Episode 2936 CWSA 08/23/25

Grab a seat.

There's always room in the front.

Let's see if I can get your comments working.

And then well then we've got an interactive experience like none other.

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization at least since the younger dus.

But you have to look it up if that didn't make sense to you.

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

Well, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker challen jug or flask a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

The thing that makes everything better.

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

Oh, Paul, your timing is amazing.

You You always catch me looking at the comments just right.

All right.

After the show today, Owen Gregorian will be hosting, as is now traditional, a spaces event.

So, go find Owen Gregorian and spaces.

It's on the X platform.

That's the voice only service, so you can chat and ask questions and get answers and all that.

All right.

Well, I guess the uh the stock market hit record highs yesterday after the uh Fed chair.

He hinted that maybe interest rates could be a little bit lower in September.

So, I don't know if uh if Trump's browbeating of him and insulting and threatening him made any difference at all.

Probably not.

If it made any difference, probably it was a difference of he delayed it longer than he could have.

But maybe good news is coming.

However, there is uh some suggestion that Trump might fire that uh that governor of the Fed.

That would be the position below the Fed chair.

And uh the reason would be Bill Py and his people found that she allegedly may have lied on some mortgage applications and said she had more than one primary residence, which is impossible.

Apparently, it's fairly common.

I think 4% of uh homes or something like that are uh illegitimately um primary residents.

So, it's a pretty common crime if it turns out she's guilty.

I don't know if she is, but uh that was a lot of pressure to put on the Fed for what could turn out to be no benefit whatsoever.

I guess the Fed will be independent.

Well, according to Howard Lutnik, commerce secretary, um, I now own a little bit of stock in Intel.

I wasn't expecting that, but apparently the United States and therefore as a resident that would include me.

Um, apparently the United States took a 10% stake in Intel.

Now, we had talked about that might be happening, but they actually got that done.

That's a done deal.

They they've signed that agreement, I guess.

And while some people will say, well, there's another example of fascism where the government owns the companies, to which I say 10% that's not owning anything except maybe profits.

and the government is uniquely situated to make or break a company, you know, to make it successful.

So, my guess is this is going to be a tremendously good deal and that Trump has once again found a way to monetize things.

Um, it he finds bad news and then he monetizes it.

It's basically the the same thing he did in his business life.

He would find a building that was, you know, suboptimal and then buy it and monetize it by improving it.

And uh he he finds every opportunity to do that.

So Intel may have been like the property that was suboptimal.

And maybe I assume, now this is an important assumption.

It might be wrong, but I'm assuming that there's a pretty specific thing that the government will do for Intel somehow that would make them more likely to succeed.

Otherwise, why would they give them 10%.

But there will be more to learn about that.

All right, here's a story that will sound like it's a joke, but it's not.

You know that there's a big software company called Microsoft.

I think you've heard of it.

Microsoft.

Well, uh, Elon Musk is going to start a competing company.

Instead of calling it Microsoft, it'll be called Macro hard.

Macro hard.

Uh now apparently uh even though Elon says the name is tongue andcheek, you know, it's a jokey name, it's a real thing.

And the real thing is that he's recruiting he's recruiting um I guess software people to uh to build a competitor to Microsoft's office that would be an AI based um approach.

Now tie together the other stories.

What would happen if you could uh do the main things that you want to do without buying Microsoft software or without using apps because let's say your phone and your laptop were running AI and that's it.

It was just running AI.

So if you wanted it to act like a spreadsheet, you just say, "Hey, AI, act like a spreadsheet." And boom, you'd have a spreadsheet.

It would just created on the fly.

It wouldn't exist anywhere until he asked for it.

And you know, maybe you'd say, well, maybe it would have a template that it used or something.

Um, same with a, you know, the word processor.

You just say, hey, I'm going to write a letter.

Boop.

and it would create that interface as if it never existed before.

Now imagine that you've you've got that.

Um, and then imagine that your companies also include a network of satellites that can make it unnecessary to use a phone company because pretty much everywhere on Earth, you'll have this uh high high-speed bandwidth access to a satellite.

