Episode 2908 CWSA 07/25/25

on your stocks if you have any.

They're up a little bit.

We'll see.

Tesla is up a little bit.

Let me get your comments working and then we got a show.

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

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

It's true.

But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your experience this morning to levels that nobody can even understand with her tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is a copper among your glass of tankered shells, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.

The dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better, especially the weekend.

It's called the simultaneous.

It happens now.

Go.

Oh, that's what I needed.

Now everything is perfect.

I wonder if there's any science that they could have saved some money by just asking Scott.

Well, Eric Dolan writing for this Sai Post um says that if you show people information about congressional stock picking knowing that they can use insider information if they want and uh if you if you tell people that Congress is betting on stocks using insider information, people will trust Congress less.

That's right.

If you learn that Congress are a bunch of lying thieving weasels, you will trust them less.

You know, I don't need I don't think you need to do a study on that.

You could have just asked me.

I'll tell you.

Well, Elon Musk responded to Trump today.

Trump had said that he won't take away subsidies from Musk.

Um, he doesn't want to do that.

Uh what he wants is for all American companies to thrive.

So he's not trying to put Tesla out of business.

He wants it to thrive along with other companies.

And so he will not take away their subsidies.

And Elon Musk said the subsidies he's talking about simply do not exist.

He says, uh, Trump has already removed or put an ex expiration date on all sustainable energy support while leaving massive oil and gas subsidies untouched.

So, um, Trump has once again Trump has Trump will not take away the subsidies that don't exist.

Okay.

And uh Elon points out that SpaceX won the NASA contracts by doing a better job.

So you don't want to take away any subsidies there either.

Anyway, um apparently Tesla is going to launch the Cyber Cab um in San Francisco.

So is that what it's called?

Robo Taxi or Cyber Cab?

I can't remember.

But uh I thought to myself, is there finally a reason to go to San Francisco?

You know, I live about an hour outside of San Francisco and uh I have managed to find no reasons to go there for about five years.

There's just no reason to go there.

And I thought, wow, if I could if I could drive my car to San Francisco, find a place to park, which wouldn't be easy, and then uh then call a a cyber cab, one of the Tesla self-driving driverless cabs, wouldn't that be like a fun day out?

Wouldn't you enjoy that as just a an adventure?

Because most of you have probably never been in a self-driving car of any kind, right?

And San Francisco is sort of an interesting place to drive.

It's not the easiest.

I mean, it's not it's not Boston, but it's not the easiest either.

Um, wouldn't you enjoy driving your car to the city just just to take a driverless car ride?

I'm thinking of doing that, but probably not.

Well, let's see if you are surprised to learn that the sale of Tik Tok to an American company is not being approved by China.

So, I guess JD Vance is in charge of that.

And uh after lots of conversations, it does not look like there's a deal.

So, will uh will Trump um will he do what he said, which is if we can't buy it, he's going to close it down.

Well, he doesn't want to close it down because he would be very unpopular and it works for Republicans.

Apparently, Tik Tok was more pro.

Trump than we thought.

Maybe it was only pro Trump, but we'll see.

So, China um also is going to be meeting with the US to talk about, you know, finalizing some kind of trade deal.

And it seems to me that if China wanted to make their best trade deal and they knew that um they knew that Trump was trying to get Tik Tok purchased that they would hold off on that until it was part of a bigger deal and they could trade it for something they want such as lower tariffs.

So, China would be crazy to approve Tik Tok outside of the conversation about tariffs in general.

So, how many of you knew that?

Um, was that obvious to everybody that China would be crazy to make any kind of tick tock deal when they could just fold it into the larger negotiations?

So, no.

Uh, I don't know if it'll ever happen, but they're not going to do it outside of the larger negotiations.

They'd be crazy to do that.

Well, apparently, if you go to do a search on Google, you now see an AI summary of whatever the uh the destination links would take you to.

How many people do you think click on the destination link when they have a summary right in front of them, which is probably all they wanted?

Well, it turns out that uh 79% of the traffic is lost to the source of the news or the source of the information.

So, it looks like Google, if this, assuming this stays true, that Google would be able to rob uh all of its sources of 80% of their traffic.

Now, probably almost all of their sources depend on native traffic going to them.

So AI has found a way to destroy all information on the planet Earth like literally because if you depend on traffic coming to you directly and then it goes away.

Well then the source even if it's Wikipedia they close down because there's no way to support it.

And then what does Google link to?

Cuz Google is not the base source of information.

Google is just something that points to other places.

But they're pointing to those other places and totally putting those other places out of business.

Well, I don't know.

Maybe some of those sites will survive just on subscription.

You know, maybe the biggest ones.

But I feel like there's a risk that Google just destroyed all information.

Does that make sense?

If if the sources of the information lose their entire source of revenue, which is traffic, then Google has nobody to link to.

They'll all be gone.

And then Google's out of business.

So somehow we figured out how to destroy everything.

I believe um I didn't didn't study up on this, but uh aren't some of the AI rules now in America very lenient for the AI that's looking at author's books and deciding uh uh and and deciding whether the author gets compensated or not.

And at the moment there's no real way to do it.

So if you were to stop and say, "All right, we'll stop doing this AI until all the people who were referenced or uh were part of the training of the model can get some kind of compensation." But there's not really any way to do it.

So people ask me, Scott, now that you might live a little bit longer, things are looking good in that that domain at the moment.

um would you write another book?

And honestly, I don't even know if anybody would write another book.

I'm a little bit worried that book writing just won't be profitable because people haven't learned yet that you can get the best parts of a book just by going to AI.

Hey AI, can you summarize what people are saying about this book?

And then it pretends that it's only dealing with what people said about it.

which usually is enough.

So, the book business might go away.

Well, it's been maybe 10 years in which I've been talking about the so-called fourth generation nuclear reactors.

Now, the third generation nuclear reactors are the ones that we would build if we built one today or maybe yesterday.

Um, which have never had a meltdown.

Did you know that the the current version of nuclear power, the ones that have actually been around for I don't know the actual number, but maybe 30 years, they've never had a meltdown.

The only ones that have are the ones that were version two, generation two and before.

So, it was already pretty safe, but it was still possible theoretically for the third generation to have meltdowns.

The fourth generation has been sort of uh what would you call it an ambition um but we didn't know how to do it safely and economically but thanks to our government and I think Biden was also did a good job on this the government has created a test bed for uh testing new fuels and and new technologies because that's the hard part finding a way to rapidly test And the good news is that between private industry startups and the government being um pretty forwardl looking in terms of supporting nuclear um there are several fourth generation nuclear reactors that are near launch in the US.

Now the fourth generation doesn't have the option of melting down.

If it loses power, which is the that would be the problem for the other kind.

If it loses power, it can't control it and then you got a problem.

But these you could just turn them off and nothing would happen.

They just go on, they go off.

There's there's no risk of a meltdown.

So, we got a few of those coming online.

If you're not following that uh that industry, you probably should because with AI coming on, nuclear and AI are two things you want to be able to understand.

Well, Joe Biden got a $10 million advance to write a book.

Uh we believe that uh the autopan will be writing the book.

Wouldn't that be funny?

Um, he should write a book if he wants people to actually read it.

He you should have a co-author.

Uh, the book is Joe Biden's presidential successes written by Joe Biden and Auto Pen.

That would be a pretty good joke.

Auto Yeah.

Or auto pen.

Well, he'd better hurry and get his money because I I don't know if he's going to be around long enough to say that he wrote the book.

He might be the first author who has literally a ghost, a ghost writer, you know, an actual ghost because, well, you know, I don't need to I don't need to finish that joke.

You were already there.

Um, and I was also imagining imagine being the ghost writer, you know, the human ghost writer for Biden.

Obviously, he's not writing it himself, but can you imagine having to spend all that time with him and listening to all the that he he says and knowing that half of it is a lie and half of it is false memory and just ridiculousness and you're really writing a book about the most unsuccessful president of all time, but he wants you to write it like he really triumphed.

Oh my god, how could you possibly take that job as a ghostriter?

Well, according to Breitbart News, I learned today that Fort Bliss, so the military base Fort Bliss uh is going to be used for a migrant detention center.

Migrant detention center for Fort Bliss.

Huh.

I wonder if I could call upon all of my experience as a cartoonist to make a funny joke about Fort Bliss being used as a migrant detention center.

Think think.

Okay, I got it.

It makes sense that you'd put them in Fort Bliss because immigrants is bliss.

Anybody?

Anybody?

Immigrants is bliss.

No.

All right.

Moving on.

Moving on.

Well, you remember Klaus Schwab?

He was out of the World Economic Forum, I guess it was, but he retired and then he got blamed or accused of doing a bunch of financially uh sketchy things.

But now he's being accused of ordering the falsification of research to make it appear that Brexit was detrimental to Britain's economy.

Huh.

I'm starting to think that our elites might sometimes lie to us about the obvious sometimes.

I don't trust the elites.

Um well, here's something you all need to learn.

There's a new buzzword that if you're not a finance geek, you have never heard, but you're going to hear a lot of it.

It's called CAP X.

One word, C A P X.

How many of you know what that is when it's in the news?

Well, it stands for capital expense, which is when you buy equip equipment or buildings typically to as business to uh increase your increase your business.

Basically, you're you're investing in the future by upgrading your equipment or your building.

usually.

Well, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bassent, um the America in the first six months of Trump, the capex, which is an excellent indicator of the future of the economy is way up.

So capex being up, if you were looking for good news before the weekend, that's really good news.

I look at capex and I look at um employment, you know, the unemployment rate.

Those are the things I look at to see if we'll be okay.

On top of that, of course, is the the deficit.

So, if you don't get the deficit right, you're dead.

So, those three things are what I look at the most.

capex because that also tells you how optimistic business is, which really is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If they think things will go well, they invest and that makes things go well.

So, capex is up.

Good news, people.

Um, so I I mentioned this before, but there's some implications.

So Trump has his executive orders about AI that AI can't be too woke.

In other words, it can't be too biased in in in one in one viewpoint.

Now, on the surface, you say to yourself, well, that's great.

You know, it's not going to be this biased left-wing woke BS.

On the other hand, who gets to decide what is uh what is bias?

If we don't if we don't agree what looks like being biased and what doesn't, remember, if you're a Democrat, probably, I don't know, 60% of all Democrat voters would say it's not it's not biased to say that Trump colluded with Russia.

which literally never happened, but it but probably over half of all Democrats believe it did because they heard it on the news.

And the Democrats probably would benefit if you continue to believe that.

So when Trump's in charge, will the AI companies say, "Ah, we're going to have to make this compatible with whatever Trump wants it to be, otherwise we won't get government funding and government support, and we might get taxed and sanctioned and god knows what." But what happens if a Democrat gets in office and says, "You know that executive order about bias?

Well, now we decide what bias looks like.

And then does AI have to go back and change what what AI says so that it becomes their version of unbiased?

