe this, but one

in six survivors of the Maui fires had

to trade sexual favors for basic

supplies to survive.

Do you believe that

one in six?

Now I assume that we're not counting men

in that. So

if you eliminate men, you know, there

might have been some gay men or whatever

who were offering sex for food. But it

feels like it'd be more like one in

three. If one in six survivors, but

let's say half of them are women, half

of them are men, wouldn't that suggest

since mostly the women would be offering

the

uh sex for supplies?

I don't know. I'm not buying it. One and

three.

[Music]

Does that sound right to you?

You know, it's it's a horrible world,

but one in three and we're just hearing

about it.

I don't know. Oh, the article says one

in six women. I'm seeing in the

comments.

Um, what I see is one in six survivors.

So, that's the quote I got from the

news. One in six survivors.

So, I don't know. I'm going to say I

don't believe that one.

It if it happened to even one person,

it's horrible. So, you know, let me let

me make sure that I'm not minimizing the

potential of how bad that was, but

seems a little exaggerated.

Um, Marjorie Taylor Green is wondering

about Galain Maxwell's Little Black Book

that has over 2,000 names in it, we

believe, and that would include the rich

and the powerful. And I guess that her

little black book was sealed by the

court as part of her legal defense

there. But this would be a perfect

example of

um if there are 2,000 names in her book

and she was known to be a, you know, big

networker.

Uh how many of the 2,000 names committed

any kind of a crime?

How would you like to be somebody that

she met at a party and you traded phone

numbers and you didn't know anything

about any bad behavior and next thing

you know you're being outed in the news

for being in her little black book?

That would be pretty bad. So I guess I

would disagree with Margerie Taylor

Green that the uh Galain Maxwell's

Little Black Book should be made public.

Because people would just draw

conclusions and all it would be would be

a name and a phone number or an email

address and we would go nuts saying,

"Well, look who's in that book. Look

what people did. We're just seeing the

flight information to the island."

I assume

that there were people who went to the

island and committed no crimes

whatsoever. I assume so.

But don't we treat it like they all did?

Like everybody who was on his, you know,

flight thing, anybody who was ever on

his plane, anybody who ever whispered in

his ear at a party like Trump did, don't

we use that to say, well, you know,

there you go, they must have been

involved in that bad behavior.

So, yeah, that'd be a little uh dicey to

release those names.

Um, here is something interesting. Um,

so, uh, Hakeim Jeff,

Democrat, uh, he would be the minority

leader, I guess. Um,

he says he trusts Democrats to run the

next election legally and appropriately

in the Democrat managed states. But he

believes that the Republican managed

states, the states where the Republicans

were handling the election in those

states, he doesn't trust them.

So, do you realize what a big deal that

is?

We've been the whole January 6 thing

depends entirely

on the question of whether our elections

are uh unriggable

because if they're unriggable

then the people involved in um you know

storming the capital that day should

have known that the election was

pristine because they're unriggable

and therefore it would look a lot like

an insurrection.

Because hey, there's nothing to complain

about the election. It's unriggable.

And the Democrats on the news, who are

all

have been telling us with a straight

face that there is no way that the

election was anything but factually good

in 2020. And now the same are

telling us that they think the

Republicans can rig an election in their

states.

Really? So you think the Republicans can

do that,

but that the Democrats can't or

wouldn't?

That is a complete

surrender on the question of whether we

know for sure our elections are rigable

or unriggable.

If the if everybody from Rosie O'Donnell

to, you know, I think Hillary Clinton

said it at one point and now Hakee Jeff

is saying it, they're saying out loud

that they that they believe the

elections could be rigged by Republicans

and it sort of implies they could do it

without getting caught. Now, they don't

say that. They don't say the part about

they could do it without getting caught.

But why would Republicans or Democrats

or anybody attempt to rig something

if they didn't have a really good way to

get away with it?

It's not it's not going to be like if

you knew enough about the system to have

a way to rig it, wouldn't you know

enough about the system to know whether

they could easily catch you or not?

you know, wouldn't you say, "Well,

here's all the ways they could catch us,

so if we can't get around this, we won't

do it." So, of course, the Democrats

have now admitted that it was possible

that any election was rigged and we

don't know it.