That would be Elon Musk.

So if he can build the best AI and then he can use the AI to replace all apps and operating systems in our devices.

So that would include your phones and your laptops.

All of that would go away.

and and if uh Elon is successful, he would own all of that.

Do you do you even understand how big a play that is?

He's making a play to put Microsoft out of business and Apple too and take all of their business.

Microsoft and Apple at the same time.

Oh, no, not that.

I'm sorry.

Did I say that he was going to try to take Microsoft and Apple's business?

I didn't mean that.

I meant I meant Microsoft, Apple, and all of the mobile phone company business because his satellites will be the mobile phone company.

So, he's going to be your internet provider, your phone provider, your operating system.

and he's already 75% there because the AI is the important part, right?

We we already assume that if uh if Elon Musk decided he wanted to build a phone that he could figure out how to manufacture a phone.

I mean, he might not do it in the United States for the same reasons that nobody else does, but yeah, he could either find a partner or start a company and manufacture a phone.

So, the future, I believe, is uh laptops and mobile phones that have only AI and it does everything you want to do.

Whoa, wouldn't that be cool?

All right.

So, uh, not only will Elon Musk be the first trillionaire, but he might be the first hundred trillionaire if he pulls that off.

That that would be worth I mean, how much is that worth if he replaces all of those companies, entire businesses, and it looks like he's got a I'd give him a 25% chance of pulling that off.

Maybe higher, might be 75%.

And here's another thing that AI might do.

Um, it might replace GPS.

So, it turns out that if you've got detailed satellite maps and you've got cameras on your car that your car can sort of look down the street and compare it to, I guess, like a Google map that that maps a street and it will just figure out where you are by what it looks like, no matter where you are.

Now, it might only be used as a a fillin for when GPS fails.

So, in other words, you could imagine your car would have the AI ver navigation where it just looks where you are and tells you what where you must be, but uh only it would only kick in when the GPS failed perhaps.

But how cool is that to not have GPS and still have AI tell you where you are?

Now, it's not going to work if you're in the middle of a forest, but would work wherever the streets have been mapped.

That's almost everywhere.

Well, one of the what probably is several dildo throwers at the WNBA games.

You know about that.

Um, multiple people, I think, probably multiple people have thrown a colorful dildo onto the the court during basketball games.

women's basketball and I think somebody did it on a football turf yesterday as well.

But one of those dildo throwers uh has been caught.

He's a family man from Ohio who traveled all the way to New York, I guess, to throw a dildo onto a WNBA court.

And he's not even like a big fan of WNBA.

Why would you do that?

He's a family man and a small business owner and there's no indication that things are going wrong in his life, but he still thought it was necessary to travel across state lines to throw dildo and disrupt a WNBA game.

Where did that come from?

Was that just for fun?

Did Did he Yeah.

Did he lose a bet?

Did somebody pay him to do it?

Was it a dare?

That's not good judgment.

Anyway, um apparently Vladimir Zalinski of Ukraine has already asked if he can buy a a collection of dildos to drop on the Russians because the the charges against the man who got caught throwing the dildo is uh all related to it being dangerous.

you know, sort of a dildo violence, if you will.

There's a claim that the dildo hit somebody.

I don't know that that's true.

But if it's true that uh colorful dildos are that dangerous, I think Zinsky should start dropping them out of drones.

It really make a difference in that war.

Um, speaking of uh dildos that are being dropped in various places, Kla Harris is launching a book tour for her book 107 days.

Um, now it's pretty gutsy to write a book about your failed presidential campaign, unless it's about why you failed.

And I suspect it's not going to be that.

It's probably about how awesome she was and she probably won, but maybe uh maybe Russia hacked hacked the election systems.

Who who would buy who would buy a book from somebody who's most famous for not even being able to talk in public?

Uh, if the book were called Word Salad and it it was nothing but, you know, nonsense words that AI put together or something, that would make more sense.

But who would read it?

