Episode 2909 CWSA 07/26/25

Everybody, come on in.

Grab a chair.

We're about to have some Saturday goodness because you deserve it.

You worked hard all week.

And now what you need more than anything is what I'm about to serve up as soon as the comments are working.

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

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

But if you'd like to take a chance to elevate this experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is copper mugger glass attacker Charles a canteen jugger flask 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.

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

Go.

Good.

Better than usual.

Unusually satisfying.

Well, immediately after this podcast, Owen Gregorian will be doing a spaceless event.

You have to be on X to uh attend.

And uh you can find that on my feed on X or on Owen Gregorian's feed.

Just search for him and you can be part of that.

Well, I wonder if there's any new science that uh didn't need to happen because I could have told them.

Oh, here's one.

Uh Eric Dolan is writing for Cypos as he likes to do.

There's a new study that finds that humans can still be AI at one uh creative task, which is generating more original ideas.

Now, I'm a creative person by nature and I do it for a living.

And uh I'm here to tell you I've tried to get Chat GPT to do my job for me.

I've actually asked it, Chad GPT, can you give me some ideas for a Dilbert comic?

And not even a joke, just just the basic setup, the idea of the situation.

And it really can't do that.

It can it can only give the most obvious ideas.

It would be stuff like um somebody setting in for the boss or the boss doesn't give you a raise and you're like that's so boring.

I can't do anything with that.

So yes, it is true the humans are still way ahead of AI and coming up with creative ideas because AI is trained on existing ideas.

So, it's a walking it's a walking cliche by the time it gets to you.

Um, now I have another theory of why it is that humans will be better at creative stuff.

It's because we can feel what other people are feeling at the same time they're feeling it.

So if uh if I knew there was something happening in the news that was different or interesting, I might say, "Well, that's that's where my creativity will go.

I'll make a joke about that or I'll write a song about that because that's what people are thinking and feeling." AI can't do that.

AI just looks at what has been done before and tries to do a little more of it.

But a human can say what is everybody feeling right now that they don't normally feel and then use that to create.

So until till they can do that AI will be behind.

Uh well, uh company, a Chinese company that makes robots called Unitry has launched a $5,900, uh full-size humanoid robot.

But you know how I always tell you, um I'm not sure AI can ever power a robot because there's probably a reason that we only see it ever doing one thing.

Whenever there's a video of look at my humanoid robot, it can put this box over on that shelf a hund times in a row.

To which I say, can it do anything else?

So, sure enough, um, this is not a general purpose robot because I don't think those are even possible.

I don't know, maybe maybe Elon Musk has solved it, but I just don't think that the current versions of AI can power a robot.

So instead of having a general purpose robot, for $5,900, you can buy a robot that's designed for individual developers and early stage research teams rather than hobbyists.

So they don't even sell it to hobbyists.

Do you know what that means?

It means you can't even just dig around with it.

It has so little utility that you wouldn't give it to somebody who just wanted to play around with it and see what it could do.

You'd have to give it to somebody who's actually a developer who can make it do something because it doesn't know how to do anything anything useful apparently except uh I think it has some kind of acrobatic thing.

Um, you know how we always say that the Amish don't get the chronic health problems that the rest of us do and then we say it must be them vaccinations.

And then we say it's not the vaccinations, it's the the food.

They don't have all the preservatives in their food.

And we don't really know.

But it does seem that they have fewer chronic problems.

One of those chronic problems is allergies that they don't have.

So the Amish children rarely have allergies.

And there's a new study, ZME Science has this story from Rupendra Brahbat.

And the story says that u it might be because the Amish barns um are full of dust that makes the kids more immune to allergies.

Now, do you know what kind of dust there is in a barn?

It would be hay, right?

And also cow waste.

So that's that's what they're breathing.

But if you spend a lot of time in barns, apparently you have fewer problems with allergies.

Didn't work for me.

I spent a lot of time in a barn when I was young.

Um, but it didn't cure my allergies.

Damn it.

So, let me correct the uh fake news that you may have seen.

You may have seen on social media that the TV show The View is they were taping the last show and said they were going on a hiatus or something and people said The View is going out, you know, is no longer on TV.

But that's not true because The View takes the same vacation every summer.

So there's there's nothing to suggest that the TV show The View will be discontinued.

they just always take that week off or two weeks or whatever it is.

Well, apparently there's a a Billy Joel documentary on HBO which is a worthless piece of that for reasons I can't even fathom uh repeats the Fine People hoax more than once.

The Fine People hoax is in a documentary with Billy Joel.

Now, I haven't watched it, so I assume that it's something like, and then Billy Joel was inspired to, you know, get involved in politics because of the fine people hoax or something like that.

I mean, I don't even know why it's in the Billy Joel documentary, but you pieces of HBO.

I mean, absolute I think the U I believe the Trump administration should sue them.

So, I think uh Trump should sue HBO for putting this documentary on and having what they should know by now is fake news about the fine people.

So, we'll see if that happens.

Apparently, the Trump administration is tightening foreign worker visas somehow, making it stricter.

But one of the things that uh they're also looking at is citizenship tests.

So for those people who would qualify for citizenship, which is separate from the visa question, um there's some uh energy to make the test harder.

Now, I guess it used to be harder under Trump's first term.

I feel like they did this once before, but uh apparently the thinking is that it's too easy to pass the test because you just have to memorize, you know, a certain amount of stuff.

So, they want to make it longer and harder to pass.

And I kind of love the fact that that would be like an IQ test to get into the country.

That's better than a two minimum.

It's like, all right, here's the deal.

Uh, you cannot enter our country unless you're at least this tall.

Uh, you buy at least two drinks and your IQ is high enough that you can pass this much harder citizenship test.

What What would happen to our country if from this day on nobody could come in unless they could pass a citizenship test that even the people who were born here couldn't pass?

We'd have all the smart people here, wouldn't we?

But we can't say that.

You know, it would be politically incorrect to say, um, we've instituted a IQ test because then immediately people would say that's racist, which would be racist, which is the weird part.

If you think that having an IQ test would be racist, you're the racist.

Just think about it.

Well, apparently Harvard wants to settle with the uh Trump administration because uh Colombia settled with that $200 million fine that they agreed to pay.

So maybe Harvard figured out it was cheaper to just pay a bunch of money and uh maybe agree to a bunch of stuff.

And uh we'll see.

So, might be a little early to assume that that's really going to happen, but Harvard might want to take the easy way out.

And uh Trump continues to monetize bad behavior.

So, he's literally figured out how the government can make money um by going after racists in in the college community, specifically the people running the colleges.

So, uh, I don't mind that they're a little bit racist as long as we're reducing my tax burden or we're paying down the national debt.

All right, you can be a little bit racist, but it's going to cost you.

I don't know.

I I'm just perpetually amused when Trump does the Trumpiest thing you could possibly do, which is I'm either going to solve this problem, such as Ukraine or Fentinel or whatever, or if I can't solve it or until I solve it, I'm going to monetize it.

I'm going to make whoever is involved with this just pay me a bunch of money.

Nobody else would do that, but he does.

Well, do you remember uh Terry Moran?

He worked for ABC and got let go recently.

So, he's got his own thing going on Substack, I think.

And uh he was talking to uh who was he talking to?

What's his name?

Uh Matthews.

And he was worried that Trump is going to close down or somehow force the sale or merger of all the big news networks to his cronies so that he would be able to control the news.

So for example, um the CBS was part of Paramount or still is and the merger has just been approved for was it Dance?

Is that the name of the company?

But that would be run by Larry Ellison's son.

So Larry Ellison's son would be in charge of CBS News because they've merged and Larry Ellison is a Trump supporter.

So I'm sort of guessing his son would be supportive of Trump.

Now, that would look like a win for Trump because it would make one of the big news organizations appear to be, at least on paper, appear to be, well, maybe they'll be a little more pro.

Trump biased.

And Terry Moran is sounding the alarm that if if it's not stopped, Trump will roll up all the, you know, the the traditional media and make it somehow his his uh puppet.

To which I say, do they have any awareness of why uh at least a third of the country believes it's all fake news?

Are they aware at all that nobody would need to move against them unless they were just monstrously biased in one direction?

We wouldn't be having a conversation about Trump trying to control the media.

If if you believe that's what's happening, we wouldn't have that conversation.

Uh unless the media was so bad that going after it and destroying it seems like your best strategy.

now.

But I but I have to admit I have to admit since I'm in my own little bubble, I don't often see everything that the other side is is thinking.

Um I I stopped for a while and I thought about this.

Is it true that Trump is sort of maybe it looks like it's a bunch of coincidences, but is the media becoming more pro.

Trump?

So CBS maybe, we don't know yet.

Um, we know Media Matters is having some issues.

They might may run out of money.

We know Gawker went out of business, you know, for its own reasons.

The whole Kogan lawsuit took them out.

Is it true that Trump is chipping away?

And well, he also sued ABC News successfully, right?

So maybe there might be something to it, but I wouldn't say it's the end of the world.

It's more like uh an attack on existing bias.

So we'll see.

What I don't expect is that CBS will turn into a uh a pro.

Trump news network.

I don't think so.

you know, they they might shoe for a middle ground, but I don't think they're, you know, they wouldn't make money.

They wouldn't last long if they went the other direction.

Well, here is the persuasion play of the day.

Do you remember the Well, of course you do.