I don't know how you can get to an agreeable place because otherwise AI will become so useless.

It just says stuff like, well, people disagree.

Uh, it's controversial.

I'd rather not answer that question.

We might be heading to the place I had predicted long ago which is if you believe that human beings would allow their AI to overrule what they believe is true, you have not spent much time around human beings.

Human beings will never accept that AI knows more than they do.

And if it told you I am AI, I am being unbiased.

Trust me, I am a super intelligence.

This is just an objective statement of fact.

But if you don't like those facts, you're going to do everything you can to scrub them out of the AI.

So super intelligence will be whatever the people in charge decide sounds intelligent.

How many of you know that I invented a word years ago that became literally part of the vocabulary?

Now, many of you have not heard it, but if you were to Google it, you'd see that I think it's in Wikipedia now, and it's defined as uh the word is confusopy.

Confusopoly.

So, it's where companies um offer products that are so complicated, you can't compare it to the competition.

For example, if you wanted to buy insurance, would you really spend all the time to see, all right, well, this one does this and th this one will solve that?

You don't really.

So, you kind of buy whatever insurance you you encounter first.

What if you wanted to get cell phone service?

For years, it's been kind of impossible to know which one to pick.

Well, all right.

This one costs a little bit more, but they've got different uh plan, and this one I can get a free phone for my family member, and it's just too complicated.

So, the reason they do that is that they're they're in a commodity business.

Insurance is insurance.

or it could be and phones are phones or they could be.

So they have to pretend that they're different and they do that by confusing you and essentially removing your incentive to really find out which one would be better for you.

So you end up saying, "Well, the Verizon store is the closest one, so I'll just get that.

I can't tell which one's better." But I noticed that um politics has become a confusopy.

Meaning that the people who are like you, if you're watching this podcast, you're probably in the top 2% of people who follow the news and try to understand the nuance of it.

There can't be more than 2%.

How many of you have had the experience of bringing up something that's just, you know, really well understood and talking to somebody who never heard of it once?

So, recently I did a uh did a conversation with um Jordan Peterson and of course that was really kind of one of the highlights of my career because I have a high opinion of his uh skills and intellect and what he's added to the world.

So, I wanted to brag about it to the people I know in real life.

And let me tell you how that experience goes.

So, you know Jordan Peterson, right?

Who?

Jordan Peterson.

You've you've heard of him, right?

No.

Never heard of him.

Okay.

Seriously, you've never heard of Jordan Peterson?

Nope.

And that's the end of my conversation because, you know, it's not going to impress anybody that I talked to somebody they never heard of.

Now, um, that applies to almost every story in the news.

Now, it's all a little too complicated.

So, the only people I can talk to about it are the very few people who follow this stuff, like most of you.

But uh in person, one person in 20 you know might be following the news closely so that you know they've made their way through the confusing part to understand something about what's going on.

But uh as I've said complexity always hides fraud.

Complexity always always hides fraud.

So if you look at our government and you realize I don't even understand how they do budgeting like what there's a recision package and it has to go to the house and then the senate and then back to the house and then back to the I don't what's going on and you're and is it 10 years or one year and is it is it making the um the budget worse or better?

You can't tell it's like impossible.

So, what do people do instead?

They default to rule of thumb kind of how do you feel?

Uh, and usually that means, well, I've always been a Democrat, so I guess I'm one now.

Well, I've always been a Republican, so I guess I'll agree with what Trump says.

Um, but we are not even close to being able to understand what's happening because both sides like to make it confusing.

Trump is sort of the master at simplification.

Um, so that's one of the reasons he broke through.

But, uh, let me give you a little, uh, persuasion lesson.

Everybody up for a little little lesson.

So, this will be kind of a p actually it's more of a lesson than how to predict.

So, those of you who have been watching me for a while might say, "Scott, how do you make predictions that are so uncanny and better than anybody who ever predicted?" Which, by the way, I think is actually true.

Um, and the answer is talent stack.

So, somewhat by coincidence and a little bit by design, I have exactly the set of skills that one would need to make good predictions.

Now, that doesn't mean I'm magic or awesome.

It just means I happen to blunder into a bunch of domains that happen to be good for predicting.

For example, if you understand persuasion, it would be easier to have seen Trump coming because he's a master persuader.

But if you didn't know, you would just think he's a big old crazy clown.

So skill number one is hypnosis andor persuasion.

If you understand those, you can predict the future because you can see who is likely to be persuaded by what.

Do you remember when AOC first burst on the scene and Republicans wanted to slap her down and say bad things about her and I said, "Oh no, you don't see this one coming.

Th this is a persuasion monster." So, yeah, she doesn't have much substance, but she has a big game.

And now, and now the Democrats are wondering if she's going to be their next presidential candidate.

So, it was easy to predict if you understood persuasion.

If you were looking at the facts, you'd say, "Well, she's not nearly nearly experienced enough and her policies don't make sense." And you said, you might have said that about mom Dany, too.

But he's persuasive.

The other another thing is you if you have experience in big organizations which as the author of Dilbert you know that I do two big organizations a bank and then a phone company but any big organization still has a lot of things in common such as ask covering and self-interest and um marketing and stuff like that.

So, I would argue that if you're part of a big organization or ever have been, you can make better predictions about what any big organization will do.

Do you remember when uh Gavin Newsome said to the people who wanted reparations, "Hey, why don't you go study that, form a study group, and come back with a recommendation?" And I told you, oh, I've seen this play before.

It's a big organization play where the top guy or woman doesn't want to make a decision.

So, they know they can just put it off forever by sending you back to study it.

So, I could predict that he was just kicking the can down the road because I had big company experience.

Um, economics, I have a background in economics and an MBA.

So when I say follow the money or h it doesn't look like that could ever make sense economically.

It allows you to predict if you understand how money and economics and profitability and all that stuff works.

capex for example and then uh I don't have any legal background but once you learn enough about how laws are created you can kind of logically guess all right you know I I think I can predict how this is going to go without being a lawyer.

So, you saw some of the news today um or yesterday, I guess, that uh a judge said that we would not be able to see the grand jury testimony.

Now, how did I predict that we would not be allowed to see it even though the administration asked for it?

Well, I don't know much about the law, but I know kind of the general concepts, and one of them is that the grand jury is not reliable enough.

It's not a it's not a place where facts are determined.

That's where that the regular trial would be that.

So you don't want to let people's hearsay and opinions and stuff get into the world if they're not really confirmed.

It'd be a big problem.

So persuasion, let's say hypnosis, big organization experience, economics, and just understanding how the laws generally works without the details allows you to make predictions.

The reason I thought of this is because the judge that denied uh uh the access to the Epstein sealed transcripts from the grand jury said quote um that her hands are tied.

Her hands are tied.

Do you remember what I taught you about hypnosis?

Hypnotists are taught, at least I was.

I don't know.

Maybe maybe your mileage might vary, but I was taught that people will say exactly what they're thinking.

Their inner thoughts will be revealed by their choice of words when they're speaking extemporaneously, like just off the top of their head.

You couldn't tell by reading what they wrote because they would put a lot of thought into that.

But if they're just speaking casually and they say something like, "My hands are tied." If you were to guess that that judge likes being tied up, you would have about a 75% chance of being right.

It's it's not guaranteed, but when you see an unusual, you know, choice of words like my hands are tied, it's almost always, you know, part of their brain just revealing their inner secrets.

And it doesn't work uh only for sexual stuff.

It would work for anything that they cared about.

That that's why I taught you that if you're looking for a lie, wait till somebody starts their sentence with well I would say because you don't say I would say if you're just talking about what you believe is true.

You would never use those words.

That's that's a reveal that you don't believe what you're going to say next.

So, here are the bad ways to predict the future.

Using your common sense, using your common sense is a terrible way to predict the future because other people are not operating on common sense.

It might be, you know, on feeling, which persuasion would get to.

It might be there's a monetary thing.

uh you know there could be lots of things but common sense no you can't really predict much with common sense uh how about history repeats no history doesn't repeat I've been saying this for years there are some patterns which you might say hey that looks like that other thing but history can't repeat because we know what happened the last time so at the very least the people going into the decision would be able to say Hey, last time this didn't work out, so we better make an adjustment.

It would be exceedingly unlikely if history repeated.

Now, what is consistent is that people are people.

So, if you're if you're making a, you know, if you're making a prediction based on people being selfish liars, well, that history might repeat.

But it's not about the history.

It's it's more about knowing how people react.

So, I wouldn't use history repeats.

And I think people end up just with, well, my side is right, the other side is wrong, so I'll just listen to what my TV host says and do whatever they say.

Well, how many of you saw the video of Trump doing a site visit to the Federal Reserve's uh building construction site?

He was there with Tim Scott and Bill PE.

And here's the fun part.

He was there with Jerome Powell.

Now, I don't know if Jerome Powell was originally invited to go along or he asked to go along, but you should see Jerome Powell standing next to Trump uh after knowing that Trump has insulted this guy's intelligence for a year straight or maybe six months.

He's been basically calling him too late Powell and essentially calling him an idiot who needs to leave and he's thinking about firing and then he has to go to this event and they have to stand next to each other.

So, first of all, Jerome Powell looks like the uh that old grandfather guy from the Disney movie Up.

Do you remember that movie Up?

where there's this guy who has this he's he's kind of has a per perpetual frown.

So Jerome Powell looks like that guy from up and he's smaller than Trump and he has to stand there like a like a whipped you know whipped what dog and Trump of course is Trump so you'd think that that would be an awkward situation for anybody but not for Trump because he's the boss so it's got to be awkward for Powell like really awkward but for Trump it's probably just a good time because he could make Powell stand there uh like a like a completely, you know, broken uh guy, I guess.

So then, uh Trump says that the cost of the building had gone up from 2.5 to now 3.1 billion.

And Powell shakes his head.

He's like, "What?

No, no, it didn't go up." And then Trump reaches in his pocket and takes out something that had the the cost on it.

He actually had it in writing in his pocket.

And he hands it to Powell.

And on camera, Powell has to read this thing.

He's like, "Oh, no, no, you're you're including a building that was completed 5 years ago." So, and Trump being Trump, instead of saying, "Oh, oh, we'll take that out then because that that includes that building that was built five years ago, Trump just kind of waves his arm at it and acts like that didn't matter." He goes, "Well, it's all, you know, all part of the, you know, same uh, you know, same uh, you know, operation, blah blah blah blah." And then he just goes on and then uh they ask him, you know, what what he would say to Jerome Powell now that he's standing right next to him.

And Trump slaps him on the back and says, "Oh, it ask him to, you know, lower interest rates." But the slap on the back was also like a dominance thing because, you know, there was no possibility that Jerome Powell was going to make a joke and slap Trump on the back.

Do we agree?

There is no world in which Jerome Powell was going to jokingly say something and slap the president of the United States in the back.