Well, Tom Cotton has introduced the bill

to uh make it easier to mine rare earth

minerals in the US, which as you know um

for for whatever reason that I don't

understand u mining for rare earth

minerals is way more ecologically

damaging and dangerous than a lot of

different things. So Tom Cotton's bill

would make it easier for uh a number of

these uh environmental laws to be looked

at individually and if it makes sense to

be uh let's say uh to do a workaround to

those. Now why did it take so long for

this?

Is there something I don't know about

this story?

I feel like we should have, you know,

had this bill a long time ago. It's not

even passed. It's just introduced.

So, again,

yeah, I I can't I can't give Congress

full, you know, full credit for doing

what makes sense because they haven't

voted on it yet. Who knows if they will.

Um, and why did it take so long? Haven't

we been talking about China and their

rare earth mineral monopoly for now

years? It's been years, right? And just

now they're coming around. Hey, I've got

an idea.

Why Why don't we make it easier to do it

in the US? Yes. Yeah. Why don't you do

that?

All right.

Um Trump had uh the leaders of five

African nations over at the White House

and uh he declared Trump did that it's

uh time to benefit Africa by trading

with them as opposed to just sending

them money. So the US aid thing is

winding down and some say that that was,

you know, uh, keeping people alive in

other countries. And others say it was

just a CIA cutout and any anything that

looked like charity was really just a

trick to get control over the area. Um,

but uh, Trump is saying, "No, how about

now?

You might be better off if we just trade

with you." So, let's do that instead.

So, that's a new way.

So, I saw that Trump took a bunch of

questions at it at that meeting

yesterday, but I'm very impressed how

tight his answers are to some kinds of

questions. So, I'm just going to read

you a few of his answers.

Um he was asked about Harvard and going

after Harvard, the government going

after them for being anti-Semitic and

stuff. So here's what Trump said. He

said, quote, "Harvard's been very bad,

totally anti-Semitic, and yeah, they'll

absolutely reach a deal, saying that

they'll come up with some kind of deal

with the government." Now, isn't that a

tight answer? Harvard's been very bad,

totally anti-Semitic. Yeah, they'll

absolutely reach a deal. nothing else to

say. I love how tight that is. And then

Peter Ducey

asked about uh the fact that Cory Booker

and Alex Padilla uh want the uh border

police and ICE officers to have uh IDs

so you can tell who they are and to not

cover their faces.

And uh so Trump says quote uh they

wouldn't be saying that if they didn't

hate our country and they obviously do

what

now I don't believe that you can know

what people are thinking and that you

can know that they hate the country

but but the fact that that's his only

answer to that and it's so tight. They

wouldn't be saying that if they didn't

hate our country and they obviously do.

Next question.

It does it does seem

that they act as if they hate the

country because if you're trying to stop

the people who are stopping the the

flood of immigrants coming across the

border, it doesn't really look like

you're on the same side as the country.

It feels like you're against your own

country. And why would you be against

your own country? Well, Trump suggests

that they hate the country. Do you think

that's true? Do you think that Cy Booker

and Alex Padilla hate the country?

Well, you know, if there were some way

to find out for sure, I'd probably bet

against it. But it's such a good

response. Yeah, they wouldn't do it

unless they hate the country. Obviously,

they do.

Um,

Peter Ducey asked Trump if he wanted to

see uh James Comey and John Brennan

behind bars.

Now, imagine all the ways that Trump

could answer that wrong. Would you like

to see Brennan and Comey behind bars?

Brennan and Comey are people who tried

to put Trump out of office if not behind

bars.

And what's he say? Uh, I think they're

very dishonest people. I think they're

crooked as hell and maybe they have to

pay a price for that. But he acted like

he didn't know the details.

So,

pretty tight. Good answer.

Remember, you don't have to you don't

have to agree with his answer. I'm just

impressed at how tight they are. No word

salad there.

Um, Trump has threatened 200% tariffs,

according to the New York Post, on uh

pharmaceuticals

if they're being made in other

countries.

But he might wait a year and a half

before imposing that to give them time

to try to reshore it in the United

States. But a 200% tariff on

pharmaceuticals come in. Now obviously

the purpose of that is to encourage them

to move to the US to manufacture that

stuff. I don't know if they can do that

in a year and a half. And I don't know

how this will

not raise prices.