You all know the story of the CEO that went to the Cold Play concert and he was hugging his mistress and they got caught on the the cam or everybody in the everybody at home and no I guess everybody at the stadium gets to see them and then you know he ducked down because they were caught in the act and eventually very soon after that he resigned.

The company that he resigned from is called Astronomer and they sell some kind of technology product that I don't understand but um today they launched a uh commercial featuring Gwyneith Pelro who used to be married to the Coldplay frontman.

Right.

So the first thing you notice is wait a minute that's a weird connection.

they hired to do a little commercial the ex-wife of the cold play guy who called out the cheaters and that's why they're in the news and she she says that she has a very temporary assignment very temporary meaning just making that one video I think um and she pretends that she's there to answer questions that all of you have now what is clever about it is that you instantly believe that the question she's going to answer are something about the scandal of the CEO and then you see the question starting to form on the screen.

you know, the word the the type is for for me on the screen, but before it completes the sentence, she cuts away and gives you a little commercial about something their company does and it's funny and it doesn't last too long and the commercial isn't painful because it's Gwyneith Paulro and it's it's in the context of almost a practical joke because you're sure they're going to talk about that drama but they never too.

They make you think about it and it's why the thing is so damn clever.

So, it's all tongue and cheek, but they get in their whole commercial and it's viral as heck because they did it so well.

It's just really well done and uh it's a play of the play of the day.

People are impressed by it.

Well, according to the Daily Wire, Tim Pierce is writing that the Trump administration has located 13,000 unaccompanied minors who came across the border.

Um, that's the good news.

They've located 13,000 of them.

The bad news is that the total number who may have come over the border unaccompanied, meaning not with their biological parents, but probably with some adult who had sketchy intentions.

Um, that it may have been several hundred thousand hundreds of thousands of unattended children came across the border.

Hundreds of thousands.

and the administration has only found 13,000.

I I've seen a bunch of people say that the government of the United States is unambiguously the biggest um child trafficker and I say to myself really or or is it more possible that uh a lot of kids are coming across so later they can I don't know get their parents across and maybe they're just coming to work.

What percentage of those hundreds of thousands are being trafficked andor used for illegal child labor?

I watch this story and I keep waiting for some kind of confirmation where we caught this big ring that had a 100,000, you know, child sex slaves or something.

And I think to myself, where is that story?

or is it all onesies and twoozies, but there are hundreds and thousands of them?

I don't know what to believe about this one.

Uh I do believe there is an enormous problem.

What I don't know, are we talking about 50,000 victimized children, which would be an enormous enormous problem, or are we talking about hundreds of thousands, which would be almost unimagin Well, it is literally unimaginable.

So, no, no.

Well, you would not be surprised to hear that uh Galileain Maxwell is or her her attorney is raising the question of whether she should get a pardon because she's cooperating with the Department of Justice and um apparently she's going to have her second conversation maybe today.

Uh and she has answered every question asked and seems not to be hiding anything.

But I guess I would ask how that works.

Shouldn't you make the deal before you give them everything they want to know?

And then I saw some people comment on the the possibility that she would be pardoned and I guess it would be 5 years of her 20ear sentence if she were let out right away.

And immediately there was a problem there which is that uh people are not I'm going to say that people are not rational when it comes to the whole Epstein situation.

They're not rational.

So they would rather she got um her full 20 years than they would find all the other I mean if imagine if she could tell you all the other uh guilty people and it's the only way you could find out which I think might be the only way you could find out.

If she were the only way you could find out who the other abusers were, the adult abusers, if she were the only way, you wouldn't give her a pardon.

I understand that you think that would be the worst thing that could ever happen because she was so central to the the badness that happened.

And to imagine that she could ever get off easy is, you know, bothering you no end.

But what if It was the only way you could find the two dozen other leaders or rich people who had been doing the worst possible things.

What would you think would be the better thing for society?

Well, I don't know, but uh apparently it hasn't been negotiated in advance.

So maybe if they're just trying to do the thing where if they answer every question um then she just hopes that the right thing will happen.

We'll see.

But uh I've seen some people I guess Newsmax host Greg Kelly has suggested that uh she might be a victim herself, a victim of Epstein.

What do you think of that?

Um, do you think that uh she could be seen as a victim?

Well, um, let me add my hypnotist take on this.

Whatever it is that Epstein did, he seemed to be consistently able to get the people to do things that you wouldn't imagine people would do.

Are you all on the same page there?

that Epstein was able to get an ex president of the United States to fly to his little naughty island like 26 times.

Does that seem to you like something that anybody could have done?

Not really.

Then there's the whole uh convincing people to do um things which you could argue if they had been of age you could argue was um consensual.

But of course below a certain age there's no such thing as consensual.

Not really.

So how did he talk so many people into doing so many unbelievable things?

So somehow he had some ability of persuasion that was not normal.

Would you all agree with that?

He might have been a black mailer.

He might have been just I don't know charismatic in person.

I haven't heard anybody say one way or the other actually.

Um, so how in the world did he get people who normally would not do anything like the things they're accused of, so many of them, to do things that you can't imagine?

What what about um the money that he got?

You know what what about the fact that all these people even after All right, here's here's the best way to say it.

Even after people knew that he had been accused of and credibly convicted of sex crimes, didn't Bill Gates still meet with him a whole bunch of times, which obviously was going to get out.

So there there a whole bunch of people in this story who you would normally say to yourself, why would they do that?

I'm talking about the victims as well as people who are accused of being perpetrators, but we only know that they were in his company.

So, I have a mixed feeling.

On one hand, you have to punish the people who were adults who did things that are crimes.

You can't just say, "Well, I got talked into it because he was so convincing." So on the criminal on the on the level of criminality, you just have to punish, you know, as if nobody influenced her and it was all her idea.

However, outside of the realm of the purely legal and how you have to run a country, you can't just let people get away with stuff.

Um, I do believe that it's very likely that she was psychologically influenced in a way that almost effectively removed any um any chance she would resist.

But I don't know.

I'm just looking at the total picture and saying that he's clearly a person who gets people to do things you can't imagine anybody could get anybody to do.

So, but again, just to be clear, um you can't have a system that allows that to be an excuse cuz then everybody would use it.

Well, it wasn't me.

I got talked into it.

Um, President Trump is in Scotland, uh, the only country that's named after me, and I always appreciate that.

Um, and he was asked about pardoning Galain Maxwell and he said, and I quote, "This is no time to be talking about pardons." And then he uh changed the topic to, "You should be talking about Clinton and former president of Harvard." Uh, talking about his friends, the hedge fund guys over there.

Don't talk about Trump.

So, if you were trying to decipher what's in Trump's mind, he didn't say, "I haven't thought about it," or "I haven't looked into it." Although he did say that, I think yesterday.

Um, he said there is no time to be talking about pardons.

Hm.

That does suggest that that there could be a time when you would talk about pardons, but this is not the time.

To me, it sounds like there's a little bit of movement toward at least testing to see if pardoning her would cause more problems than it than it solves.

So, my guess is that he hasn't ruled it out.

Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer uh used all this situation to tell us that sending Todd Blanch over there to talk to Galain Maxwell.

Um Schumer says, "Let me be clear, Trump's sending his personal lawyer." Now, I think maybe Todd Blanch was his personal lawyer at one point, but now he's with the Department of Justice.

But he says Trump sending his personal lawyer Todd Blanch to meet with Gla Maxwell stinks of high corruption and conflict of interest.

Now how many of you would have even thought that that was a problem that the Department of Justice is talking to Gain Maxwell?

Like would you even seen that as political?

It didn't even strike me as political or or conflicts of interest or corruption.

Do you think that uh I mean, how would that plot work?

What exactly would Trump be up to that he could benefit by having the Department of Justice and a and a lawyer that he has some connection to talk to her?

How is that bad?

Is the idea that if she said, "Well, and Trump was on the island," that they just wouldn't tell us.

Is that what he thinks?

Or is it just an excuse to say something that ties Trump to Epstein?

I don't know.

But meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal has a poll that says that economic optimism is way up.

Uh I feel that that's just the optimism about the economy.

Um I feel that optimism is entirely because the tariffs are not causing any destruction yet.

I mean anything could happen but so far it looks like the tariff situation worked or will work or continue to work.

So I could uh understand why optimism surge because people don't have their own opinions.

They turn on the news and then the news tells them what their opinion is.

Yeah.

Then the the the capital expenditures are up and uh employment is not bad and inflation's at least the rate is not bad.

Things are too expensive but at least the rate of inflation is not bad.

Um anyway, so uh it's good for Trump and uh Trump has suggested I think he might have said this well either before his Scotland trip that he's on right now or during I can't tell but he suggested that giving out rebates is possible from the billions in tariff revenue he's getting.

Do you think that Trump should be talking about rebates?

I guess that would be like a tax rebate to the citizens.

Do you think that's something he should be talking about as opposed to paying down the national debt?

I say pay down the national debt.

Um because that that's a existential threat.

I I understand that people are suffering and they need money, but I really I wouldn't be delighted if that money went to rebates because people weren't expecting it.

So, he's probably just floating the idea, but I don't know that that would be an 8020 idea.

I would be curious.

I feel like most people would have preferred if he'd never brought it up because if he never brought it up, then they would say, "Well, here's 500 billion.

Maybe in 2026 it'll be 500 billion." Uh that goes toward the national debt.

And I would say that is the best president of all time.

If he actually pulled that off, I I would be just amazed.

Even though we know that a lot of that is coming from the profits of the American corporations, but you know, if it pays down the national debt, that's a pretty big deal.