But Trump, he he says exactly what he wants.

He slaps him on the back on and the whole thing the whole thing was Trump Theater and oh my god it was just wonderful to watch.

But you have to look at Jerome Powell's face when when he's standing there.

He looks like the unhappiest person in the world of unhappy people.

All right.

Uh here's some potentially good news.

The technical university of Denmark uh has built an AI platform that uh allegedly um can help people solve cancer.

So the AI platform would allow them to design uh specific treatments for people's specific bodies and specific cancers and it would do it very fast and apparently it looks very good.

So, it's not really rolled out yet, but at least in the trials, well, I don't know if it's trials, maybe in the lab, they have uh designed proteins that will stick to your tea cells and give them molecular GPS to locate cancers, specific ones that they've designed it for.

So, that's pretty cool.

Now, I should tell you, if you didn't know, that pretty much every day, and I mean every day, there's a new story like this one that says that any moment now, cancer will be cured.

We're almost there.

I've been hearing that kind of story for about 40 years now.

The good news is a lot of cancers have been cured in 40 years.

Um, still a long way to go, but I wouldn't get wouldn't get too excited about these.

Um, if if you saw on X, I was putting my uh my PSA scores.

Uh, as you know, I've got metastatic prostate cancer, but at the moment, uh, I'm on some testosterone blocking pills, which I posted on X, so you could see them.

And I got my uh my newest blood test.

And uh a year ago, my PSA, October last year, um was getting outside of the acceptable zone.

Not a lot, but was definitely just outside the acceptable zone.

And then it just zoomed over the next several months.

Uh it just went to like 1,400.

A good PSA would be seven.

That that would be a good PSA score, seven if you're perfectly healthy.

U mine went to 1500.

And it was in June of this year.

And that's when I was in so much pain, I was looking to end my life by the end of the month.

But instead, I tried these uh testosterone blocking pills and they removed they removed all of my pain and might allow me to live several more years.

Now, I don't know that my health care provider would have recommended those specific pills or if the ones that they would have done because they they do recommend they do recommend um the hormonal treatments.

So, it's not like they don't recommend it, but there are some new really expensive pills that I'm using right now that I suspect they would not be keen on prescribing because, you know, they're they're they're trying to not go broke.

Um, so I I suspect that I got lucky.

So, at the moment I feel fine.

And maybe I've got years to go.

I don't know.

Nobody knows.

But it's a race for science to come up with some other solution.

And what are the odds?

You know, I often say this um I won't name a name, but I was saying this the other day to someone else who always finds himself in the center of history.

Have you noticed that there are some people for whatever reason that you can't determine are always in the center of history?

And I'm one of them.

So what are the odds that I would get this specific problem at exactly the time in history when AI is is going to be making huge leaps we think in curing it.

It's kind of a weird coincidence, isn't it?

I'm just always in that's why I think I live in a simulation because that's just a weird coincidence.

Anyway, um Trump has signed some executive order to require cities to remove homeless people from the streets.

So, it's not that simple.

I think there's a process they're putting together where the attorney general, Bondi, will work with the other secretaries, some other secretaries in the government to prioritize cities for funding uh if they take people off the street.

So, the government, the federal government won't uh be as generous with federal funding for cities that don't get rid of their homeless off the streets, but that would also require having u some kind of institutionalizing option.

So, right now, you could take people off the street, but where are you going to put them?

There's there's no treatment, there's no facility, there's no institution.

But uh Trump would like to change that.

He would like to have institutions where those people can go.

Now here's my question.

Has has Trump come up with yet another 8020?

He's the He's the genius being a populist type.

He's uh brilliant at coming up with issues that the public will agree about 80% to 20%.

And I feel like he did it again.

Do you imagine that there could be more than 20% of the people who say, you know, I kind of prefer keeping all those people on the sidewalk?

Maybe.

I mean, there might be 20%.

But I wouldn't want to spend time with those people.

So, yet again, Trump is managing the summer uh brilliantly.

Now, I don't know if you know this, but um August is coming and Congress will be in recess and uh a lot of the people in the news business will also take that time off.

So, it will look temporarily if unless Trump manages the situation, which he will, it would look like there's no news because all the news making people would be on vacation for a month in August.

But watch what Trump does.

Trump is going to generate news like a mofo so he can just own the summer like he already is.

So you ain't you ain't seen nothing yet there.

There's going to be a whole bunch of stuff like this.

Like who saw this coming?

Like who how many of you thought oh I think Trump will do an executive order about uh telling cities to clear up the sidewalks.

I didn't see it coming.

So, he probably has a whole bunch of ideas like that that are just in the hopper waiting for the the news to be slow and then they can say, "All right, launch." Um, meanwhile, Galain Maxwell, she met with the uh uh Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch uh inside some secure facility in Tallahassee.

So, uh, sounds like they're going to have one more meeting at least.

And Maxwell went back to her prison cell carrying a box of what we don't know.

So, somehow she ended up with a box of stuff and went back to her prison cell.

What do you imagine was in the box that the prison would allow her to take back with her to her prison cell?

Can you just get presents and take them back to yourself?

I don't think you can.

Can you?

So, my best guess would be that she said, "I need to look at your documents and then I'll tell you, you know, if there's anything to add to that, something like that.

I I feel like it's something about documents that were relevant to her case." But I'll say it again.

Remember I told you that you don't have to be a lawyer if you understand the basic concepts.

So here's a prediction in which my um skill stack that includes persuasion and not being a lawyer but sort of understanding how anything works in the legal field.

Um I believe that uh Gileain would obviously have an attorney that she's talking to.

So, she would have good legal advice.

And any attorney of hers should be saying, "I would definitely like to help you, government, but you're going to have to work me a deal, and I will give you everything, but you have to let me out of prison.

You got to pardon me." Now, notice the the way that I make that prediction is based on something that if you knew a little bit about how lawyers negotiate and you know that you can work out deals to get out of prison and you know that she has the magic information that we all want.

Well, it's not hard to predict that she's going to use that as a lever and she's not going to give it away for free.

So just just like the Tik Tok prediction, if you assume that people will use their leverage, um then you can predict better.

She will definitely use her leverage.

We'll see where that takes her.

Meanwhile, the UK has uh limited access to porn sites if you're in the UK.

So now UK residents would have to put in some kind of identification before they would have access to porn.

The question you might ask yourself is how many people would be willing to identify themselves with specific porn sites.

Now, it would be one thing if all porn followed the uh the model of look, it's two beautiful naked people having ordinary missionary sex.

And then if somebody found out that you like looking at that, they'd say, "Oh, well, yeah, I guess most people like looking at that.

But how many people go to their porn site and say, "Well, you know what?

I really like to look at and I can't tell anybody in my real world, but I can click on it." Well, I've got a feeling that they just killed the porn business because nobody's going to want to click on anything that's a little bit off the, you know, the ordinary path.

And I suspect that's mostly what people look at.

And off the off the path would be anything from you know mils to gils to you know where I'm going with this.

So we'll see what happens with that.

But apparently the reasons to go to the UK have now decreased decreased even more.

Uh that story is from the independent.

Well, if you've seen the compilation clips of the mainstream media, the u not not just the hosts of the news, but their guests, Democrats, um saying that Russia cyber hacked the election and they affected the election by cyber hacking it.

They hacked the election.

they hacked the election and it's just person after person from probably 2016 and beyond just claiming without being corrected claiming that uh Russia the election and it's a fact.

The best part about it is that now that we know that the intelligence people saw no indication that any of that was happening, now watch the watch the attitude of the people who were claiming it in the compilation clips.

You can find them on X pretty easily.

Um, they all look really judgy about people who didn't believe that Russia hacked it.

And then my favorite was the ex CNN guy who said, I'm I'm paraphrasing now.

He said, "In order for to you to believe, just listen to this.

This this is precious." He says, um, was it Sissa?

I can't remember who it was.

Tell me in the comments who said this because I know some of you saw the compilation clip at the end.

uh one of the ex no longer working there CNN guys said in order for you to believe that Russia did not hack the election and change the election.

In order for you to believe that you would have to believe that all these elements of the intelligence community were all in on a plot to get Trump.

Oh my god.

And now what do we know now?

that all those people were in on the plot to get Trump.

He used that as as his best argument for how it couldn't possibly be untrue that that Russia had hacked because all the intelligence people said so.

Now, we have learned since then that it wasn't necessarily all the intelligence people.

There were just a lot of them that are willing to shut up and let uh Brennan use some very small group.

I think five people had access to it.

Um, claimed that that was the official word.

So, yes, it means absolutely nothing to learn that all of the people you trust were on the the same side.

Have you ever seen any example where all the people you should be trusting were on the same side, but it was Well, there's this one, the Russia collusion.

all the smart people seem to be shutting up or on the same side.

And then there was uh something you may have heard of called the pandemic where all the experts seem to be on one side but often wrong.

And uh let's see what else.

Oh, then there's climate change.

climate change argument is, well, how could you possibly believe that scientists all over the world are just on the same conspiracy just because it's good for their careers or to make money or something?

How could you possibly believe?

Well, let me tell you how I do the predicting.

Number one, we're back to my talent stack.

Um, if you understand economics and follow the money and you understand how big organizations operate and you understand persuasion, what drives people to do what they do, it's completely understandable that the the vast majority of scientists in climate are lying.

is completely easy to believe.

The fact that they even act ask you to believe that the climate models are dependable.

Well, that too is something that if you had big company experience, you probably watched your own big company use models that they knew weren't true, but they would tell a story that they wanted to tell.

So if you put together your talent stack just right, the climate models are just so obviously fake.

Just so obviously fake.

But you wouldn't know that if you had a different background or experience.

So, I saw on X somebody was pointing out that New York Times and Washington Post are not even treating the latest uh information we've learned about the Russia collusion or Russia hacking hoax and they're not treating it as big news.

So, you say to yourself, but that's okay.

People will see it in other sources.

No, they won't.

The only people who will even know that more information came out and they'll be able to put it together would be the 2% of the world that really really follows um this kind of story.

So how many people do you think understand the complexity of what Brennan and Clapper and Obama allegedly did?

How many could follow that whole story?

not more than 2%.

So if you're the New York Times and Washington Post, you could just ignore it and make sure that it stays that way and it will never affect any elections because the people who understand it have already made up their mind.

I would be willing to guess that there are zero people watching this podcast right now and you would be in the top 2%, the ones following stories like this.

But there's not one of you who's going to change your mind about who to vote for.

You're you're all locked in.

So you've got two parts of the world.

The people who do follow things in minute detail and they can understand the story, but they're already locked in.

Their their vote won't change based on this or anything else.

And then there's all the rest of the world that would find it the story to be a what?

What would be the one word to describe this complicated story that people have trouble following?

It's a confusopoly.

Wherever there is complexity, there is fraud and corruption.

This would be the perfect example.