Who wants to hear from the loser unless they're funny or a good writer?

Do you think she's a terrible speaker in public, but she's a good writer?

No.

Do you think she wrote one word of it?

Probably not.

you know, I assume it's a ghost writer.

Um, so it wouldn't really be her voice and she didn't win the election and she doesn't have any wisdom to impart.

Wow, I bet you can't wait to buy that book.

You better get in line now.

Yeah, get in line.

Well, according to The Hill um and others, I guess there's a phrase which I hadn't heard until today, a romantic recession.

So, in America and probably other places, there's a romantic recession.

So, that would mean that people are having less sex or dating less and all that.

But now there's a Bank of America survey that says that uh half of Gen Z adults are sp are spending zero money on dating.

Half.

Now, isn't that the way it almost always was?

If you're counting men and women, hasn't it always been only half of them are spending money on dates and the other half are having the money spent on them?

Isn't that exactly how it's always been?

Half of the people spend nothing on dates and the other half spend all of it.

I don't know.

I don't know if that's anything new there.

But it found that 53% of men Oh, so they did divide it by gender.

53% of men and 54% of women didn't spend a dime on dates.

Okay.

I I feel like um if men were willing to pay for dates all the time, you know, if they could afford it, but they probably can't at the moment, that don't you think that more women would say yes to dates if they knew that they would not spend a penny?

Doesn't that seem like that would make a difference?

Cuz I feel like you would go on a date that was a little marginal if you didn't have to spend any money.

But if it was like, well, you know, we're gonna date a few times and you're gonna pay for our expensive dinner once and pay once.

I don't know.

You're not going to do the marginal ones.

All right.

Uh, in other good news, apparently the US and Canada are making progress in getting some kind of a permanent trade deal.

And indeed, the US had dropped some pe uh what would you I guess you'd call it some uh revengey tariffs that we put on them and then Canada just dropped some tariffs that they had on us to reciprocate.

But um Canada and the US are heading toward it looks like resolving everything.

And so we go back to what did you predict would happen with tariffs?

Did you predict that it would be doom and gloom because you know we would ask for things we couldn't get or whatever?

Um or did you believe that Trump was simply using it as a negotiating tactic and uh when it was all said and done that we would just end up with better trade deals?

I was um I certainly didn't know if the old tariff thing would, you know, cause a problem and I'm still not positive, but it looks like it's a huge success for Trump at this point.

Um things could change, but at this point it looks like a huge success.

So now it looks like we're happy with our Canada tariffs, so we don't really need to negotiate anything.

That's what Scott Besson said.

We've got uh Europe looks like it it's getting close to being handled, but it's not an emergency in any way.

Canada's coming online.

But what caught my attention was Carney is bad at negotiating.

Here's something that Carney said out loud in public in the context of still negotiating with the United States.

He actually said that Canada has the best trade deals in the world with the US and so he'd like to keep that, you know, keep that situation.

Now, here's some advice.

If you're negotiating, you should never say you've already given us the best deal in the world.

Why would you why would we give you anything else?

If you if you just told us you had the best deal that anybody had in the whole world, which might be true, by the way, that's not much incentive for us to uh to give up anything else, is it?

It's like, let me see.

So, you've got the best trade deal in the world is what you're saying, but you're asking for more.

Why would we give you any more?

You just said you had the best deal in the whole world.

The world.

Look how many countries there are.

Have you counted the number of countries, Cardi?

It's a bunch.

Lots of countries.

And you have the best in the world.

You're not getting anything else.

So yeah, if you're negotiating, don't start with you've already given us the best deal in the world.

Well, Representative Mike Lawler, I like the fact he has Law right now right last name.

Lawler.

So he's uh floating a bill according to the New York Post um to charge fentinel traffickers with attempted murder.

Now that would be a trafficker.

So I don't think that necessarily means your local street dealer.

I think that means the person who takes it across the border, but I'm not positive.

But it would be uh attempted murder and you could get up to life in prison.

Good idea.

I like it.

Life in prison.

All right.