So, I don't love the rebate idea.

Well, according to Breitbart News, Jasmine Jordan is writing that media matters.

Do you know media matters?

It's a I guess it would be a media organization that uh lives to defend the Democrats and attack the Republicans and it's generally considered by anybody on the right as a just a horrible horrible entity that they wish would go away.

But apparently they're having some issues.

Um some say they're on the verge of going out of business, but they say no.

Um, but they've racked up over $50 million in legal bills for uh some sketchy stuff they've been doing.

Um, so they're in legal and financial um jeopardy.

We don't know if it's fatal and their future is in jeopardy.

So that would be another example of a media entity, although they weren't really a media entity.

or more like an attack dog that uh may be having trouble in the Trump world.

Um but they have quietly cut back on their attacks and slash staff and floated the idea of shuttering operations entirely.

I guess the New York Times is writing about this.

Uh but when asked about it, this is what they said.

They said they have no plans to close When a corporate entity says, "We have no plans for that," does that mean they have no plans for that?

I feel like if they had no plans for it, and they didn't think it was going to happen, they would say, "Oh, absolutely, we're not going to close." But if you can't say we're absolutely not going to close and instead you say we don't have plans to close, that's a little more about the plan than it is about the closing, if you know what I mean.

It it shifts your attention from the are you going to close to the question of whether you have a plan for it.

I do believe they don't have a plan.

That don't that doesn't mean they're not going to close or that they don't expect to.

Uh, also Trump over in Scotland is warning Europe that they're basically killing themselves with unrestricted immigration.

Immigration is killing Europe.

That's his exact quote.

Immigration is killing Europe.

Now, do you believe that the Trump effect could be strong enough to save Europe or is it already too late?

I think it's already too late.

I think Europe is done.

You know, might take a generation to uh adjust to what what's happening, but there it's definitely not the Europe of my childhood.

But whatever it will be, good or bad, it won't be anything like it used to be.

And uh Trump thinks it will be bad.

Um, so what do you think of the cover up that's happening with the new Russia hoax documents that Tulsi Gabbard has produced?

Especially the part where we recently learned that Russia knew, which means that the Democrats knew that Hillary Clint Hillary Clinton had allegedly uh psycho emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.

And she was on a daily regimen of tranquilizers.

Now, don't you think that should be the biggest story that that we almost uh elected somebody who is on a lot of tranquilizers and needed it?

You know what's missing from that story?

We know that Hillary has, at least in the past, enjoyed a good glass of wine.

Do you believe that these are uh mental problems or the sign that sometimes she's drinking?

If somebody said um there's this this woman, she she seems to sometimes but not all the time have psycho emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.

Isn't that exactly saying drunk?

I mean, isn't it if if I didn't give you any hints and I just said, "All right, here's a set of symptoms and it includes uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, but also cheerfulness." My first guess would be that she's an angry drunk.

right now.

There's no evidence of that.

But isn't that the kind of question we'd be asking if if this were anybody on the right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Maybe it's bipolar, but I doubt it.

I don't know.

I feel like there's some kind of protecting people who are drinking in public.

You know, we we've heard that a lot of the people in Congress are drunks and uh maybe there's just some unwritten rule that the media doesn't focus on that cuz they're also drunks.

That's my guess.

But the fact that the u the mainstream media kind of touchs on this story, but they're not treating it like it's the biggest thing, the biggest story in the history of the country.

It's one of the biggest stories in the history of the whole country.

And the mainstream media was sort of acting like, well, that was last week's hit and we'll just move on.

Nothing happening here.

Um, yeah.

So the media is disappearing the story, but John Brennan, who is central to the story and is being suspected and accused of allegedly being behind a plot to uh overthrow the Trump administration, actually a coup by manufacturing some fake uh intelligence in his role as head of the CIA at the time.

So, uh, John Brennan went on Jen Saki's show on MSNBC.

How many of you know that NBC and MSNBC are widely assumed to be working with our own, you know, intelligence people to hypnotize the country?

Now, I don't know if they are.

I know that people who are smarter than me say, "Oh, yeah, it's obvious.

They're they're basically in the pocket of the intelligence.

Um, but anyway, you have to see uh you have to watch John Brennan tell you his side of the story.

The body language is hilarious.

You've you've heard of uh women who have resting face.

You know, just if they're sitting there silently, it looks like they're really angry.

Just their face is naturally that.

Well, John Brennan has a resting liar face.

He just sits there and he looks like he's lying.

He doesn't even have to have his mouth moving.

But you add, if you listen to it with the sound off, watch how uncomfortable he is and and his body language.

You know, if you watch it with the sound off, it looks like a sci-fi where he his body is being taken over by a demon.

Anyway, look for that.

So Matt Taibbe um commented on X to a clip of John Brennan on Jensen Saki's show and Matt said um of all the goons from that administration Brennan is the most likely to be cut loose or ratted out roundly disliked even by people in his own party and also the player with the most obvious exposure.

So um So, I guess Brandon was saying that Tulsa Gabbard isn't stupid, so therefore she must be lying uh with the stuff that she's telling the public.

And uh Matt Tybee says, "What exactly is she lying about?" So he says this in his his ex post and he says Matt Tai says, "Did you not base your central claim on crap evidence your own handpicked analysts wanted to reject?

You didn't lie to Congress about using the steel dossier in the A." And then somebody else put a a video of uh him lying to Congress about that very thing.

So, they've got video of him lying, um, you know, in documentation that proves that what he said on video was a lie.

And that's illegal.

But I'm going to stay with my um I'm going to stick with my prediction that none of those top guys will go to jail.

I don't know why.

It just seems to me that we live in a country where people at that level just they just don't go to jail.

Just somehow the energy gets pulled out of the whole situation or there's some weird uh legal thing that happens.

I don't know.

But I don't expect Obama or Brennan or Clapper to be held accountable.

Well, the nation's largest teachers union, the NEA, um, according to Corey D'Angelus, he's a school choice evangelist.

You should be following NX.

And apparently, he had noticed and called out the fact that they had their handbook on a website.

So, you could see the national whatever it is, the biggest uh, largest teachers union.

You could see their handbook.

and the handbook um was this anti-white this whole anti-white thing.

So the national So here's what it says in their handbook that they have now uh without comment removed from their website.

So they felt they had to remove their own handbook from their own website because we might see what they were teaching the teachers.

And this is what they expected.

Educators must acknowledge the existence of white supremacy culture as a primary root cause of institutional racism, structural racism, and white privilege.

Educators must also work to prohibit institutionally racist systems.

The NEA will push um strategies fostering the eradication of institutional racism and white privilege perpetuated by white supremacy culture.

Now, I'm not questioning whether there's some of that in existence.

It's just that if that's the slant you put on it and the teachers are teaching it, um, what do you think is going to happen to the white kids who had nothing to do with any of this?

They were just born and went to school and then they have to sit there and find out that that they're the problem.

And you're sitting in the class and your teacher is telling you, "Yeah, uh, all of you non-white kids, um, you're just all victims." And uh you know Brad over here, he's one of the reasons that you have all this systemic racism.

He's part of the problem.

That's what that's the way it's going to come out.

So I would uh homeschool.

I I wouldn't go I would not let a child go into that environment.

That looks dangerous.

Um, so Ken Martin, who is the head of the DNC, um, this is how well the DNC is going.

So imagine being the head of the DNC.

And ask yourself if Trump would ever do this.

We know that Trump takes credit for anything, even if it didn't happen.

We know that Trump tells you everything's going to be great and it's maybe it's already great and it's getting greater every day.

So now compare what Trump would have said even if there was a little bit of hyperbole and exaggeration involved to what Ken Martin of the DNC says about um the Democrat party, which is his job to make sure they do better.

He said, quote, "When you hit rock bottom, there's only one direction to go, and that's up, and that's what we're doing." Really, he he's describing his own party, the one that he's been, you know, intimately involved with trying to rehabilitate.

And he says that while he's been in office that they've hit rock bottom and there's only one direction to go.

So the most optimistic thing he could say is you can't get any worse.

Can you imagine in any world where Trump would use those words?

We've hit rock bottom.

There's only one direction to go.

After he'd been in charge for months, maybe if he had just taken the job, Trump would say, "We're at rock bottom, but it will take me a week to sort this out and then it would be great.

But the Democrats are so bad at messaging that that they just beat themselves up and act like they couldn't be any worse.

If you were thinking of joining a political party, would you join the political party that says the golden age has begun and the best six months of any president has just happened and America's back and uh we're suddenly now again respected in the international stage.

Uh NATO is stepping up with us.

Would you want to be on that team?

Or the one that says like Droopy Dog, when you hit bottom, there's only one direction to go and that's up.

And that's what we're doing.

Well, how are you doing that, Ken Martin?

Well, we'll probably have an off-site meeting to talk about our strategy, but it probably involves swearing more to appear to be more authentic.

Oh my god.

Well, there's a Harvard study according to the brighter side of news.

Joshua Shaveet is Is that really his name?

His last name is shave it.

S H A V I T.

Um I used to work with somebody named her last name was Beavers.

So every time I see a name like this I think what if it were the 70s and Joshua Shaveet married into the Beavers family?

Would they name their kid Beaver shave it or shave it beaver.

I don't know.

Could happen.

But that's not why I brought it up.

Um, there's a Harvard study that finds that a common virus is what triggers multiple sclerosis in 97% of cases.