Um, now if you think I'm exaggerating when I say almost nobody can understand this story.

I mean, I struggled I struggled to try to what like what's new?

What part didn't we know already?

And are we just more more conf more convinced or is this really new?

I mean, I struggled with it and I do this basically for a living, I guess.

Um, but just to put that in perspective, I saw a clip from Fox News.

I think it was Johnny from Waters um, operation.

He was talking to people on the street who were uh, Coal Bear fans who were protesting the firing of Co Bear or the ending of the show that'll end in May.

And uh so Johnny was I think it was Johnny was asking people if they were aware that the Coal Bear Show lost $40 million a year for its owner.

How many of them did not know the most basic thing about the simplest story in the news?

Could there be any story that's more simple than Co Bear show is going to end because it's not profitable?

That's it.

That's the whole And and then if you want to add a layer of complexity, you'd say, but um some say it's, you know, Trump was pushing for him to be fired so that the merger would be approved, but that's it.

You would know everything about that story now.

And the people who thought it was important enough to actually go down there, stand on the sidewalk with signs and chant and protest were not aware that a show was losing $40 million a year.

How in the world do you not know that?

If if you decided this is your cause, you don't know that.

And then when they were told that, they immediately changed their opinions like, "Oh, well, yeah, obviously that's just a a business decision." So, um, here's another example.

Uh, I saw a post by Mike Cernovich, and I'm going to read you just exactly what, uh, Mike says in the post, and then ask yourself, what percentage of the public would understand this?

How how many would understand this?

All right, I'll just read it.

Brennan snuck the hoax steel dossier into an intelligence report by giving it a TSCI label.

Only 10 to 20 people could have seen that hoax documents uh could see that hoax documents were slipped in.

By classifying it as TSCI, no one was able to debunk it.

Brandon belongs in prison.

Now, I don't know what a TSCI label is.

I mean, in context, I I understand it in context.

He found a workaround so that not pe not many people knew that the steel dossier was, you know, part of the uh fake opinion.

So, I get the idea, but how many people would sort of understand what that was and what story it was attached to and how Brennan fits in?

Well, let me ask you this.

If you stopped people on the streets of America and said, "Tell me who John Brennan is and what was his last government job." How many would know he was the head of the CIA?

2%.

It It's so easy to convince ourselves because we're in that 2%, you know, we're really paying attention that other people have no idea what's going on.

Just no idea.

Top secret confidential information.

People are saying that's what TSCI is.

Top secret confidential information.

All right.

So, I guess that means that even people in the business weren't necessarily allowed to see it because it was too top secret.

Clever.

Um, here's another example of how the public doesn't understand complexity and neither do the Democrats.

I'd like to spend a few minutes telling you how pathetic the Democrats are.

Starting with um they embarrassingly put a graph of uh food prices, grocery prices on the internet to blame Trump because at the at the end of the uh the graph was the highest price for food and that was when Trump was in office.

However, the graph only was labeled from 2019 to October 24, which means it was really a graph of food prices skyrocketing under Biden.

And then there's only a little bit on the far right of the graph where it was even Trump's administration.

And it's maybe up a little bit, but closer to flat.

and they had to remove it when they had realized that they had just advertised that all the grocery prices skyrocketed under Biden.

That's that's their best people.

So, their best people couldn't couldn't notice that what they put out is a damning damning indictment of Biden and the Democrats.

Not only did the food prices go up, but the Democrats were too stupid to know that that's what they were telling the the public.

Oh, so that was funny.

But then, uh, Betto Oor, who is wonderfully incompetent, uh, he's, uh, he was back.

He was talking at some event.

The Blaze noticed this and put it in a in an expost.

Um, and he said, and I quote, "We should meet fire with fire." Why the f notice, notice all the Democrats were throwing in curse words because they were trained that what makes Trump so successful is that he swears like a normal person.

So now they're all trying to swear like a normal person so that they can look authentic.

All right, let me start over.

We should meet fire with fire.

Why the after are we responding to the other side instead of taking the offense on these things?

Now wait a minute.

We should meet fire with fire.

Wouldn't meeting fire with fire be an example of responding to the thing?

Like you wouldn't set a fire unless there was already a fire.

So Betto doesn't even know how analogies work because fighting fire with fire is exactly responding to the other side, the fire on the other side.

So he goes, "We should beat fire with fire.

Why are we responding to the other side?" Okay, fix your analogy.

And then he says, "Republicans care about power more than anything else.

Democrats care more about being right and we have to change that.

Really, the entire news cycle is about all the hoaxes that the uh the Democrats are doing.

They they are 100% liars all the time and never turn it off.

And he believes that what they care about is being right.

They don't even have a little bit of interest in being right.

Not even a little bit.

That is the most clueless and outofouch opinion you could ever say.

No, they both care about power.

The difference is that the way Republicans are getting power is h how are Republicans gaining power, specifically Trump?

How how did they get control of the whole government?

What was the what was the clever weasel trick that Republicans used to get power?

capability.

All they did is say, "Here's our idea from fixing things." Trump had very specific ideas.

Close the border, uh, drill baby drill, uh, tariffs.

I mean, he came with a whole, you know, quiver full of arrows.

And then people looked at the arrows and said, "Yeah, there I'm 80% on that." 8020 8020.

And so the reason that the Republicans have power is not exactly their craving for power, although you know people are people.

So everybody likes more power than less.

But no, they got there by capability, by ability, by merit.

Yeah, the word I was looking for is merit.

Trump Trump is a total merit president.

there there's no way he would be in term for a second office unless he had proven some merit in the first one, the first term.

And uh he's proving it every day.

He's got tons of merit.

Well, then uh Hunter Biden and the podcasters for Pod Save America, a big Democrat podcast.

Um, they're after each other because Hunter did that podcast and he said some things about his father and ambient and whatnot.

Now they're mad at each other.

And uh, Byron York is pointing out, here's the thing.

They're both right.

So here's what they each said about the other.

And Byron says they're both right.

Uh, the podcast guys are right when they say Hunter is a sleazy influence peddler out to profit on his family's name.

But Hunter is right when he says the podcast guys are elite out-ofouch Democrats dining out on their association with Barack Obama who are alienating the party's traditional base and turning it into an image of themselves.

So, while Trump is uh using that merit thing like he's trying to clean up your sidewalks and he's he's got nuclear policies that are just humming along and capex is the biggest it's been forever and I mean just all these merit-based accomplishments.

The the news Democrats is that they've they've insulted each other in clever ways.

That's all they got is clever insults for each other, not even for the other side.

Well, did you catch this?

Here's here's another complicated story, but I think I can simplify it.

Um, you might remember that um one of Trump's favorite lawyers who had worked for him, Alina Haba, had been um appointed uh interim and interim I think is 120 days.

um US attorney for New Jersey.

So, New Jersey is one of the more important states to have your preferred uh um US attorney.

And uh so Trump made sure that one of his loyals was in the job.

Well, the the term expired because these are meant to be temporary because it'd be impossible to get probably impossible to get Democrats to say yes to it.

So, he makes it temporary.

And then Hakee Jeff and all of his um his people, they uh they leaned on the federal judges to make sure that she would, you know, stay out of power and that after the term was over, she would leave.

So here's what the Trump administration did.

So she resigned as interim US attorney of New Jersey.

All right.

So that's step one.

Watch how clever this is.

This is hilariously clever.

So they agreed.

They said, "All right, she was temporary.

Her term is over." So she resigned.

And then the Trump administration uh appointed her to the job that's one level below that.

So the person who is directly in line for the top job in New Jersey but one level below it.

So they nominate her temporarily for the lower job but since the higher job is unoccupied and it will stay that way, she's the acting head.

So they all they did is keep the top job open and a point her to the number two spot because the new top the number two is of course in charge when there's no number one.

Now that was funny.

Well played.

All right.

Um, so Marco Rubio is saying that France is being reckless when they by recognizing the Palestinian state.

He says it's a reckless decision.

Now, I've noticed that there are a lot of what I call a half opinions about the whole Palestinian situation and you know, everybody seems to retreat to the safest thing you can say.

So, the safest thing you can say is, uh, I don't like it when Israel is, um, abusing the poor gazins.

That's safe cuz who who's in favor of war?

Basically, you'd be on the same side of the Pope.

Well, it's not good that people are getting shot and sometimes children are dying.

So, that's all bad, but what the hell else is going to happen?

I mean, you better have a plan for how you could prevent that.

And I don't think that the plan includes recognizing the Palestinian state.

Now, by the way, I do not have an opinion on that.

Just to be clear, I I have to say this every time I talk about Israel.

I don't have an opinion about what they should do because it's not my country and uh none of their arguments on either side make sense to me.

because both sides are going to say some version of well um historically this is why we're doing what we're doing.

I don't care about their history.

I'm not interested at all and they're not my country.

So, um I can predict that Israel will will never agree to a two-state solution.

I feel like that's easy to predict.

um unless there was some just major change in the government over there that I don't see happening.

But uh yeah, everybody wants to have the safe opinion.

It's safe to say we want everybody to stop shooting at everybody else.

But is that really a real world practical anything?

No, it's not.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is all I wanted to say today.

Um it is Friday.

It's time to pack up your work stuff and get ready to enjoy the weekend.

Um, all right.

Israel is our only meaningful ally.

Yeah.

I mean, so what?

I mean, I'd rather that they were than they weren't, but that doesn't that doesn't tell you what to do about any specific situation.

Um, all right, ladies and gentlemen, uh, I'm going to say a few words privately to my beloved subscribers on locals and the rest of you.

Thanks for joining.

Um, and uh, we'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place.

All right, locals coming at you privately in

on your stocks if you have any. They're

up a little bit. We'll see. Tesla is up

a little bit.

Let me get your comments working

and then we got a show.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. It's

true.

But if you'd like to take a chance of

elevating your experience this morning

to levels that nobody can even

understand with her tiny shiny human

brains. All you need for that is

a copper among your glass of tankered

shells, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel

of any kind. Fill it with your favorite

liquid. I like coffee. And join me now

for the unparalleled pleasure. The

dopamine hit of the day. The thing that

makes everything better, especially the

weekend. It's called the simultaneous.

It happens now. Go.

Oh, that's what I needed.

Now everything is perfect.

I wonder

if there's any science that they could

have saved some money by just asking

Scott. Well, Eric Dolan writing for this

Sai Post

um says that if you show people

information about congressional stock

picking knowing that they can use

insider information if they want and uh

if you if you tell people that Congress

is betting on stocks using insider

information, people will trust Congress

less.

That's right. If you learn that Congress

are a bunch of lying thieving weasels,

you will trust them less. You know, I

don't need I don't think you need to do

a study on that. You could have just

asked me. I'll tell you.