It doesn't seem likely to me that this

will have no impact on prices. So you

might see your some of your

pharmaceutical drug drugs go up in

price.

Um, speaking of which,

have I told you how expensive my uh my

testosterone blockers are?

Oh my god.

With health care. This is with health

care. So, this is not the full price.

I paid $1,400 for a month of supply.

$1,400.

Now, that's with healthcare. Apparently,

the real price might have been I think

it was like $10,000

for just for something that you would

need every month for years.

What what

how would somebody who didn't have a lot

of money even afford that? I I guess

there are alternatives that don't cost

that much but have side effects.

So, you would have to pick the one that

had side effects and not good side

effects either because you wouldn't be

able to afford the good stuff. Now, I I

sort of blundered into it. I didn't know

I didn't know it was the good stuff

until I got it, but wow, does it work

well. I mean, that's my experience. Um,

but can you imagine it? $1,400 a month

for a person with a normal income and a

normal job. Just like put that right on

top of everything else. Unbelievable.

Anyway,

um according to a news nation, Trump is

considering some uh harsher sanctions on

Russia or the Congresses or somebody

else. But I asked Grock, what kind of

sanctions are left? like what are they

even thinking about? And Grock, this is

not the smart new Grock, but the old the

old Grock,

um said it would be maybe potentially

secondary sanctions for any financial

institute that's dealing with Russia or

maybe a 500% tariff on any country

buying Russian oil or natural gas or

uranium. Um

but how are we going to do that? We're

just going to slap a 500% tariff on

China and India.

That That's not going to happen.

Holy cow.

Wow. I'm seeing somebody else's drug

expense.

Wow.

So, to me, it doesn't look like Oh, and

then the other thing would be to seize

Russia's 300 billion. I guess we have

frozen Russian assets and then use them

for arms purchases in Ukraine. Well, I

don't believe that any of these harsher

sanctions

are practical.

I don't believe we're going to put a

500% tariff on everything that comes

from China and India because they buy

gas from Russia.

Does that sound like something we could

actually do and get away with? I don't

think so.

and uh penalizing the banks

maybe, but wouldn't we have done that

already if there were no problem with

doing that? So, I I'm kind of thinking

that maybe there are any harsher

sanctions.

There's a story in Newsmax that Russia

is turning Ukrainian teenagers into

unwitting uh suicide bombers.

So the one the way they do that would be

be they'd say, "I'll give you $1,000

if you go do some uh let's say some uh

what would they call it? uh to vandalize

a police station in Ukraine. So imagine

you're uh you're a teenager in Ukraine

and some Russian contact offers you

$1,000 to go vandalize a Ukrainian

police station. Well, it would be pretty

hard to turn down $1,000 if you're a

teenager and all you had to do is do

some graffiti or something on a police

station and then they give you a

backpack and say, "All right, here are

your supplies for vandalizing." And then

when you get to the police station, you

realize that the backpack they gave you

was explosives and they just detonated

it. So, they basically just turned these

teenagers into suicide bombers, but they

don't know they're suicide bombers. They

think they're just doing some other

thing for money.

And uh but apparently some of them maybe

they're just flipping and uh they don't

mind, you know, they're not being killed

themselves, but they're doing some work

for Russia. I'll tell you these are

the the

it's hard to root for Ukraine if their

own teenagers are attacking them at

least in small numbers. Well, the uh ex

CEO of X Oh, that's funny. the ex CEO of

X who's the let's call her the ex CEO

Linda Yakarino

it's about X and uh Elon Musk said a

little bit less

something like thank you for all the

contributions

so I don't think they left on the best

of terms, just a guess. And we don't

know exactly what the uh

we don't know exactly what the problem

was or why she left,

but we do know that the timing

was after uh Grock got accused of being

anti-Semitic.

So, it could be, although we'd only be

guessing, that she just didn't like that

kind of heat and didn't think she needed

it in her life. Maybe. Um, it could be

that she's got some other opportunity

that she hasn't mentioned. Maybe. Uh it

could be it was just too hard to work

with Elon Musk because

uh as much as we love him, I don't know

that I would want him to be my boss cuz

he'd be pretty tough. So we don't know

why, but she's uh on her way.

and uh

the US Secret Service suspended six of

the agents who were working at that

Butler event where Trump got shot in the

ear. So after the long investigation,

they decided that there were six people

who should have done something different

than what they did. Six.