A common virus.

and that the uh virus is.

Are you ready for the greatest simulation you've ever heard?

Think about all the things that have been in the news recently.

Okay.

And now listen to what I'm going to tell you is the name of the common virus that may be the cause of almost all of uh multiple sclerosis.

I'm not making this up.

You've heard of this virus before.

It's not the first time you've heard his name, but you haven't heard it in this context before.

The virus is called the Epstein bar virus.

Now, most of you have heard of that.

Epstein bar, B A R.

The Epstein story features Bob Bar and Bob Bar's father.

The actual news is about Epstein and Bar.

And then there's other news that Epstein bar is causing multiple sclerosis.

Come on, how is this not a simulation?

Is that just a weird coincidence?

Anyway, um I would bet that the Epstein bar virus does not cause 97% of MS because it feels like that would be a much bigger story.

But there's a study, so maybe it'll be reproduced.

Maybe we'll find that out.

Maybe that would suggest a cure.

I don't know.

Um, apparently there's uh now indications that bread, eating bread is what makes people sad, anxious, or even hallucinate.

And that uh the gluten triggers an immune response in up to 1 in 17 people that causes uh inflammation in the brain.

I guess they would get brain fog, mood swings, anxiety, depression.

Oh, I guess that's the problem with Hillary Clinton.

I I was blaming her for being a drunk, but I feel like that there's no evidence for that.

But she's bred.

Maybe she's one of the one in 17 where she's perfectly normal and then she eats some bread and then she's like you.

So yeah, mood swings.

Yeah, could be.

Um but apparently there's even indication that schizophrenia is caused by bread.

um that if you're a schizophrenic and you have some bread, that's what triggers your your uh schizophrenic hallucinations.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that bread is not just, you know, not the best for you, but that one in 17 people are triggered into essentially some kind of schizophrenic thing?

I don't know.

I I don't trust science as much as I once did.

Just to say the least, to say the least.

Um but maybe I don't know, maybe.

Um that was in the Telegraph.

Do you remember that uh of course there was a big fire in January in Los Angeles and uh hundreds of people lost their homes and had uh financial issues etc.

But the good news is that the musical stars pulled together and they held a concert to raise money.

It was called Fire Aid and it was to raise money for the LA wildfire victims.

So, what political party do you think most of the performers belong to?

Well, I don't know, but I'm guessing almost all of them were probably Democrats.

What um political party is in charge of California and also Los Angeles?

Well, Democrats.

Democrats.

What political party do you think organized the fire aid concert?

Well, I'm guessing Democrats, probably Democrats.

So, Democrat performers, uh, Democrat management, Democrat government.

And what do you think happened to the hund00 million they raised that the Democrats raised that was managed by the Democrats in the Democrat state in the Democrat city?

What What do you think happened?

Well, if you said that none of it went directly to the victims of the fire, you would be correct.

It's all Democrats.

Now, give me a guess.

Where did the money go?

Where did it go?

If not directly to the people suffering, where'd it go?

Well, the answer is it was spread among 120 nonprofits.

Can you freaking believe it?

120 nonprofits.

And when you hear the names of some of the nonprofits, it's really obvious that they're not providing any kind of service to anybody.

I mean, some of them might, but 120 120 and none of the money, none of it.

And as far as I can tell, none of the nonprofits have done anything with the money that would help anybody.

It looks like Democrats just stole it from other Democrats.

It looks like it was just all stolen.

Uh but they do that the the way Democrats steal is they raise money through some legal means and then they channel it all to these nonprofits that are, as far as I can tell, either largely fake or mostly fake or nearly all fake.

I mean, I don't know.

But um so if you hear any nonprofit organization these days, I would just assume it's a scam.

So there may have been 120 different scams.

I don't know maybe some of them are legitimate but that is the most Democrat thing that ever happened.

First first the fire is their you know the you could argue that the Democrats should have done more to make the place not burn up and then they don't get uh much in the way of approvals for building permits and then they raise money but they steal it all.

So, so far, Democrats doing great.

You're doing great.

There's an American woman who just got sentenced to 8 and a half years in prison for running a laptop farm that North Koreans could use to pretend to be working in the US remotely.

So, as I understand it, she was an American and she would set up a bunch of different laptops in America in her own apartment, it looked like.

And then the North Koreans, I'm guessing this is what was happening, could remotely access those laptops and then do the work as if they were doing the work in America.

And then she would charge them and they would make a bunch of money for North Korea.

And I have to admit, this is another one of those situations where I want to be all all judgy like you criminal, you stole money, but there's no indication that the companies that bought this service didn't get good service.

So, it might be that the North Korean remote workers were really good workers, but they had to be.

they would get executed if they didn't produce money probably.

I'm just making that up.

Um, but instead of being outraged that this woman ran this scam, uh, I find myself weirdly thinking, well, that was pretty smart.

That was kind of awesome.

It's not exactly victimless because American money is being sent to North Korea, but it's it's on the edge of being victimless because if the companies that bought that service got the service, then it's not the worst crime.

So, there's a story that's been in the news that I haven't talked about.

I'll tell you why.

Um you've seen stories that uh food is not getting to the starving people in Gaza, the residents, which is big problem.

Now you've probably seen allegations that the IDF, Israel's military, um may have shot people who were just trying to get food.

Do you believe that's true?

Um, my advice is don't believe anything that comes out of a war zone about who's doing what with food or who's got a base under a hospital.

None of this stuff is credible.

Now, if if that happened, I would think, well, that's pretty bad and somebody needs to pay for that.

Um, or then I'm sure the the Israel version is that Hamas is the one that's stealing the food and then reselling it to the to the Gaza residents or something.

So, my point is that the reason I don't talk about this one is that if you're not right there, you really can't believe any of it.

So, I'm not defending Israel, but I'm also not condemning them.

I just feel like this is one that you'll never really know who did what or why.

So, I'm just going to let it go.

I'll just I'm just noting that I'm not ignoring it.

It's just there's nothing you can do with it.

And as I often say, I'm not uh pro-Israel or anti-Israel.

It's not my country.

I'm just observing and sometimes predicting.

Here's a weird story in Newsweek.

Sophie Clark has a story that Zalinski over there in Ukraine is working on a deal with the US where the US will buy up to $30 billion worth of drones made in Ukraine and that the US military would be essentially acquiring all of these drones.

Um, and in return, we would provide other non- drone weapons that Ukraine needs.

So, we would buy their drones, they would get in return our non- drone weapons they need, and it would be up to $30 billion.

Does that sound real to you?

The part that doesn't sound real to me is that Ukraine has extra drones because separately we learn that uh the Ukraine defense ministry says the drone strikes are now uh responsible for up to 80% of Russian battlefield casualties.

Does that mean that they've actually they ran out of targets?

Because if the drones are killing 80% of the people who are getting killed on the on the Russian side and they still are able to sell 30 billion worth of drones to the US, doesn't that suggest that they've run out of Russians?

There must be no Russians on the ground because surely there are enough Ukrainians.

I mean, because you could train, you know, women to do the job.

you wouldn't need male fighters or anything to operate the drones.

So, there's something wrong with the story.

I don't understand Ukraine being at war, their primary weapon being drones, and they still have the ability to sell $30 billion worth of them to the US, even if they're getting better weapons or different weapons.

Doesn't make sense, does it?

Uh, also I would worry that if it's true that it suggests that the US feels there's some kind of time time constraint where we're going to need these drones really quickly because otherwise I believe we would just spin up our own factories which I'm sure is already happening and make them ourselves or we should be well on the way to have to make them ourselves.

But if this is true, and I guess I'm skeptical that the story itself is true, but if it's true, it would suggest that maybe the US feels it needs a whole bunch of drones really quickly, which would be very scary.

Maybe has something to do with Taiwan or something.

Anyway, that worries me, but I think it's most likely that the story is fake.

Um, as I told you, uh, I'm finishing the show now.

And those of you who would like, you can join, uh, Owen Gregorian on a spaces event that will get fired up within a minutes of me ending here.

And it's on X and you can just find the link to it in my X feed, Scott Adams, or Owen Gregorians.

just uh search for him on X.

It'll pop right up.

All right, that's all I got, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm going to talk to the locals people privately and uh the beloved beloved locals people and the rest of you.

Thanks for joining.

I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place because I never take the weekend off.

Everybody, come on in. Grab a chair.

We're about to have some Saturday

goodness

because you deserve it. You worked hard

all week. And now what you need more

than anything is what I'm about to serve

up

as soon as the comments are working.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance to elevate

this experience to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains. All you need for

that

is

copper mugger glass attacker Charles a

canteen jugger flask 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. It's called the

simultaneous sip and it happens right

now. Go.

Good.

Better than usual.

Unusually satisfying.

Well, immediately after this podcast,

Owen Gregorian will be doing a spaceless

event. You have to be on X to uh attend.

And uh you can find that on my feed on X

or on Owen Gregorian's feed. Just search

for him and you can be part of that.

Well, I wonder if there's any new

science that uh didn't need to happen

because I could have told them. Oh,

here's one. Uh Eric Dolan is writing for

Cypos as he likes to do.

There's a new study that finds that

humans can still be AI at one uh

creative task, which is generating more

original ideas.

Now,

I'm a creative person by nature and I do

it for a living. And uh I'm here to tell

you I've tried to get Chat GPT to do my

job for me. I've actually asked it, Chad

GPT, can you give me some ideas for a

Dilbert comic? And not even a joke, just

just the basic setup, the idea of the

situation. And it really can't do that.