Well, Elon Musk responded to Trump

today. Trump had said that he won't take

away subsidies from Musk. Um, he doesn't

want to do that. Uh what he wants is for

all American companies to thrive. So

he's not trying to put Tesla out of

business. He wants it to thrive along

with other companies. And so he will not

take away their subsidies. And Elon Musk

said the subsidies he's talking about

simply do not exist.

He says, uh, Trump has already removed

or put an ex expiration date on all

sustainable energy support while leaving

massive oil and gas subsidies untouched.

So,

um, Trump has once again

Trump has

Trump will not take away the subsidies

that don't exist.

Okay. And uh Elon points out that SpaceX

won the NASA contracts by doing a better

job. So you don't want to take away any

subsidies there either.

Anyway, um apparently Tesla is going to

launch the Cyber Cab

um in San Francisco.

So is that what it's called? Robo Taxi

or Cyber Cab? I can't remember.

But uh I thought to myself, is there

finally a reason to go to San Francisco?

You know, I live about an hour outside

of San Francisco

and uh I have managed to find no reasons

to go there for

about five years. There's just no reason

to go there. And I thought, wow,

if I could if I could drive my car to

San Francisco, find a place to park,

which wouldn't be easy, and then uh then

call a a cyber cab, one of the Tesla

self-driving driverless cabs, wouldn't

that be like a fun day out?

Wouldn't you enjoy that as just a an

adventure? Because most of you have

probably never been in a self-driving

car of any kind, right? And San

Francisco is sort of an interesting

place to drive. It's not the easiest. I

mean, it's not it's not Boston, but it's

not the easiest either. Um, wouldn't you

enjoy driving your car to the city just

just to take a driverless car ride? I'm

thinking of doing that, but probably

not.

Well, let's see if you are surprised to

learn that the sale of Tik Tok to an

American company is not being approved

by China. So, I guess JD Vance is in

charge of that. And uh after lots of

conversations, it does not look like

there's a deal. So,

will uh will Trump um

will he do what he said, which is if we

can't buy it, he's going to close it

down. Well, he doesn't want to close it

down because he would be very unpopular

and it works for Republicans.

Apparently, Tik Tok was more proTrump

than we thought. Maybe it was only pro

Trump, but we'll see.

So,

China um also is going to be meeting

with the US to talk about, you know,

finalizing some kind of trade deal.

And it seems to me that if China wanted

to make their best trade deal and they

knew that

um they knew that Trump was trying to

get Tik Tok purchased that they would

hold off on that until it was part of a

bigger deal and they could trade it for

something they want such as lower

tariffs. So, China would be crazy to

approve Tik Tok outside of the

conversation about tariffs in general.

So, how many of you knew that?

Um,

was that obvious to everybody that China

would be crazy to make any kind of tick

tock deal when they could just fold it

into the larger negotiations? So, no.

Uh, I don't know if it'll ever happen,

but they're not going to do it outside

of the larger negotiations. They'd be

crazy to do that.

Well, apparently, if you go to do a

search on Google, you now see an AI

summary of whatever the uh the

destination links would take you to. How

many people do you think click on the

destination link when they have a

summary right in front of them, which is

probably all they wanted?

Well, it turns out that uh 79%

of the traffic is lost to the source of

the news or the source of the

information. So, it looks like Google,

if this, assuming this stays true, that

Google would be able to rob uh all of

its sources of 80% of their traffic.

Now, probably almost all of their

sources depend on native traffic going

to them.

So AI has found a way to destroy all

information on the planet Earth

like literally

because if you depend on traffic coming

to you directly and then it goes away.

Well then the source even if it's

Wikipedia they close down because

there's no way to support it.

And then what does Google link to? Cuz

Google is not the base source of

information. Google is just something

that points to other places. But they're

pointing to those other places and

totally putting those other places out

of business.

Well,

I don't know. Maybe some of those sites

will survive just on subscription. You

know, maybe the biggest ones. But I feel

like there's a risk that Google just

destroyed all information.

Does that make sense?

If if the sources of the information

lose their entire source of revenue,

which is traffic,

then Google has nobody to link to.

They'll all be gone.

And then Google's out of business. So

somehow we figured out how to destroy

everything.

I believe um I didn't didn't study up on

this, but uh aren't some of the AI rules

now in America very lenient for the AI

that's looking at author's books and

deciding uh

uh and and deciding whether the author

gets compensated or not. And at the

moment there's no real way to do it. So

if you were to stop and say, "All right,

we'll stop doing this AI until all the

people who were referenced or uh were

part of the training of the model can

get some kind of compensation." But

there's not really any way to do it. So

people ask me, Scott, now that you might

live a little bit longer,

things are looking good in that that

domain at the moment. um would you write

another book? And honestly, I don't even

know if anybody would write another

book. I'm a little bit worried that book

writing just won't be profitable because

people haven't learned yet that you can

get the best parts of a book just by

going to AI. Hey AI, can you summarize

what people are saying about this book?

And then it pretends that it's only

dealing with what people said about it.

which usually

is enough.

So, the book business might go away.

Well, it's been maybe 10 years in which

I've been talking about the so-called

fourth generation nuclear reactors.

Now, the third generation nuclear

reactors are the ones that we would

build if we built one today or maybe

yesterday. Um, which have never had a

meltdown. Did you know that the the

current version of nuclear power, the

ones that have actually been around for

I don't know the actual number, but

maybe 30 years, they've never had a

meltdown. The only ones that have are

the ones that were version two,

generation two and before. So, it was

already pretty safe, but it was still

possible theoretically for the third

generation to have meltdowns. The fourth

generation

has been sort of uh what would you call

it an ambition

um but we didn't know how to do it

safely and economically but thanks to

our government and I think Biden was

also did a good job on this the

government has created a test bed for uh

testing new fuels and and new

technologies because that's the hard

part finding a way to rapidly test

And the good news is that between

private industry startups and the

government being um pretty forwardl

looking in terms of supporting nuclear

um there are several fourth generation

nuclear reactors that are near launch in

the US. Now the fourth generation

doesn't have the option of melting down.

If it loses power, which is the that

would be the problem for the other kind.

If it loses power, it can't control it

and then you got a problem. But these

you could just turn them off and nothing

would happen. They just go on, they go

off. There's there's no risk of a

meltdown. So, we got a few of those

coming online.

If you're not following that uh that

industry, you probably should because

with AI coming on, nuclear and AI are

two things you want to be able to

understand. Well, Joe Biden got a $10

million advance to write a book. Uh we

believe that

uh the autopan will be writing the book.

Wouldn't that be funny?

Um,

he should write a book

if he wants people to actually read it.

He you should have a co-author.

Uh, the book is Joe Biden's presidential

successes

written by Joe Biden and Auto Pen. That

would be a pretty good joke. Auto Yeah.

Or auto pen.

Well, he'd better hurry and get his

money because I

I don't know if he's going to be around

long enough

to say that he wrote the book. He might

be the first author who has literally a

ghost, a ghost writer, you know, an

actual ghost because, well, you know,

I don't need to I don't need to finish

that joke. You were already there.

Um, and I was also imagining imagine

being the ghost writer, you know, the

human ghost writer for Biden. Obviously,

he's not writing it himself, but can you

imagine having to spend all that time

with him and listening to all the

that he he says and knowing

that half of it is a lie and half of it

is false memory and just ridiculousness

and you're really writing a book about

the most unsuccessful president of all

time, but he wants you to write it like

he really triumphed.

Oh my god, how could you possibly take

that job as a ghostriter?

Well, according to Breitbart News, I

learned today that Fort Bliss, so the

military base Fort Bliss

uh is going to be used for a migrant

detention center.

Migrant detention center for Fort Bliss.

Huh. I wonder if I could call upon all

of my experience as a cartoonist to make

a funny joke about Fort Bliss being used

as a migrant detention center.

Think think. Okay, I got it. It makes

sense that you'd put them in Fort Bliss

because

immigrants is bliss.

Anybody? Anybody? Immigrants is bliss.

No. All right. Moving on. Moving on.

Well, you remember Klaus Schwab? He was

out of the World Economic Forum, I guess

it was, but he retired and then he got

blamed or accused of doing a bunch of

financially uh sketchy things. But now

he's being accused of ordering the

falsification of research to make it

appear that Brexit was detrimental to

Britain's economy.

Huh. I'm starting to think that our

elites might sometimes lie to us about

the obvious

sometimes. I don't trust the elites.

Um

well, here's something you all need to

learn. There's a new buzzword that if

you're not a finance geek, you have

never heard, but you're going to hear a

lot of it. It's called CAP X. One word,

C A P X. How many of you know what that

is when it's in the news? Well, it

stands for capital expense, which is

when you buy equip equipment or

buildings typically to as business to uh

increase your increase your business.

Basically, you're you're investing in

the future by upgrading your equipment

or your building. usually.

Well, according to Treasury Secretary

Scott Bassent, um the America in the

first six months of Trump, the capex,

which is an excellent indicator of the

future of the economy is way up. So

capex being up, if you were looking for

good news before the weekend, that's

really good news.

I look at capex and I look at um

employment,

you know, the unemployment rate. Those

are the things I look at to see if we'll

be okay. On top of that, of course, is

the the deficit. So, if you don't get

the deficit right, you're dead. So,

those three things are what I look at

the most. capex because that also tells

you how optimistic business is, which

really is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If

they think things will go well, they

invest and that makes things go well.

So, capex is up. Good news, people.

Um,

so I I mentioned this before, but

there's some implications. So Trump has

his executive orders about AI

that AI can't be too woke. In other

words, it can't be too biased in in in

one

in one viewpoint.

Now, on the surface, you say to

yourself, well, that's great. You know,

it's not going to be this biased

left-wing

woke BS.

On the other hand, who gets to decide

what is uh what is bias?

If we don't if we don't agree

what looks like being biased and what

doesn't, remember, if you're a Democrat,

probably,

I don't know, 60% of all Democrat voters

would say it's not it's not biased to

say that Trump colluded with Russia.

which literally never happened,

but it but probably over half of all

Democrats believe it did because they

heard it on the news. And the Democrats

probably would benefit if you continue

to believe that. So when Trump's in

charge, will the AI companies say, "Ah,

we're going to have to make this

compatible with whatever Trump wants it

to be, otherwise we won't get government

funding and government support, and we

might get taxed and sanctioned and god

knows what." But what happens if a

Democrat gets in office and says, "You

know that executive order about bias?

Well, now we decide what bias looks

like. And then does AI have to go back

and change what what AI says so that it

becomes their version of unbiased?

I don't know how you can get to an

agreeable place because otherwise AI

will become so useless. It just says

stuff like, well, people disagree. Uh,

it's controversial. I'd rather not

answer that question.

We might be heading to the place I had

predicted long ago

which is if you believe that human

beings would allow their AI to overrule

what they believe is true, you have not

spent much time around human beings.