That's kind of hard to believe, isn't

it? that for one event there would be

six individuals who all didn't do their

job at the same time and it was enough

that they would get um at least for a

while they got suspended from 10 to 42

days

I don't know about that

u I think that was from CBS news

according to CNBC

Germany

has agreed to import more liqufied

natural gas from uh from America. And uh

now the US is officially Germany's

largest supplier of LNG.

So I assume that that had been Russia in

the past.

And so I I I see about one story every

day where some country agreed to buy

more of our stuff,

often energy, because that's the easiest

thing. Everybody needs some. Um so

that's uh that goes to uh Trump's

benefit.

Um I saw a uh interesting article by

Orin McIntyre who was at the Blaze

and he said uh the right is facing a

serious problem about how to handle its

intellectuals

and I thought the right has

intellectuals

who are these intellectuals

and what is this problem?

Well I I think I'll just read you his

opinion and then I'll give you mine.

Right. So he says

Orin McIntyre says uh the right is

facing a serious problem about how to

handle its intellectuals. The left has

the university where it can assign smart

people goodpaying high status jobs where

they can explore and cultivate ideas.

But the right has no similar

institutions. So right-wing

intellectuals end up in think tanks or

content production.

This creates a the public intellectual

who comes onto the scene with a burst of

insight.

But content production is a grind. Even

if you're saying intelligent things,

eventually the need to say something

about everything leaves you little time

to think deeply about anything.

Academics are also not really equipped

to be public figures. They are not built

to do battle with the hostile public on

a regular basis. So, what I'm reading

into this is that if you get on the uh

the grind of having to say something

about everything

that you just don't have the ability to,

you know, do what you might be able to

do in a university, which is take some

time to really think through something

more deeply.

But I have a completely different view.

My view is that you should not look at

the smart people on either side as

individuals.

Rather, you should see them as a system

or one intelligence.

What I see on the left is uh

that their system of how to deal with

smart people on the left is that they

are minimized and that the left surfaces

the worst takes from the dumbest people.

Now you've seen it, right? The the

people on the left are not being driven

by their smartest people. I mean very

clearly

they are literally they they have some

kind of upside down system where the

loudest most prominent voices are are

actually their dumbest people the

Jasmine Crockett etc. Right? And you see

it consistently

if if somebody's really dumb and they're

a Democrat you're going to hear from

them a lot.

Okay. But it seems to me that the

smartest people on the right operate

like one brain.

You know, your own brain wrestles with

things and disagrees with itself all the

time, right? You you have that

experience. If it's just you thinking

about a new topic in the news, you

probably go back and forth in your own

mind. Well, could it be this? Could it

be that? What if it's this? What if it's

that?

the political right. And I'm not going

to use the word intellectuals. I'm going

to say the smartest people. All right?

So, I'm going to include like your

Charlie Kirks, your Steve Bannons, your

Tucker Carlson's. Nobody would say that

they're intellectuals per se. They're

just some of the many smart people on

the right. But what happens when the

right disagrees,

which has happened a few times recently,

um the conversation is all public and we

all look at each other and uh you know,

I might be looking at what Charlie Kirk

says. I might be looking at uh Jack

Pasabek, what he says. I might be

looking at a couple of other podcasters.

You know, Me, maybe I'm looking at what

Megan Kelly says. and and then I'm

forming my opinion which is informed by

all of their opinions

and I might make some mistakes. I might

make some corrections, but overall,

doesn't it seem to you that the right

has a a system in which you get to see a

pretty good debate over what's real and

what's not and uh they don't all agree,

but that you get to a point where where

the smartest people seem to have

surfaced. And there might be more than

one. So there might be smart people that

say we should do A and smart people say

we should do B. I think that happened

with the big beautiful bill that you saw

not a smart opinion and a dumb opinion.

I think you saw two smart opinions. One

smart opinion is we have to deal with

the deficit. That's just got to be top

priority. And another smart opinion has

said, "We will, but not on this bill

because we have these other priorities."

But trust us, we're going to get to it.

We understand that that's top priority.