It can it can only give the most obvious

ideas. It would be stuff like um

somebody setting in for the boss or the

boss doesn't give you a raise and you're

like that's so boring. I can't do

anything with that. So yes, it is true

the humans are still way ahead of AI and

coming up with creative ideas because AI

is trained on existing ideas. So, it's a

walking it's a walking cliche by the

time it gets to you. Um, now I have

another theory of why it is that humans

will be better at creative stuff. It's

because we can feel what other people

are feeling at the same time they're

feeling it. So if uh if I knew there was

something happening in the news that was

different or interesting, I might say,

"Well, that's that's where my creativity

will go. I'll make a joke about that or

I'll write a song about that because

that's what people are thinking and

feeling." AI can't do that. AI just

looks at what has been done before and

tries to do a little more of it. But a

human can say what is everybody feeling

right now that they don't normally feel

and then use that to create. So until

till they can do that AI will be behind.

Uh well, uh company, a Chinese company

that makes robots called Unitry has

launched a $5,900,

uh full-size humanoid robot. But you

know how I always tell you, um I'm not

sure AI can ever power a robot because

there's probably a reason that we only

see it ever doing one thing.

Whenever there's a video of look at my

humanoid robot,

it can put this box over on that shelf a

hund times in a row. To which I say, can

it do anything else?

So, sure enough, um, this is not a

general purpose robot because I don't

think those are even possible.

I don't know, maybe maybe Elon Musk has

solved it, but I just don't think that

the current versions of AI can power a

robot.

So instead of having a general purpose

robot, for $5,900, you can buy a robot

that's designed for individual

developers and early stage research

teams rather than hobbyists.

So they don't even sell it to hobbyists.

Do you know what that means?

It means you can't even just dig around

with it. It has so little utility that

you wouldn't give it to somebody who

just wanted to play around with it and

see what it could do. You'd have to give

it to somebody who's actually a

developer who can make it do something

because it doesn't know how to do

anything anything useful apparently

except uh I think it has some kind of

acrobatic thing.

Um, you know how we always say that the

Amish don't get the chronic health

problems that the rest of us do and then

we say it must be them vaccinations.

And then we say it's not the

vaccinations, it's the the food. They

don't have all the preservatives in

their food.

And we don't really know. But it does

seem that they have fewer chronic

problems. One of those chronic problems

is allergies that they don't have. So

the Amish children rarely have

allergies. And there's a new study, ZME

Science has this story from Rupendra

Brahbat.

And the story says that u it might be

because the Amish barns

um are full of dust

that makes the kids more immune to

allergies.

Now, do you know what kind of dust there

is in a barn?

It would be hay, right? And also cow

waste. So that's that's what they're

breathing. But if you spend a lot of

time in barns, apparently you have fewer

problems with allergies. Didn't work for

me. I spent a lot of time in a barn when

I was young. Um, but it didn't cure my

allergies. Damn it.

So, let me correct the uh fake news that

you may have seen. You may have seen on

social media that the TV show The View

is they were taping the last show and

said they were going on a hiatus or

something and people said The View is

going out, you know, is no longer on TV.

But that's not true because The View

takes the same vacation every summer. So

there's there's nothing to suggest

that the TV show The View will be

discontinued. they just always take that

week off or two weeks or whatever it is.

Well, apparently there's a a Billy Joel

documentary on HBO which is a worthless

piece of that for reasons I can't

even fathom uh repeats the Fine People

hoax more than once. The Fine People

hoax is in a documentary

with Billy Joel. Now, I haven't watched

it, so I assume that it's something

like, and then Billy Joel was inspired

to, you know, get involved in politics

because of the fine people hoax or

something like that. I mean, I don't

even know why it's in the Billy Joel

documentary, but you pieces of

HBO.

I mean, absolute I think the U I

believe the Trump administration should

sue them. So, I think uh Trump should

sue HBO for putting this documentary on

and having what they should know by now

is fake news about the fine people.

So, we'll see if that happens.

Apparently, the Trump administration is

tightening foreign worker visas somehow,

making it stricter. But one of the

things that uh they're also looking at

is citizenship tests. So for those

people who would qualify for

citizenship, which is separate from the

visa question, um there's some uh energy

to make the test harder. Now, I guess it

used to be harder under Trump's first

term. I feel like they did this once

before, but uh apparently the thinking

is that it's too easy to pass the test

because you just have to memorize, you

know, a certain amount of stuff. So,

they want to make it longer and harder

to pass. And I kind of love the fact

that that would be like an IQ test to

get into the country. That's better than

a two minimum. It's like, all right,

here's the deal. Uh, you cannot enter

our country unless you're at least this

tall. Uh, you buy at least two drinks

and your IQ is high enough that you can

pass this much harder citizenship test.

What What would happen to our country if

from this day on nobody could come in

unless they could pass a citizenship

test that even the people who were born

here couldn't pass?

We'd have all the smart people here,

wouldn't we?

But we can't say that. You know, it

would be politically incorrect to say,

um, we've instituted a IQ test because

then immediately people would say that's

racist, which would be racist, which is

the weird part. If you think that having

an IQ test would be racist, you're the

racist. Just think about it.

Well, apparently Harvard wants to settle

with the uh Trump administration

because uh Colombia settled with that

$200 million fine that they agreed to

pay. So maybe Harvard figured out it was

cheaper to just pay a bunch of money and

uh maybe agree to a bunch of stuff. And

uh we'll see. So, might be a little

early to assume that that's really going

to happen, but Harvard might want to

take the easy way out. And uh Trump

continues to monetize bad behavior.

So, he's literally figured out how the

government can make money

um by going after racists in in the

college community, specifically the

people running the colleges. So,

uh, I don't mind that they're a little

bit racist as long as we're reducing my

tax burden or we're paying down the

national debt. All right, you can be a

little bit racist, but it's going to

cost you.

I don't know. I I'm just perpetually

amused when Trump does the Trumpiest

thing you could possibly do, which is

I'm either going to solve this problem,

such as Ukraine or Fentinel or whatever,

or if I can't solve it or until I solve

it, I'm going to monetize it. I'm going

to make whoever is involved with this

just pay me a bunch of money.

Nobody else would do that, but he does.

Well, do you remember uh Terry Moran? He

worked for ABC and got let go recently.

So, he's got his own thing going on

Substack, I think. And uh he was talking

to uh who was he talking to? What's his

name? Uh Matthews.

And he was worried that Trump is going

to close down or somehow force the sale

or merger of all the big news networks

to his cronies so that he would be able

to control the news. So for example, um

the CBS was part of Paramount or still

is and the merger has just been approved

for was it Dance? Is that the name of

the company? But that would be run by

Larry Ellison's son. So Larry Ellison's

son would be in charge of CBS News

because they've merged and Larry Ellison

is a Trump supporter. So I'm sort of

guessing his son would be supportive of

Trump. Now, that would look like a win

for Trump because it would make one of

the big news organizations

appear to be, at least on paper, appear

to be, well, maybe they'll be a little

more proTrump biased.

And Terry Moran is sounding the alarm

that if if it's not stopped, Trump will

roll up all the, you know, the the

traditional media and make it somehow

his his uh puppet.

To which I say,

do they have any awareness of why

uh at least a third of the country

believes it's all fake news? Are they

aware at all that nobody would need to

move against them unless they were just

monstrously biased in one direction?

We wouldn't be having a conversation

about Trump trying to control the media.

If if you believe that's what's

happening, we wouldn't have that

conversation.

Uh unless

the media was so bad that going after it

and destroying it seems like your best

strategy.

now. But I but I have to admit I have to

admit since I'm in my own little bubble,

I don't often see everything that the

other side is is thinking. Um I I

stopped for a while and I thought about

this. Is it true that Trump is

sort of maybe it looks like it's a bunch

of coincidences,

but is the media becoming more proTrump?

So CBS maybe, we don't know yet. Um, we

know Media Matters is having some

issues. They might may run out of money.

We know Gawker went out of business, you

know, for its own reasons. The whole

Kogan lawsuit took them out.

Is it true that Trump is chipping away?

And well, he also sued ABC News

successfully, right? So maybe there

might be something to it, but I wouldn't

say it's the end of the world. It's more

like uh an attack on existing bias.

So we'll see. What I don't expect is

that CBS will turn into a uh a proTrump

news network. I don't think so. you

know, they they might shoe for a middle

ground, but I don't think they're, you

know, they wouldn't make money. They

wouldn't last long if they went the

other direction.

Well, here is the persuasion play of the

day. Do you remember the Well, of course

you do. You all know the story of the

CEO that went to the Cold Play concert

and he was hugging his mistress and they

got caught on the the cam or everybody

in the everybody at home and no I guess

everybody at the stadium gets to see

them and then you know he ducked down

because they were caught in the act and

eventually very soon after that he

resigned.

The company that he resigned from is

called Astronomer

and they sell some kind of technology

product that I don't understand but um

today they launched a uh commercial

featuring Gwyneith Pelro who used to be

married to the Coldplay frontman. Right.