Human beings will never accept that AI

knows more than they do. And if it told

you I am AI, I am being unbiased. Trust

me, I am a super intelligence. This is

just an objective statement of fact. But

if you don't like those facts, you're

going to do everything you can to scrub

them out of the AI. So super

intelligence will be whatever the people

in charge decide sounds intelligent.

How many of you know that I invented a

word years ago that became literally

part of the vocabulary? Now, many of you

have not heard it, but if you were to

Google it, you'd see that I think it's

in Wikipedia now, and it's defined as uh

the word is confusopy.

Confusopoly.

So, it's where companies um offer

products that are so complicated, you

can't compare it to the competition. For

example, if you wanted to buy insurance,

would you really spend all the time to

see, all right, well, this one does this

and th this one will solve that? You

don't really. So, you kind of buy

whatever insurance you you encounter

first.

What if you wanted to get cell phone

service?

For years, it's been kind of impossible

to know which one to pick. Well, all

right. This one costs a little bit more,

but they've got different uh plan, and

this one I can get a free phone for my

family member, and

it's just too complicated. So, the

reason they do that is that they're

they're in a commodity business.

Insurance is insurance. or it could be

and phones are phones or they could be.

So they have to pretend that they're

different and they do that by confusing

you and essentially removing your

incentive to really find out which one

would be better for you. So you end up

saying, "Well, the Verizon store is the

closest one, so I'll just get that. I

can't tell which one's better."

But I noticed that um politics has

become a confusopy.

Meaning that the people who are like

you, if you're watching this podcast,

you're probably in the top

2%

of people who follow the news and try to

understand the nuance of it. There can't

be more than 2%. How many of you have

had the experience of bringing up

something that's just, you know, really

well understood and talking to somebody

who never heard of it once?

So, recently I did a uh did a

conversation with um Jordan Peterson and

of course that was really kind of one of

the highlights of my career because I

have a high opinion of his uh skills and

intellect and what he's added to the

world.

So, I wanted to brag about it to the

people I know in real life. And let me

tell you how that experience goes. So,

you know Jordan Peterson, right? Who?

Jordan Peterson. You've you've heard of

him, right? No. Never heard of him.

Okay. Seriously, you've never heard of

Jordan Peterson? Nope.

And that's the end of my conversation

because, you know, it's not going to

impress anybody that I talked to

somebody they never heard of.

Now, um, that applies to almost every

story in the news. Now, it's all a

little too complicated. So, the only

people I can talk to about it are the

very few people who follow this stuff,

like most of you. But uh in person,

one person in 20

you know might be following the news

closely so that you know they've made

their way through the confusing part to

understand something about what's going

on. But uh as I've said complexity

always hides fraud.

Complexity

always always hides fraud. So if you

look at our government and you realize I

don't even understand how they do

budgeting like what there's a recision

package and it has to go to the house

and then the senate and then back to the

house and then back to the I don't

what's going on and you're and is it 10

years or one year and is it is it making

the um the budget worse or better? You

can't tell it's like impossible. So,

what do people do instead?

They default to

rule of thumb kind of how do you feel?

Uh, and usually that means, well, I've

always been a Democrat, so I guess I'm

one now. Well, I've always been a

Republican, so I guess I'll agree with

what Trump says.

Um, but we are not even close to being

able to understand what's happening

because both sides like to make it

confusing. Trump is sort of the master

at simplification.

Um, so that's one of the reasons he

broke through. But, uh, let me give you

a little, uh, persuasion lesson.

Everybody up for a little little lesson.

So, this will be kind of a p actually

it's more of a lesson than how to

predict.

So, those of you who have been watching

me for a while might say, "Scott, how do

you make predictions that are so uncanny

and better than anybody who ever

predicted?"

Which, by the way, I think is actually

true. Um, and the answer is talent

stack.

So, somewhat by coincidence and a little

bit by design, I have exactly the set of

skills that one would need to make good

predictions. Now, that doesn't mean I'm

magic or awesome. It just means I happen

to blunder into a bunch of domains

that happen to be good for predicting.

For example,

if you understand persuasion,

it would be easier to have seen Trump

coming because he's a master persuader.

But if you didn't know, you would just

think he's a big old crazy clown. So

skill number one is hypnosis andor

persuasion. If you understand those, you

can predict the future because you can

see who is likely to be persuaded by

what. Do you remember when AOC first

burst on the scene and Republicans

wanted to slap her down and say bad

things about her and I said, "Oh no, you

don't see this one coming. Th this is a

persuasion monster." So, yeah, she

doesn't have much substance, but she has

a big game. And now, and now the

Democrats are wondering if she's going

to be their next presidential candidate.

So, it was easy to predict if you

understood persuasion. If you were

looking at the facts, you'd say, "Well,

she's not nearly

nearly experienced enough and her

policies don't make sense." And you

said, you might have said that about mom

Dany, too. But he's persuasive.

The other another thing is you if you

have experience in big organizations

which as the author of Dilbert you know

that I do two big organizations a bank

and then a phone company but any big

organization still has a lot of things

in common such as ask covering and

self-interest and um marketing and stuff

like that. So, I would argue that if

you're part of a big organization or

ever have been, you can make better

predictions about what any big

organization will do. Do you remember

when uh Gavin Newsome said to the people

who wanted reparations, "Hey, why don't

you go study that, form a study group,

and come back with a recommendation?"

And I told you, oh, I've seen this play

before.

It's a big organization play where the

top guy or woman doesn't want to make a

decision. So, they know they can just

put it off forever by sending you back

to study it. So, I could predict that he

was just kicking the can down the road

because I had big company experience.

Um, economics,

I have a background in economics

and an MBA. So when I say follow the

money or h it doesn't look like that

could ever make sense economically. It

allows you to predict if you understand

how money and economics and

profitability and all that stuff works.

capex for example and then uh I don't

have any legal background but once you

learn enough about how laws are created

you can kind of logically guess all

right you know I I think I can predict

how this is going to go without being a

lawyer. So, you saw some of the news

today

um or yesterday, I guess, that uh a

judge said that we would not be able to

see the grand jury testimony. Now, how

did I predict that we would not be

allowed to see it even though the

administration asked for it? Well, I

don't know much about the law, but I

know kind of the general concepts, and

one of them is that the grand jury is

not reliable enough. It's not a it's not

a place where facts are determined.

That's where that the regular trial

would be that. So you don't want to let

people's hearsay and opinions and stuff

get into the world if they're not really

confirmed. It'd be a big problem. So

persuasion, let's say hypnosis, big

organization experience, economics, and

just understanding how the laws

generally works without the details

allows you to make predictions.

The reason I thought of this is because

the judge that denied uh

uh the access to the Epstein sealed

transcripts from the grand jury said

quote um that her hands are tied. Her

hands are tied. Do you remember what I

taught you about hypnosis?

Hypnotists are taught, at least I was. I

don't know. Maybe maybe your mileage

might vary, but I was taught that people

will say exactly what they're thinking.

Their inner thoughts will be revealed by

their choice of words when they're

speaking extemporaneously, like just off

the top of their head. You couldn't tell

by reading what they wrote because they

would put a lot of thought into that.

But if they're just speaking casually

and they say something like, "My hands

are tied."

If you were to guess that that judge

likes being tied up,

you would have about a 75% chance of

being right.

It's it's not guaranteed, but when you

see an unusual,

you know, choice of words like my hands

are tied,

it's almost always, you know, part of

their brain just revealing their inner

secrets. And it doesn't work uh only for

sexual stuff. It would work for anything

that they cared about.

That that's why I taught you that if

you're looking for a lie, wait till

somebody starts their sentence with well

I would say

because you don't say I would say if

you're just talking about what you

believe is true. You would never use

those words. That's that's a reveal that

you don't believe what you're going to

say next. So, here are the bad ways to

predict the future. Using your common

sense,

using your common sense is a terrible

way to predict the future because other

people are not operating on common

sense. It might be, you know, on

feeling, which persuasion would get to.

It might be there's a monetary thing. uh

you know there could be lots of things

but common sense no you can't really

predict much with common sense uh how

about history repeats no history doesn't

repeat I've been saying this for years

there are some patterns which you might

say hey that looks like that other thing

but history can't repeat because we know

what happened the last time so at the

very least the people going into the

decision would be able to say Hey, last

time this didn't work out, so we better

make an adjustment. It would be

exceedingly unlikely if history

repeated. Now, what is consistent is

that people are people. So, if you're if

you're making a, you know, if you're

making a prediction based on people

being selfish liars, well, that history

might repeat. But it's not about the

history. It's it's more about knowing

how people react. So, I wouldn't use

history repeats. And I think people end

up just with, well, my side is right,

the other side is wrong, so I'll just

listen to what my TV host says and do

whatever they say.

Well, how many of you saw the video of

Trump doing a site visit to the Federal

Reserve's uh building construction site?

He was there with Tim Scott and Bill PE.

And here's the fun part. He was there

with Jerome Powell. Now, I don't know if

Jerome Powell was originally invited to

go along or he asked to go along, but

you should see Jerome Powell standing

next to Trump uh after knowing that

Trump has insulted this guy's

intelligence for a year straight

or maybe six months. He's been basically

calling him too late Powell and

essentially calling him an idiot who

needs to leave and he's thinking about

firing and then he has to go to this

event and they have to stand next to

each other.

So, first of all, Jerome Powell looks

like the uh that old grandfather guy

from the Disney movie Up. Do you

remember that movie Up? where there's

this guy who has this he's he's kind of

has a per perpetual frown.

So Jerome Powell looks like that guy

from up and he's smaller than Trump and

he has to stand there like a like a

whipped you know whipped what dog

and Trump of course is Trump so you'd

think that that would be an awkward

situation for anybody but not for Trump

because he's the boss so it's got to be

awkward for Powell like really awkward

but for Trump it's probably just a good

time because he could make Powell stand

there uh like a like a completely, you

know, broken uh guy, I guess.

So then, uh Trump says that the cost of

the building had gone up from 2.5 to now

3.1 billion. And Powell shakes his head.

He's like, "What? No, no, it didn't go

up."

And then Trump reaches in his pocket and

takes out something that had the the

cost on it. He actually had it in

writing in his pocket. And he hands it

to Powell. And on camera, Powell has to

read this thing. He's like, "Oh, no, no,

you're you're including a building that

was completed 5 years ago." So, and

Trump being Trump, instead of saying,

"Oh, oh, we'll take that out then

because that that includes that building

that was built five years ago, Trump

just kind of waves his arm at it and

acts like that didn't matter."

He goes, "Well, it's all, you know, all

part of the, you know, same uh, you

know, same uh, you know, operation, blah

blah blah blah." And then he just goes

on

and then uh they ask him, you know, what

what he would say to Jerome Powell now

that he's standing right next to him.

And Trump slaps him on the back and

says, "Oh, it ask him to, you know,

lower interest rates." But the slap on

the back was also like a dominance thing

because, you know, there was no

possibility that Jerome Powell was going

to make a joke and slap Trump on the

back. Do we agree? There is no world in

which Jerome Powell was going to

jokingly say something and slap the

president of the United States in the

back.