Now,

to me, that's a system that is really,

really good. And part of it is driven by

the fact that we know that Trump

listens.

I don't know how he does it. Um, you

presumably it's people talking in his

ear that did the listening. But Trump is

paying attention to all these people I

mentioned plus, you know, dozens more.

And because he pays attention, it kind

of makes your game a little bit better.

You know, you you know that somebody

important might be listening to you. So

you kind of make sure you think it

through as well as you can. So, I would

argue that it's not so much the grind of

producing

because I do this every day. I mean,

seven days a week and I don't feel it a

grind at all. In fact, you know, the

more I interact with content, the more I

see the connections.

So, I would argue that the right has

developed a system somewhat

accidentally. I don't think it was

conscious in which the smartest people

act like one brain

that often has more than one opinion,

but the smartest opinions eventually

bubble to the top and consistently so.

And on the left, the least capable

thinkers,

for whatever reason, bubble up to the

top. It's a big big difference. So

that's my take but uh I appreciate Orin

McIntyre's

uh raising well actually a perfect

perfect example. So

you know we might have a different

opinion of of this intellectual stuff

but we both get to say our thing and

then you get to decide which one bubbles

to the top.

All right. Um,

so Axios is saying that uh that the top

mega influencers are warning that uh

this this Epstein stuff is going to

cause a loss of trust in Trump.

Well, we already talked about that, but

do you believe that? Do you believe that

the top MAGA influencers are going to

lose trust? Maybe a little bit

temporarily, but I'll bet they'll get

over it because the alternative is to

trust Democrats. Not much of an

alternative. So, I think I think a

disagreement looks completely different

on the right. It doesn't look like it's

a game ender.

We just go forward with a little

disagreement about what we just saw.

That's it. It It doesn't It doesn't

drive the MAGA apart. It doesn't it's

not some long-term beginning of the end.

It's just we recognize that there are

other smart people who have a different

opinion and that's it. And then we allow

that and then we go forward.

Um,

the College Fix, which is a publication,

um, has an article that says, uh, that

college grads are now, uh, unprepared

and more unpopular with hiring managers

than ever. Now, doesn't that feel like a

story you heard every year of your life,

for your entire life, that the young

people are worse than they've ever been?

And I thought to myself, if it's true

every single year that the young people

are worse, you worse character, they're

lazier, they have the wrong priorities,

etc. If every year, I remember when I

was the college graduate, I'm positive

that we were being blamed for being the

worst generation of all time. You

hippies, get a haircut. You've ruined

everything. You've ruined America. So,

do you believe

even though there are plenty of examples

and you may have seen plenty of them

yourself, do you believe

that the recent batch of uh job

applicants are the worst we've ever

seen?

Do you believe that?

I I always have this view that the

people who matter in commerce and

science is maybe 1%.

And everybody else is just keeping the

lights on and that it doesn't matter

that much how many bad ones there are

because they weren't moving the the

needle anyway. But if the top 1%

is as good as they've always been, and I

would argue that they're better than

they've ever been, better because we

have more people to choose from, and now

they have AI tools to boost their

intelligence, etc. As long as our top 1%

is the best it's ever been, everybody

else is just making sure that, you know,

the garbage gets picked up and the

lights stay on and that's fine.

So, I'm not too worried, but maybe I

should be.

Um, you know how I keep telling you that

there all these breakthroughs in battery

technology?

I saw a uh a counter to that

um on what's up with that. Willis

Echenbach

is uh did an article saying that one one

of the recent stories I told you about

about a new battery that could charge in

you know very short time. Um that

there's no practical way to do it. It's

just something you can do in the lab.

But if you wanted to do that fast

charging in the real world, you would

have to vastly change the entire

charging network in ways that would be

impractical to change them.

So, just be aware that whenever you hear

these stories about amazing

breakthroughs in battery technology,

they might be a little exaggerated and

they may might not be so practical to

actually roll out in our lifetime.

Um,

so here's another difference between uh

Democrats and Republicans. I always tell

you that Democrats get the incentives

wrong, that they don't understand people

for some some reason. I mean, it's

weird. Like, who could live in the world

their whole their whole life surrounded

by people

and then not understand people at least

a little bit?