So the first thing you notice is wait a

minute that's a weird connection. they

hired to do a little commercial

the ex-wife of the cold play guy who

called out the cheaters and that's why

they're in the news and she she says

that she has a very temporary assignment

very temporary meaning just making that

one video I think um and she pretends

that she's there to answer questions

that all of you have now what is clever

about it is that you instantly believe

that the question she's going to answer

are something about the scandal of the

CEO and then you see the question

starting to form on the screen. you

know, the word the the type is for for

me on the screen, but before it

completes the sentence, she cuts away

and gives you a little commercial about

something their company does and it's

funny and it doesn't last too long and

the commercial isn't painful because

it's Gwyneith Paulro and it's it's in

the context of almost a practical joke

because you're sure they're going to

talk about that drama but they never

too.

They make you think about it and it's

why the thing is so damn clever. So,

it's all tongue and cheek, but they get

in their whole commercial and it's viral

as heck because they did it so well.

It's just really well done and uh it's a

play of the play of the day. People are

impressed by it.

Well, according to the Daily Wire, Tim

Pierce is writing that the Trump

administration has located 13,000

unaccompanied minors who came across the

border. Um, that's the good news.

They've located 13,000 of them. The bad

news is that the total number who may

have come over the border unaccompanied,

meaning not with their biological

parents, but probably with some adult

who had sketchy intentions.

Um,

that it may have been several hundred

thousand

hundreds of thousands of unattended

children came across the border.

Hundreds of thousands. and the

administration has only found 13,000.

I I've seen a bunch of people say that

the government of the United States is

unambiguously the biggest um child

trafficker

and I say to myself

really or or is it more possible

that uh a lot of kids are coming across

so later they can I don't know get their

parents across and maybe they're just

coming to work.

What percentage of those hundreds of

thousands are being trafficked andor

used for illegal child labor?

I watch this story and I keep waiting

for some kind of confirmation where we

caught this big ring that had a 100,000,

you know, child sex slaves or something.

And I think to myself, where is that

story? or is it all onesies and

twoozies, but there are hundreds and

thousands of them? I don't know what to

believe about this one. Uh I do believe

there is an enormous problem. What I

don't know,

are we talking about 50,000 victimized

children, which would be an enormous

enormous problem, or are we talking

about hundreds of thousands,

which would be almost unimagin Well, it

is literally unimaginable.

So, no, no. Well, you would not be

surprised to hear

that uh Galileain Maxwell is or her her

attorney is raising the question of

whether she should get a pardon because

she's cooperating with the Department of

Justice and

um apparently she's going to have her

second conversation maybe today. Uh and

she has answered every question asked

and seems not to be hiding anything. But

I guess I would ask how that works.

Shouldn't you make the deal before you

give them everything they want to know?

And then I saw some people comment on

the the possibility that she would be

pardoned and I guess it would be 5 years

of her 20ear sentence if she were let

out right away.

And

immediately there was a problem there

which is that uh people are not

I'm going to say that people are not

rational when it comes to the whole

Epstein situation. They're not rational.

So they would rather she got um her full

20 years than they would find all the

other I mean if imagine if she could

tell you all the other uh guilty people

and it's the only way you could find out

which I think might be the only way you

could find out. If she were the only way

you could find out who the other abusers

were, the adult abusers, if she were the

only way, you wouldn't give her a

pardon.

I understand that you think that would

be the worst thing that could ever

happen because she was so central to the

the badness that happened. And to

imagine that she could ever get off easy

is, you know, bothering you no end. But

what if

It was the only way you could find the

two dozen other leaders or rich people

who had been doing the worst possible

things.

What would you think would be the better

thing for society?

Well, I don't know, but uh apparently it

hasn't been negotiated in advance. So

maybe if they're just trying to do the

thing where if they answer every

question

um then she just hopes that the right

thing will happen. We'll see. But uh

I've seen some people I guess Newsmax

host Greg Kelly has suggested that uh

she might be a victim herself, a victim

of Epstein.

What do you think of that?

Um,

do you think that uh she could be seen

as a victim?

Well,

um, let me add my hypnotist take on

this. Whatever it is that Epstein did,

he seemed to be consistently able to get

the people to do things that you

wouldn't imagine people would do. Are

you all on the same page there?

that

Epstein was able to get an ex president

of the United States to fly to his

little naughty island like 26 times.

Does that seem to you like something

that anybody could have done?

Not really. Then there's the whole uh

convincing people to do

um things which you could argue if they

had been of age you could argue was um

consensual. But of course below a

certain age there's no such thing as

consensual. Not really.

So how did he talk so many people

into doing so many unbelievable things?

So somehow he had some ability of

persuasion

that was not normal. Would you all agree

with that? He might have been a black

mailer. He might have been just I don't

know charismatic in person.

I haven't heard anybody say one way or

the other actually. Um, so how in the

world did he get people who normally

would not do anything like the things

they're accused of,

so many of them, to do things that you

can't imagine? What what about um the

money that he got?

You know what what about the fact that

all these people even after All right,

here's here's the best way to say it.

Even after people knew

that he had been accused of and credibly

convicted of sex crimes,

didn't Bill Gates still meet with him a

whole bunch of times,

which obviously was going to get out. So

there there a whole bunch of people in

this story who you would normally say to

yourself, why would they do that?

I'm talking about the victims as well as

people who are accused of being

perpetrators, but we only know that they

were in his company.

So, I have a mixed feeling.

On one hand, you have to punish the

people who were adults who did things

that are crimes. You can't just say,

"Well, I got talked into it because he

was so convincing." So on the criminal

on the on the level of criminality,

you just have to punish, you know, as if

nobody influenced her and it was all her

idea.

However, outside of the realm of the

purely legal and how you have to run a

country, you can't just let people get

away with stuff. Um,

I do believe that it's very likely that

she was psychologically influenced in a

way that almost effectively removed any

um any chance she would resist. But I

don't know. I'm just looking at the

total picture and saying that he's

clearly a person who gets people to do

things you can't imagine anybody could

get anybody to do. So, but again, just

to be clear,

um you can't have a system that allows

that to be an excuse cuz then everybody

would use it. Well, it wasn't me. I got

talked into it.

Um, President Trump is in Scotland,

uh, the only country that's named after

me, and I always appreciate that. Um,

and he was asked about pardoning Galain

Maxwell and he said, and I quote, "This

is no time to be talking about pardons."

And then he uh changed the topic to,

"You should be talking about Clinton and

former president of Harvard."

Uh, talking about his friends, the hedge

fund guys over there. Don't talk about

Trump.

So,

if you were trying to decipher

what's in Trump's mind,

he didn't say, "I haven't thought about

it," or "I haven't looked into it."

Although he did say that, I think

yesterday. Um, he said there is no time

to be talking about pardons. Hm. That

does suggest that that there could be a

time when you would talk about pardons,

but this is not the time.

To me, it sounds like there's a little

bit of movement

toward at least testing to see if

pardoning her would cause more problems

than it than it solves. So, my guess is

that he hasn't ruled it out.

Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer

uh used all this situation to tell us

that sending Todd Blanch over there to

talk to Galain Maxwell. Um Schumer says,

"Let me be clear, Trump's sending his

personal lawyer." Now, I think maybe

Todd Blanch was his personal lawyer at

one point, but now he's with the

Department of Justice. But he says Trump

sending his personal lawyer Todd Blanch

to meet with Gla Maxwell stinks of high

corruption and conflict of interest.

Now how many of you would have even

thought that that was a problem that the

Department of Justice is talking to Gain

Maxwell? Like would you even seen that

as political?

It didn't even strike me as political or

or conflicts of interest or corruption.

Do you think

that uh I mean, how would that plot

work? What exactly would Trump be up to

that he could benefit by having the

Department of Justice and a and a lawyer

that he has some connection to talk to

her? How is that bad? Is the idea that

if she said, "Well, and Trump was on the

island," that they just wouldn't tell

us. Is that what he thinks? Or is it

just an excuse to say something that

ties Trump to Epstein?

I don't know. But meanwhile, the Wall

Street Journal has a poll that says that

economic optimism is way up. Uh I feel

that that's just the optimism about the

economy. Um I feel that optimism is

entirely because the tariffs are not

causing any destruction yet. I mean

anything could happen but so far it

looks like the tariff situation worked

or will work or continue to work. So I

could uh understand why optimism surge

because people don't have their own

opinions. They turn on the news and then

the news tells them what their opinion

is. Yeah. Then the the the capital

expenditures are up and uh employment is

not bad and inflation's at least the

rate is not bad. Things are too

expensive but at least the rate of

inflation is not bad.

Um

anyway, so uh it's good for Trump

and uh

Trump has suggested I think he might

have said this well either before his

Scotland trip that he's on right now or

during I can't tell but he suggested

that giving out rebates

is possible from the billions in tariff

revenue he's getting. Do you think that

Trump should be talking about rebates? I

guess that would be like a tax rebate to

the citizens. Do you think that's

something he should be talking about as

opposed to paying down the national

debt?

I say pay down the national debt. Um

because that that's a existential

threat. I I understand that people are

suffering and they need money, but I

really I wouldn't be delighted if that

money went to rebates because people

weren't expecting it. So, he's probably

just floating the idea, but I don't know

that that would be an 8020 idea. I would

be curious. I feel like most people

would have preferred if he'd never

brought it up because if he never

brought it up, then they would say,

"Well, here's 500 billion. Maybe in 2026

it'll be 500 billion." Uh that goes

toward the national debt. And I would

say that is the best president of all

time. If he actually pulled that off, I

I would be just amazed. Even though we

know that a lot of that is coming from

the profits of the American

corporations,

but

you know,

if it pays down the national debt,

that's a pretty big deal. So,

I don't love the rebate idea.