But Trump,

he he says exactly what he wants. He

slaps him on the back on

and the whole thing the whole thing was

Trump Theater and oh my god it was just

wonderful to watch.

But you have to look at Jerome Powell's

face when when he's standing there. He

looks like the unhappiest person in the

world of unhappy people.

All right. Uh here's some potentially

good news. The technical university of

Denmark uh has built an AI platform that

uh allegedly

um can help people solve cancer. So the

AI platform would allow them to design

uh specific treatments for people's

specific bodies and specific cancers and

it would do it very fast and apparently

it looks very good. So, it's not really

rolled out yet, but at least in the

trials, well, I don't know if it's

trials, maybe in the lab,

they have uh designed proteins that will

stick to your tea cells and give them

molecular GPS to locate cancers,

specific ones that they've designed it

for. So, that's pretty cool. Now, I

should tell you, if you didn't know,

that pretty much every day, and I mean

every day, there's a new story like this

one that says that any moment now,

cancer will be cured. We're almost

there. I've been hearing that kind of

story for about 40 years now. The good

news is a lot of cancers have been cured

in 40 years. Um, still a long way to go,

but I wouldn't get wouldn't get too

excited about these. Um, if if you saw

on X, I was putting my uh my PSA scores.

Uh, as you know, I've got metastatic

prostate cancer, but at the moment, uh,

I'm on some testosterone blocking pills,

which I posted on X, so you could see

them. And I got my uh my newest blood

test. And uh

a year ago,

my PSA,

October last year, um was getting

outside of the acceptable zone. Not a

lot, but was definitely just outside the

acceptable zone. And then it just zoomed

over the next several months. Uh it just

went to like 1,400.

A good PSA would be seven.

That that would be a good PSA score,

seven if you're perfectly healthy. U

mine went to 1500.

And it was in June of this year. And

that's when I was in so much pain, I was

looking to end my life by the end of the

month. But instead, I tried these uh

testosterone blocking pills and they

removed they removed all of my pain and

might allow me to live several more

years. Now, I don't know that my health

care provider would have recommended

those specific pills or if the ones that

they would have done because they they

do recommend they do recommend um the

hormonal treatments. So, it's not like

they don't recommend it, but there are

some new really expensive pills that I'm

using right now that I suspect they

would not be keen on prescribing

because,

you know, they're they're they're trying

to not go broke. Um, so I I suspect that

I got lucky. So, at the moment I feel

fine. And maybe I've got years to go. I

don't know. Nobody knows. But it's a

race for science to come up with some

other solution. And what are the odds?

You know, I often say this

um I won't name a name, but I was saying

this the other day to someone else who

always finds himself in the center of

history.

Have you noticed that there are some

people for whatever reason that you

can't determine are always in the center

of history? And I'm one of them. So what

are the odds that I would get this

specific problem at exactly the time in

history when AI is is going to be making

huge leaps we think in curing it. It's

kind of a weird coincidence, isn't it?

I'm just always in that's why I think I

live in a simulation because that's just

a weird coincidence. Anyway,

um Trump has signed some executive order

to require cities to remove homeless

people from the streets. So, it's not

that simple. I think there's a process

they're putting together where the

attorney general, Bondi, will work with

the other secretaries, some other

secretaries in the government to

prioritize cities for funding uh if they

take people off the street. So, the

government, the federal government won't

uh be as generous with federal funding

for cities that don't get rid of their

homeless off the streets, but that would

also require having u some kind of

institutionalizing

option. So, right now, you could take

people off the street, but where are you

going to put them? There's there's no

treatment, there's no facility, there's

no institution. But uh Trump would like

to change that. He would like to have

institutions where those people can go.

Now here's my question.

Has has Trump come up with yet another

8020?

He's the He's the genius being a

populist type. He's uh brilliant at

coming up with issues that the public

will agree about 80% to 20%.

And I feel like he did it again.

Do you imagine that there could be more

than 20% of the people who say, you

know, I kind of prefer keeping all those

people on the sidewalk?

Maybe. I mean, there might be 20%. But I

wouldn't want to spend time with those

people.

So, yet again, Trump is managing the

summer uh brilliantly. Now, I don't know

if you know this, but um August is

coming and Congress will be in recess

and uh a lot of the people in the news

business will also take that time off.

So, it will look temporarily

if unless Trump manages the situation,

which he will, it would look like

there's no news because all the news

making people would be on vacation for a

month in August. But watch what Trump

does.

Trump is going to generate news like a

mofo so he can just own the summer like

he already is. So you ain't you ain't

seen nothing yet there. There's going to

be a whole bunch of stuff like this.

Like who saw this coming? Like who how

many of you thought oh I think Trump

will do an executive order about uh

telling cities to clear up the

sidewalks. I didn't see it coming. So,

he probably has a whole bunch of ideas

like that that are just in the hopper

waiting for the the news to be slow and

then they can say, "All right, launch."

Um, meanwhile, Galain Maxwell, she met

with the uh uh Deputy Attorney General

Todd Blanch uh inside some secure

facility

in Tallahassee. So, uh, sounds like

they're going to have one more meeting

at least. And Maxwell went back to her

prison cell carrying a box of what we

don't know. So, somehow she ended up

with a box of stuff and went back to her

prison cell. What do you imagine was in

the box that the prison would allow her

to take back with her to her prison

cell? Can you just get presents and take

them back to yourself?

I don't think you can. Can you? So, my

best guess would be that she said, "I

need to look at your documents and then

I'll tell you, you know, if there's

anything to add to that, something like

that. I I feel like it's something about

documents that were relevant to her

case." But I'll say it again. Remember I

told you that you don't have to be a

lawyer if you understand the basic

concepts.

So here's a prediction in which my um

skill stack that includes persuasion

and not being a lawyer but sort of

understanding how anything works in the

legal field. Um I believe that

uh Gileain would obviously have an

attorney that she's talking to. So, she

would have good legal advice. And any

attorney of hers should be saying, "I

would definitely like to help you,

government, but you're going to have to

work me a deal, and I will give you

everything,

but you have to let me out of prison.

You got to pardon me." Now,

notice the the way that I make that

prediction is based on something that if

you knew a little bit about how lawyers

negotiate and you know that you can work

out deals to get out of prison and you

know that she has the magic information

that we all want. Well, it's not hard to

predict that she's going to use that as

a lever and she's not going to give it

away for free.

So just just like the Tik Tok

prediction, if you assume that people

will use their leverage,

um then you can predict better. She will

definitely use her leverage. We'll see

where that takes her.

Meanwhile, the UK has uh limited access

to porn sites if you're in the UK. So

now UK residents would have to put in

some kind of identification before they

would have access to porn. The question

you might ask yourself is how many

people would be willing to identify

themselves

with specific porn sites. Now, it would

be one thing if all porn followed the uh

the model of look, it's two beautiful

naked people having ordinary missionary

sex. And then if somebody found out that

you like looking at that, they'd say,

"Oh, well, yeah, I guess most people

like looking at that.

But how many people go to their porn

site and say, "Well, you know what? I

really like to look at and I can't tell

anybody in my real world, but I can

click on it."

Well, I've got a feeling that they just

killed the porn business because

nobody's going to want to click on

anything that's a little bit off the,

you know, the ordinary path. And I

suspect that's mostly what people look

at. And off the off the path would be

anything from you know mils to gils to

you know where I'm going with this. So

we'll see what happens with that. But

apparently the reasons to go to the UK

have now decreased decreased even more.

Uh that story is from the independent.

Well, if you've seen the compilation

clips of the mainstream media, the u not

not just the hosts of the news, but

their guests, Democrats, um saying that

Russia cyber hacked the election and

they affected the election by cyber

hacking it. They hacked the election.

they hacked the election and it's just

person after person from probably 2016

and beyond just claiming without being

corrected claiming that uh Russia the

election and it's a fact. The best part

about it is that now that we know that

the intelligence people saw no

indication that any of that was

happening, now watch the watch the

attitude of the people who were claiming

it in the compilation clips. You can

find them on X pretty easily. Um, they

all look really judgy about people who

didn't believe that Russia hacked it.

And then my favorite was the ex CNN guy

who said, I'm I'm paraphrasing now. He

said, "In order for to you to believe,

just listen to this. This this is

precious." He says, um, was it Sissa? I

can't remember who it was. Tell me in

the comments who said this because I

know some of you saw the compilation

clip at the end. uh one of the ex no

longer working there CNN guys said in

order for you to believe that Russia did

not hack the election and change the

election. In order for you to believe

that you would have to believe that all

these elements of the intelligence

community were all in on a plot to get

Trump.

Oh my god. And now what do we know now?

that all those people were in on the

plot to get Trump.

He used that as as his best argument for

how it couldn't possibly be untrue that

that Russia had hacked because all the

intelligence people said so. Now, we

have learned since then that it wasn't

necessarily all the intelligence people.

There were just a lot of them that are

willing to shut up and let uh Brennan

use some very small group. I think five

people had access to it. Um, claimed

that that was the official word.

So, yes, it means absolutely nothing to

learn that all of the people you trust

were on the the same side. Have you ever

seen any example where all the people

you should be trusting were on the same

side, but it was

Well, there's this one, the Russia

collusion. all the smart people seem to

be shutting up or on the same side. And

then there was uh something you may have

heard of called the pandemic where all

the experts seem to be on one side but

often wrong.

And uh let's see what else. Oh, then

there's climate change.

climate change argument is, well, how

could you possibly believe that

scientists all over the world

are just on the same conspiracy just

because it's good for their careers or

to make money or something? How could

you possibly believe? Well, let me tell

you how I do the predicting. Number one,

we're back to my talent stack. Um, if

you understand economics and follow the

money and you understand how big

organizations operate and you understand

persuasion, what drives people to do

what they do, it's completely

understandable that the the vast

majority of scientists in climate are

lying.

is completely easy to believe. The fact

that they even act ask you to believe

that the climate models are dependable.

Well, that too is something that if you

had big company experience, you probably

watched your own big company use models

that they knew weren't true, but they

would tell a story that they wanted to

tell. So if you put together your talent

stack just right, the climate models are

just so obviously fake. Just so

obviously fake. But you wouldn't know

that if you had a different background

or experience.

So, I saw on X somebody was pointing out

that New York Times and Washington Post

are not even treating the latest uh

information we've learned about the

Russia

collusion or Russia hacking hoax

and they're not treating it as big news.

So, you say to yourself, but that's

okay. People will see it in other

sources. No, they won't. The only people

who will even know that more information

came out and they'll be able to put it

together would be the 2% of the world

that really really follows um this kind

of story.

So how many people do you think

understand the complexity of what

Brennan and Clapper and Obama allegedly

did?

How many could follow that whole story?

not more than 2%.