So, here's an example.

um compared to the Republicans. So, uh

Brooke Rollins, the a psych secretary,

was noting that um the new rules about

Medicaid that were part of the big

beautiful bill, which would cause people

to need to work if they were

able-bodied, they would have to work to

get their health care, to get their

Medicaid. Now, at the same time,

Republicans are doing a mass

deportation, which is taking workers

away from uh employers. At the same time

that the Medicaid rule should, if

everything goes right incentive-wise,

make people who were, you know, sleeping

on the couch say, "All right, all right.

I guess I'll take these jobs have now

been opened up by the deportations." So

that would be an example of two policies

that are complimentary.

Here we're getting rid of the people. I

don't want to say get rid of because

that's

that's sort of um demeaning, but rather

there's a mass deportation of workers

that opens up a bunch of jobs that can

be filled by people who want to keep

their Medicaid and all they needed was a

job. Very compatible systems, right?

Now, let's compare that to the Democrats

who want to push climate change and

affordability at the same time.

Is is the climate change agenda,

you know, which would suck up tremendous

amount of resources and put them in more

expensive forms of energy and would

decrease your ability to get the less

expensive energy? Uh, is that compatible

with we want to make things more

affordable? No, it's not compatible. So

once again, you see the Republicans

build this beautiful system where they

understand the incentives of human

beings and then they build a system that

matches those incentives. And then you

look at the Democrats and it looks

random. It just looks random. Like it's

like they hadn't thought through

anything.

So look for that pattern. You'll see it.

Well, according to the Public Library of

Science, there's an article there saying

that loneliness predicts poor mental and

physical health outcomes. Are you

surprised that people who are lonely

um it affects their mental health and

physical health? Now, you know that I

usually say, well, maybe that's

backwards correlation. Maybe people who

have bad mental and physical health have

trouble making friends. So, they would

end up being lazier. Not lazier,

lonelier.

So, it probably works both ways, but I'm

totally willing to believe that

loneliness can cause you less good

health.

Um, and I'm going to offer you a

solution to that.

Um many of you

come to watch this show every day and

you see that uh the reason I do it live

is because of this loneliness factor.

Don't you feel as if I'm sort of your

morning friend who visits with you every

morning

in the in the comments that are going by

live right now. I know you feel that

because you tell me that all the time

and I have very consciously. It's it's

not an accident. I've uh presented

myself as your

daily friend

because you are my friends, but you've

also made friends with the other people

in the comments.

And before I do the show that you're

watching, you know, my regular live

stream, uh, for my subscribers on

Locals, I do about a half an hour of a

pre-show.

Now, I used to have a little bit of a

resistance to doing the pre-show because

people weren't listening to me.

I, you know, all I'm doing is preparing

for the show and getting my coffee and I

go down to my little putting room

downstairs and I shoot three putts to

see how the day will go. But if I look

at the comments,

90% of them are people talking to other

people in the comments and they've made

friends with each other. So, they don't

know each other except in the comments,

although some of them have actually

gotten together. Um, but they they feel

this community of people who are just

there because they're lonely.

And it's really not about what content

that I give them during the pre-show.

It's really about just creating this

little uh forum that people who would

otherwise be sitting there lonely

um they get to interact with the other

people. And it took me a long time to

figure out why when I first fire up the

pre-show, which is also a live stream,

it took it took me a long time to figure

out why everybody just said hi to each

other. So, for the first 10 minutes,

it's nothing but good morning, how you

doing? Good morning. And not just to me,

but they're saying good morning to the

other chatters as they see them coming

online. It's like, "Hey, magician, you

know, hey, hey, this or that." Magician

is one of the one of the uh common

users. Common as in every day. Um,

so

here here's what I'm going to add to it.

Uh, loneliness is definitely dangerous

and uh I've accidentally created a model

where people can feel a little less

lonely every day.

So, if you were not taking it in that

vein, well, maybe you could because I'll

be here every day as long as I can. And

uh you might be some people that uh you

want to say good morning to every

morning and you might feel a little bit

less lonely. All right, that's all I got

for you. I'm going to talk again

privately to my local subscribers who

are beloved as you know and uh the rest

of you I'll see tomorrow. Thanks for

joining. Sorry I went so long. All

right, locals coming at you privately

in 30 seconds.