Well, according to Breitbart News,

Jasmine Jordan is writing that media

matters. Do you know media matters? It's

a I guess it would be a media

organization that uh lives to defend the

Democrats and attack the Republicans and

it's generally considered by anybody on

the right as a just a horrible horrible

entity that they wish would go away. But

apparently they're having some issues.

Um some say they're on the verge of

going out of business, but they say no.

Um, but they've racked up over $50

million in legal bills

for uh some sketchy stuff they've been

doing. Um,

so they're in legal and financial um

jeopardy. We don't know if it's fatal

and their future is in jeopardy. So that

would be another example of a media

entity, although they weren't really a

media entity. or more like an attack dog

that uh may be having trouble in the

Trump world.

Um but they have quietly cut back on

their attacks and slash staff and

floated the idea of shuttering

operations entirely. I guess the New

York Times is writing about this.

Uh but when asked about it, this is what

they said. They said they have no plans

to close

When a corporate entity says, "We have

no plans for that," does that mean they

have no plans for that?

I feel like if they had no plans for it,

and they didn't think it was going to

happen, they would say, "Oh, absolutely,

we're not going to close."

But if you can't say we're absolutely

not going to close and instead you say

we don't have plans to close, that's a

little more about the plan than it is

about the closing, if you know what I

mean. It it shifts your attention from

the are you going to close to the

question of whether you have a plan for

it. I do believe they don't have a plan.

That don't that doesn't mean they're not

going to close or that they don't expect

to.

Uh, also Trump over in Scotland is

warning Europe that they're basically

killing themselves with unrestricted

immigration. Immigration is killing

Europe. That's his exact quote.

Immigration is killing Europe. Now, do

you believe that the Trump effect could

be strong enough to save Europe or is it

already too late? I think it's already

too late. I think Europe is done. You

know, might take a generation to uh

adjust to what what's happening, but

there it's definitely not the Europe of

my childhood. But whatever it will be,

good or bad, it won't be anything like

it used to be. And uh Trump thinks it

will be bad.

Um,

so what do you think of the cover up

that's happening with the new Russia

hoax documents that Tulsi Gabbard has

produced?

Especially the part where we recently

learned that Russia knew, which means

that the Democrats knew that Hillary

Clint Hillary Clinton had allegedly uh

psycho emotional problems, uncontrolled

fits of anger, aggression, and

cheerfulness.

And she was on a daily regimen of

tranquilizers.

Now, don't you think that should be the

biggest story

that that we almost uh elected somebody

who is on a lot of tranquilizers

and needed it? You know what's missing

from that story?

We know that Hillary has, at least in

the past, enjoyed a good glass of wine.

Do you believe that these are uh mental

problems or the sign that sometimes

she's drinking? If somebody said um

there's this this woman, she she seems

to sometimes but not all the time have

psycho emotional problems, uncontrolled

fits of anger, aggression, and

cheerfulness.

Isn't that exactly saying drunk?

I mean, isn't it

if if I didn't give you any hints and I

just said, "All right, here's a set of

symptoms and it includes uncontrolled

fits of anger, aggression, but also

cheerfulness."

My first guess would be that she's an

angry drunk. right

now. There's no evidence of that.

But isn't that the kind of question we'd

be asking if if this were anybody on the

right? Yeah. Yeah. Maybe it's bipolar,

but

I doubt it.

I don't know. I feel like there's some

kind of protecting people who are

drinking in public. You know, we we've

heard that a lot of the people in

Congress are drunks

and uh maybe there's just some unwritten

rule that the media doesn't focus on

that cuz they're also drunks. That's my

guess.

But the fact that the u the mainstream

media kind of touchs on this story, but

they're not treating it like it's the

biggest thing, the biggest story in the

history of the country. It's one of the

biggest stories in the history of the

whole country. And the mainstream media

was sort of acting like, well, that was

last week's hit and we'll just move on.

Nothing happening here.

Um,

yeah.

So the media is disappearing the story,

but John Brennan, who is central to the

story and is being suspected and accused

of allegedly

being behind a plot to uh overthrow the

Trump administration, actually a coup by

manufacturing some fake uh intelligence

in his role as head of the CIA at the

time. So, uh, John Brennan went on Jen

Saki's show on MSNBC.

How many of you know

that NBC and MSNBC are widely assumed to

be working with our own, you know,

intelligence people

to hypnotize the country? Now, I don't

know if they are. I know that people who

are smarter than me say, "Oh, yeah, it's

obvious. They're they're basically in

the pocket of the intelligence.

Um, but anyway, you have to see uh you

have to watch John Brennan tell you his

side of the story. The body language is

hilarious. You've you've heard of uh

women who have resting face.

You know, just if they're sitting there

silently, it looks like they're really

angry. Just their face is naturally

that. Well, John Brennan has a resting

liar face.

He just sits there and he looks like

he's lying. He doesn't even have to have

his mouth moving. But you add, if you

listen to it with the sound off,

watch how uncomfortable he is and and

his body language.

[Music]

You know, if you watch it with the sound

off, it looks like a sci-fi

where he his body is being taken over by

a demon.

Anyway, look for that.

So Matt Taibbe um commented on X to a

clip of John Brennan on Jensen Saki's

show and Matt said um of all the goons

from that administration Brennan is the

most likely to be cut loose or ratted

out roundly disliked even by people in

his own party and also the player with

the most obvious exposure.

So um

So, I guess Brandon was saying that

Tulsa Gabbard isn't stupid, so therefore

she must be lying uh with the stuff that

she's telling the public. And uh Matt

Tybee says, "What exactly is she lying

about?" So he says this in his his ex

post and he says Matt Tai says,

"Did you not base your central claim on

crap evidence your own handpicked

analysts wanted to reject? You didn't

lie to Congress about using the steel

dossier in the A." And then somebody

else put a a video of uh him lying to

Congress about that very thing.

So, they've got video of him lying,

um, you know, in documentation that

proves that what he said on video was a

lie. And that's illegal.

But I'm going to stay with my um I'm

going to stick with my prediction that

none of those top guys will go to jail.

I don't know why. It just seems to me

that we live in a country where people

at that level just they just don't go to

jail. Just somehow the energy gets

pulled out of the whole situation or

there's some weird

uh legal thing that happens.

I don't know. But I don't expect Obama

or Brennan or Clapper to be held

accountable.

Well, the nation's largest teachers

union, the NEA, um, according to Corey

D'Angelus, he's a school choice

evangelist. You should be following NX.

And apparently, he had noticed and

called out the fact that they had their

handbook on a website. So, you could see

the national

whatever it is, the biggest uh, largest

teachers union. You could see their

handbook. and the handbook

um was this anti-white

this whole anti-white thing. So the

national So here's what it says in their

handbook that they have now uh without

comment removed from their website.

So they felt they had to remove their

own handbook from their own website

because we might see what they were

teaching the teachers. And this is what

they expected. Educators must

acknowledge the existence of white

supremacy culture as a primary root

cause of institutional racism,

structural racism, and white privilege.

Educators must also work to prohibit

institutionally racist systems.

The NEA will push um strategies

fostering the eradication of

institutional racism and white privilege

perpetuated by white supremacy culture.

Now,

I'm not questioning

whether there's some of that in

existence.

It's just that if that's the slant you

put on it and the teachers are teaching

it, um, what do you think is going to

happen to the white kids who had nothing

to do with any of this? They were just

born and went to school and then they

have to sit there and find out that that

they're the problem. And you're sitting

in the class and your teacher is telling

you, "Yeah, uh, all of you non-white

kids,

um, you're just all victims." And uh you

know Brad over here,

he's one of the reasons that you have

all this systemic racism. He's part of

the problem. That's what that's the way

it's going to come out.

So

I would uh homeschool.

I I wouldn't go I would not let a child

go into that environment. That looks

dangerous.

Um, so Ken Martin, who is the head of

the DNC,

um, this is how well the DNC is going.

So imagine being the head of the DNC.

And ask yourself if Trump would ever do

this.

We know that Trump takes credit for

anything, even if it didn't happen. We

know that Trump tells you everything's

going to be great and it's maybe it's

already great and it's getting greater

every day. So now compare what Trump

would have said even if there was a

little bit of hyperbole and exaggeration

involved to what Ken Martin of the DNC

says about um the Democrat party, which

is his job to make sure they do better.

He said, quote, "When you hit rock

bottom, there's only one direction to

go, and that's up, and that's what we're

doing."

Really,

he he's describing his own party, the

one that he's been, you know, intimately

involved with trying to rehabilitate.

And he says that while he's been in

office that they've hit rock bottom and

there's only one direction to go.

So the most optimistic thing he could

say is you can't get any worse.

Can you imagine in any world where Trump

would use those words? We've hit rock

bottom. There's only one direction to

go. After he'd been in charge for

months,

maybe if he had just taken the job,

Trump would say, "We're at rock bottom,

but it will take me a week to sort this

out and then it would be great.

But the Democrats are so bad at

messaging

that that they just beat themselves up

and act like they couldn't be any worse.

If you were thinking of joining a

political party, would you join the

political party that says the golden age

has begun and the best six months of any

president has just happened and

America's back and uh we're suddenly now

again respected in the international

stage. Uh NATO is stepping up with us.

Would you want to be on that team?

Or the one that says like Droopy Dog,

when you hit bottom, there's only one

direction to go and that's up. And

that's what we're doing. Well, how are

you doing that,

Ken Martin?