So if you're the New York Times and

Washington Post, you could just ignore

it and make sure that it stays that way

and it will never affect any elections

because the people who understand it

have already made up their mind. I would

be willing to guess that there are zero

people watching this podcast right now

and you would be in the top 2%, the ones

following stories like this. But there's

not one of you who's going to change

your mind about who to vote for. You're

you're all locked in. So you've got two

parts of the world. The people who do

follow things in minute detail and they

can understand the story, but they're

already locked in. Their their vote

won't change based on this or anything

else.

And then there's all the rest of the

world that would find it the story to be

a what? What would be the one word to

describe this complicated story that

people have trouble following? It's a

confusopoly.

Wherever there is complexity,

there is fraud and corruption. This

would be the perfect example.

Um, now if you think I'm exaggerating

when I say almost nobody can understand

this story. I mean, I struggled I

struggled to try to what like what's

new? What part didn't we know already?

And are we just more more conf more

convinced or is this really new? I mean,

I struggled with it and I do this

basically for a living, I guess. Um,

but just to put that in perspective, I

saw a clip from Fox News. I think it was

Johnny from Waters um, operation. He was

talking to people on the street who were

uh, Coal Bear fans who were protesting

the firing of Co Bear or the ending of

the show that'll end in May. And uh so

Johnny was I think it was Johnny was

asking people if they were aware that

the Coal Bear Show lost $40 million a

year for its owner. How many of them

did not know the most basic thing about

the simplest story in the news? Could

there be any story that's more simple

than Co Bear show is going to end

because it's not profitable?

That's it. That's the whole And and then

if you want to add a layer of

complexity, you'd say, but um some say

it's, you know, Trump was pushing for

him to be fired so that the merger would

be approved, but that's it. You would

know everything about that story now.

And the people who thought it was

important enough to actually go down

there, stand on the sidewalk with signs

and chant and protest were not aware

that a show was losing $40 million a

year. How in the world do you not know

that? If if you decided this is your

cause,

you don't know that. And then when they

were told that, they immediately changed

their opinions like, "Oh, well, yeah,

obviously that's just a a business

decision."

So,

um, here's another example. Uh, I saw a

post by Mike Cernovich,

and I'm going to read you just exactly

what, uh, Mike says in the post, and

then ask yourself, what percentage of

the public would understand this?

How how many would understand this? All

right, I'll just read it. Brennan snuck

the hoax steel dossier into an

intelligence report by giving it a TSCI

label. Only 10 to 20 people could have

seen that hoax documents uh could see

that hoax documents were slipped in. By

classifying it as TSCI, no one was able

to debunk it. Brandon belongs in prison.

Now, I don't know what a TSCI label is.

I mean, in context, I I understand it in

context. He found a workaround so that

not pe not many people knew that the

steel dossier was, you know, part of the

uh fake opinion. So, I get the idea, but

how many people would sort of understand

what that was and what story it was

attached to and how Brennan fits in?

Well, let me ask you this. If you

stopped people on the streets of America

and said, "Tell me who John Brennan is

and what was his last government job."

How many would know he was the head of

the CIA?

2%.

It It's so easy to convince ourselves

because we're in that 2%, you know,

we're really paying attention that other

people have no idea what's going on.

Just no idea. Top secret confidential

information. People are saying that's

what TSCI is. Top secret confidential

information.

All right. So, I guess that means that

even people in the business weren't

necessarily allowed to see it because it

was too top secret. Clever.

Um, here's another example of how the

public doesn't understand complexity and

neither do the Democrats.

I'd like to spend a few minutes telling

you how pathetic the Democrats are.

Starting with um they embarrassingly

put a graph of uh food prices, grocery

prices on the internet to blame Trump

because at the at the end of the uh the

graph was the highest price for food and

that was when Trump was in office.

However, the graph only was labeled from

2019 to October 24,

which means it was really a graph of

food prices skyrocketing under Biden.

And then there's only a little bit on

the far right of the graph where it was

even Trump's administration. And it's

maybe up a little bit, but closer to

flat.

and they had to remove it when they had

realized that they had just advertised

that all the grocery prices skyrocketed

under Biden.

That's that's their best people.

So, their best people

couldn't couldn't notice that what they

put out is a damning

damning indictment of Biden and the

Democrats. Not only did the food prices

go up, but the Democrats were too

stupid to know that that's what

they were telling the the public. Oh,

so that was funny. But then, uh, Betto

Oor, who is wonderfully incompetent, uh,

he's, uh, he was back. He was talking at

some event. The Blaze

noticed this and put it in a in an

expost. Um, and he said, and I quote,

"We should meet fire with fire." Why the

f notice, notice all the Democrats were

throwing in curse words because they

were trained that what makes Trump so

successful is that he swears like a

normal person. So now they're all trying

to swear like a normal person so that

they can look authentic.

All right, let me start over. We should

meet fire with fire. Why the after are

we responding to the other side instead

of taking the offense on these things?

Now wait a minute. We should meet fire

with fire.

Wouldn't meeting fire with fire be an

example of responding to the thing? Like

you wouldn't set a fire unless there was

already a fire.

So Betto doesn't even know how analogies

work because fighting fire with fire is

exactly responding to the other side,

the fire on the other side. So he goes,

"We should beat fire with fire. Why are

we responding to the other side?"

Okay, fix your analogy. And then he

says,

"Republicans care about power more than

anything else. Democrats care more about

being right and we have to change that.

Really, the entire news cycle is about

all the hoaxes that the uh the Democrats

are doing. They they are 100% liars all

the time and never turn it off. And he

believes that what they care about is

being right. They don't even have a

little bit of interest in being right.

Not even a little bit. That is the most

clueless and outofouch opinion you could

ever say. No, they both care about

power. The difference is that the way

Republicans are getting power is

h how are Republicans gaining power,

specifically Trump? How how did they get

control of the whole government? What

was the what was the clever weasel trick

that Republicans used to get power?

capability.

All they did is say, "Here's our idea

from fixing things." Trump had very

specific ideas. Close the border, uh,

drill baby drill, uh, tariffs. I mean,

he came with a whole, you know, quiver

full of arrows. And then people looked

at the arrows and said, "Yeah, there I'm

80% on that." 8020 8020. And so the

reason that the Republicans have power

is not exactly their craving for power,

although you know people are people. So

everybody likes more power than less.

But no, they got there by capability, by

ability, by merit. Yeah, the word I was

looking for is merit. Trump

Trump is a total merit president. there

there's no way he would be in term for a

second office unless he had proven some

merit in the first one, the first term.

And uh he's proving it every day. He's

got tons of merit.

Well,

then uh Hunter Biden and the podcasters

for Pod Save America, a big Democrat

podcast.

Um, they're after each other because

Hunter did that podcast and he said some

things about his father and ambient and

whatnot. Now they're mad at each other.

And uh, Byron York is pointing out,

here's the thing. They're both right. So

here's what they each said about the

other. And Byron says they're both

right.

Uh, the podcast guys are right when they

say Hunter is a sleazy influence peddler

out to profit on his family's name. But

Hunter is right when he says the podcast

guys are elite out-ofouch Democrats

dining out on their association with

Barack Obama who are alienating the

party's traditional base and turning it

into an image of themselves.

So, while Trump is uh using that merit

thing like he's trying to clean up your

sidewalks and he's he's got nuclear

policies that are just humming along and

capex is the biggest it's been forever

and I mean just all these merit-based

accomplishments.

The the news Democrats is that they've

they've insulted each other in clever

ways.

That's all they got is clever insults

for each other, not even for the other

side.

Well, did you catch this? Here's here's

another complicated story, but I think I

can simplify it. Um, you might remember

that um one of Trump's favorite lawyers

who had worked for him, Alina Haba, had

been um appointed uh interim and interim

I think is 120 days. um

US attorney for New Jersey. So, New

Jersey is one of the more important

states to have your preferred uh um US

attorney. And uh so Trump made sure that

one of his loyals was in the job. Well,

the the term expired because these are

meant to be temporary because it'd be

impossible to get probably impossible to

get Democrats to say yes to it. So, he

makes it temporary. And then Hakee Jeff

and all of his um his people, they uh

they leaned on the federal judges to

make sure that she would, you know, stay

out of power and that after the term was

over, she would leave. So here's what

the Trump administration did. So she

resigned

as interim US attorney of New Jersey.

All right. So that's step one. Watch how

clever this is. This is hilariously

clever. So they agreed. They said, "All

right, she was temporary. Her term is

over." So she resigned.

And then the Trump administration uh

appointed her to the job that's one

level below that.

So the person who is directly in line

for the top job in New Jersey but one

level below it. So they nominate her

temporarily for the lower job but since

the higher job is unoccupied and it will

stay that way, she's the acting head.

So they all they did is keep the top job

open and a point her to the number two

spot because the new top the number two

is of course in charge when there's no

number one.

Now that was funny. Well played.

All right.

Um,

so Marco Rubio is saying that France is

being reckless when they by recognizing

the Palestinian state. He says it's a

reckless decision. Now, I've noticed

that there are a lot of what I call a

half opinions about the whole

Palestinian situation and you know,

everybody seems to retreat to the safest

thing you can say. So, the safest thing

you can say is, uh, I don't like it when

Israel is, um, abusing the poor gazins.

That's safe cuz who who's in favor of

war? Basically, you'd be on the same

side of the Pope. Well, it's not good

that people are getting shot and

sometimes children are dying. So, that's

all bad, but what the hell else is going

to happen? I mean, you better have a

plan for how you could prevent that. And

I don't think that the plan includes

recognizing the Palestinian state. Now,

by the way, I do not have an opinion on

that.

Just to be clear, I I have to say this

every time I talk about Israel. I don't

have an opinion about what they should

do because it's not my country and uh

none of their arguments on either side

make sense to me.

because both sides are going to say some

version of well

um historically

this is why we're doing what we're

doing. I don't care about their history.

I'm not interested at all and they're

not my country. So, um I can predict

that Israel will will never agree to a

two-state solution. I feel like that's

easy to predict.

um unless there was some just major

change in the government over there that

I don't see happening. But uh yeah,

everybody wants to have the safe

opinion. It's safe to say

we want everybody to stop shooting at

everybody else. But is that really a

real world practical anything? No, it's

not. All right, ladies and gentlemen,

that is all I wanted to say today. Um it

is Friday. It's time to pack up your

work stuff and get ready to enjoy the

weekend.

Um,

all right. Israel is our only meaningful

ally. Yeah. I mean, so what?

I mean, I'd rather that they were than

they weren't,

but that doesn't that doesn't tell you

what to do about any specific situation.

Um, all right, ladies and gentlemen, uh,

I'm going to say a few words privately

to my beloved subscribers on locals and

the rest of you. Thanks for joining. Um,

and uh, we'll see you tomorrow, same

time, same place.

All right, locals coming at you

privately in