Well, we'll probably have an off-site

meeting to talk about our strategy,

but it probably involves swearing more

to appear to be more authentic.

Oh my god.

Well, there's a Harvard study according

to the brighter side of news. Joshua

Shaveet

is Is that really his name? His last

name is shave it. S H A V I T.

Um

I used to work with somebody named her

last name was Beavers.

So every time I see a name like this I

think

what if it were the 70s and Joshua

Shaveet married into the Beavers family?

Would they name their kid

Beaver shave it or shave it beaver. I

don't know. Could happen. But that's not

why I brought it up. Um,

there's a Harvard study that finds that

a common virus is what triggers multiple

sclerosis in 97% of cases.

A common virus.

and that the uh virus is.

Are you ready for the greatest

simulation you've ever heard?

Think about all the things that have

been in the news recently. Okay. And now

listen to what I'm going to tell you is

the name of the common virus that may be

the cause of almost all of uh multiple

sclerosis. I'm not making this up.

You've heard of this virus before. It's

not the first time you've heard his

name, but you haven't heard it in this

context before. The virus is called the

Epstein bar virus.

Now, most of you have heard of that.

Epstein bar, B A R.

The Epstein story features Bob Bar and

Bob Bar's father.

The actual news is about Epstein and

Bar. And then there's other news that

Epstein bar is causing multiple

sclerosis.

Come on,

how is this not a simulation? Is that

just a weird coincidence? Anyway, um I

would bet

that the Epstein bar virus does not

cause 97% of MS

because it feels like that would be a

much bigger story. But there's a study,

so maybe it'll be reproduced. Maybe

we'll find that out. Maybe that would

suggest a cure. I don't know.

Um,

apparently there's uh now indications

that bread, eating bread is what makes

people sad, anxious, or even

hallucinate.

And that uh the gluten triggers an

immune response in up to 1 in 17 people

that causes uh inflammation in the

brain. I guess they would get brain fog,

mood swings, anxiety, depression. Oh, I

guess that's the problem with Hillary

Clinton.

I I was blaming her for being a drunk,

but I feel like that there's no evidence

for that. But she's bred. Maybe she's

one of the one in 17 where she's

perfectly normal and then she eats some

bread and then she's like

you.

So yeah, mood swings.

Yeah, could be. Um but apparently

there's even indication that

schizophrenia

is caused by bread.

um that if you're a schizophrenic and

you have some bread, that's what

triggers your your uh schizophrenic

hallucinations.

Do you believe that? Do you believe that

bread is not just, you know, not the

best for you, but that one in 17 people

are triggered into essentially some kind

of schizophrenic thing? I don't know. I

I don't trust science as much as I once

did. Just to say the least,

to say the least.

Um but maybe I don't know, maybe.

Um that was in the Telegraph.

Do you remember that uh of course there

was a big fire in January in Los Angeles

and uh hundreds of people lost their

homes and had uh financial issues etc.

But the good news is that the musical

stars pulled together and they held a

concert to raise money. It was called

Fire Aid and it was to raise money for

the LA wildfire victims.

So, what political party do you think

most of the performers belong to?

Well, I don't know, but I'm guessing

almost all of them were probably

Democrats.

What um political party is in charge of

California and also Los Angeles? Well,

Democrats. Democrats. What political

party do you think organized the fire

aid concert? Well, I'm guessing

Democrats, probably Democrats. So,

Democrat performers,

uh, Democrat management, Democrat

government.

And what do you think happened to the

hund00 million they raised

that the Democrats raised that was

managed by the Democrats in the Democrat

state in the Democrat city? What What do

you think happened? Well, if you said

that none of it went directly to the

victims of the fire, you would be

correct.

It's all Democrats. Now, give me a

guess. Where did the money go?

Where did it go? If not directly to the

people suffering, where'd it go?

Well, the answer is

it was spread among

120 nonprofits.

Can you freaking believe it?

120 nonprofits. And when you hear the

names of some of the nonprofits, it's

really obvious that they're not

providing any kind of service to

anybody. I mean, some of them might,

but 120

120

and none of the money, none of it. And

as far as I can tell, none of the

nonprofits have done anything with the

money that would help anybody.

It looks like Democrats just stole it

from other Democrats.

It looks like it was just all stolen. Uh

but they do that the the way Democrats

steal is they raise money through some

legal means and then they channel it all

to these nonprofits that are, as far as

I can tell, either

largely fake or mostly fake or nearly

all fake.

I mean, I don't know. But um so

if you hear any nonprofit organization

these days, I would just assume it's a

scam. So there may have been 120

different scams. I don't know maybe some

of them are legitimate but that is the

most Democrat thing that ever happened.

First first the fire is their you know

the you could argue that the Democrats

should have done more to make the place

not burn up

and then they don't get uh much in the

way of approvals for building permits

and then they raise money but they steal

it all. So, so far,

Democrats doing great. You're doing

great. There's an American woman who

just got sentenced to 8 and a half years

in prison for running a laptop farm that

North Koreans could use to pretend to be

working in the US remotely.

So, as I understand it, she was an

American and she would set up a bunch of

different laptops in America in her own

apartment, it looked like. And then the

North Koreans, I'm guessing this is what

was happening, could remotely access

those laptops and then do the work as if

they were doing the work in America.

And then she would charge them and they

would make a bunch of money for North

Korea. And I have to admit, this is

another one of those situations

where I want to be all all judgy like

you criminal, you stole money, but

there's no indication that the companies

that bought this service didn't get good

service. So, it might be that the North

Korean remote workers were really good

workers, but they had to be. they would

get executed if they didn't produce

money probably. I'm just making that up.

Um, but instead of being outraged that

this woman ran this scam,

uh, I find myself

weirdly thinking, well, that was pretty

smart. That was kind of awesome.

It's not exactly victimless

because American money is being sent to

North Korea, but it's it's on the edge

of being victimless because if the

companies that bought that service got

the service,

then it's not the worst crime.

So, there's a story that's been in the

news that I haven't talked about. I'll

tell you why. Um you've seen stories

that uh food is not getting to the

starving people in Gaza, the residents,

which is big problem. Now you've

probably seen allegations that the IDF,

Israel's military,

um may have shot people who were just

trying to get food. Do you believe

that's true?

Um, my advice is don't believe anything

that comes out of a war zone about who's

doing what with food or who's got a base

under a hospital.

None of this stuff is credible. Now, if

if that happened, I would think, well,

that's pretty bad and somebody needs to

pay for that. Um, or then I'm sure the

the Israel version is that Hamas is the

one that's stealing the food and then

reselling it to the to the Gaza

residents or something. So, my point is

that the reason I don't talk about this

one is that if you're not right there,

you really can't believe any of it. So,

I'm not defending Israel, but I'm also

not condemning them. I just feel like

this is one that you'll never really

know who did what or why.

So, I'm just going to let it go. I'll

just I'm just noting that I'm not

ignoring it. It's just there's nothing

you can do with it. And as I often say,

I'm not uh pro-Israel or anti-Israel.

It's not my country. I'm just observing

and sometimes predicting.

Here's a weird story in Newsweek. Sophie

Clark has a story that Zalinski over

there in Ukraine is working on a deal

with the US where the US will buy up to

$30 billion worth of drones made in

Ukraine

and that the US military

would be essentially acquiring all of

these drones. Um, and in return, we

would provide other non- drone weapons

that Ukraine needs. So, we would buy

their drones,

they would get in return our non- drone

weapons they need, and it would be up to

$30 billion.

Does that sound real to you?

The part that doesn't sound real to me

is that Ukraine has extra drones

because separately we learn that uh the

Ukraine defense ministry says the drone

strikes are now uh responsible for up to

80% of Russian battlefield casualties.

Does that mean that they've actually

they ran out of targets?

Because if the drones are killing 80% of

the people who are getting killed on the

on the Russian side

and they still are able to sell 30

billion worth of drones to the US,

doesn't that suggest

that they've run out of Russians?

There must be no Russians on the ground

because surely there are enough

Ukrainians. I mean, because you could

train, you know, women to do the job.

you wouldn't need male fighters or

anything to operate the drones.

So, there's something wrong with the

story. I don't understand Ukraine being

at war, their primary weapon being

drones, and they still have the ability

to

sell $30 billion worth of them to the

US, even if they're getting better

weapons or different weapons. Doesn't

make sense, does it?

Uh, also I would worry that if it's true

that it suggests that the US feels

there's some kind of time

time constraint where we're going to

need these drones really quickly because

otherwise I believe we would just spin

up our own factories which I'm sure is

already happening and make them

ourselves

or we should be well on the way to have

to make them ourselves. But if this is

true, and I guess I'm skeptical that the

story itself is true, but if it's true,

it would suggest that maybe the US feels

it needs a whole bunch of drones really

quickly,

which would be very scary. Maybe has

something to do with Taiwan or

something.

Anyway,

that worries me, but I think it's most

likely that the story is fake.

Um,

as I told you,

uh, I'm finishing the show now. And

those of you who would like, you can

join, uh, Owen Gregorian on a spaces

event that will get fired up within a

minutes of me ending here. And it's on X

and you can just find the link to it in

my X feed, Scott Adams, or Owen

Gregorians. just uh search for him on X.

It'll pop right up. All right, that's

all I got, ladies and gentlemen. I'm

going to talk to the locals people

privately

and uh the beloved beloved locals people

and the rest of you. Thanks for joining.

I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same

place because I never take the weekend

off.