So, I had a shocking um revelation yesterday.

I I'm always fascinated when there's something that I just assumed was true and find out is totally untrue.

And I I feel like you're in the same position.

So, I'm going to talk about something that probably you think is real.

And according to what I learned yesterday is not even a little bit real.

And it goes like this.

Do you believe that the company named Black Rockck and some other big uh money companies have been buying up single family homes in the United States so much so that it's a a big force on rising prices and making those homes unaffordable?

How many of you believe that that's a real thing that's happening in the real world?

Let me say it again and listen carefully, right?

So, you have to listen carefully.

Do you believe that a company called Black Rockck money company Black Rockck in Vanguard and State Street?

Um, do you believe that they buy and have purchased so many single family homes in the United States that it is raising the price of homes in the United States?

I believe that.

I kept hearing it over and over again.

All right, you ready?

You ready to find out what's true?

This is going to blow your mind.

And I didn't know this until I saw the Amuse account on X.

And you should be following Amuse just like it sounds.

Just Amuse and uh follow it.

But there's long thread.

Here's the first thing you got wrong.

There is a company that buys single family homes in the United States, but it's Black Stone.

It's not Black Rock.

Black Rockck's not even in that business.

So the first thing is it's not Black Rockck and I don't believe it's the others either, but there is a company called Black Stone that has bought some tens of thousands of uh single family homes.

But the total amount that that these money people have bought is.1% of the supply.

1% not 1% onetenth of 1%.

Do you believe that the prices of homes in the United States are higher because uh Black Stone, not Black Rock, and uh some others own.1% of them?

Almost certainly not.

It's way too It's way too small a percentage to be affecting the total price of homes.

I mean, maybe a little bit, but you wouldn't even be able to measure it.

So, you know, my my source there is the Muse account.

So, if you have anything to fact check me on, let me know later.

But how many of you did that blow your minds?

How many of you thought that was true?

That Black Rock had bought so many homes, it was raising the price of homes.

I actually believed that.

I actually believed it that nothing is real.

So, I've got a little bit of a theme for today.

The theme is nothing's real.

It's all fake.

Well, uh, the Texas Senate passed their GOP redistricting map and, uh, so it looks like they'll gain five seats or the Republicans will gain five seats in in Texas.

And according to Axios, April Rubin is writing that Trump's plan is to get as many as a 100 seats um through a combination of uh having the Republican states redistrict.

I assume that means even if the Democrats also do more redistricting that the Republicans could still pull ahead because they're they're they're less gerrymandered in general.

so that they would have more room to grow, so to speak.

But on top of that, Trump's trying to get rid of mail-in ballots.

And he believes if he does those two things that the Republicans would pick up a 100 seat Republican majority.

Does that sound too aggressive?

Meaning that there's no way that's going to happen?

I don't know.

I I have to put this in the category of tariffs where I hear the idea and I think to myself, I don't know.

I don't know.

I I believe that uh Black Rockck buying houses thing.

I mean, I got fooled by that.

So, I guess anything's possible.

Um maybe maybe.

But some people say that Trump will not succeed in getting rid of mail and ballots because the states have full control of how they do the elections.

But I'm going to ask you a question that's going to make your head go, "Wait a minute.

Does that make a lot of sense or am I going crazy?" You ready?

So here here's another mind bender.

If you haven't been exp because I haven't heard anybody say this.

Um to my best of my knowledge um I haven't seen any news report with the suggestion I'm about to make.

Okay, let's um let's accept the assumption that the states have the ability to run their election any way they want.

Okay, we all we all would understand that.

And therefore, if Trump tried to do an executive order or even if the Congress made some law that they tried to apply to the states, the courts would throw it out because the states definitely have the power to decide how to run the election in their state.

So, I think we'd all agree on that.

But here's my question.

Does the federal government have the ability to reject any states numbers that they find not credible for any reason whatsoever?

Let's say there was a report that was uh very well sourced that showed that one state um had cheated on an election.

Would the federal government be required to accept that result?

Let's say the the state tried to push it on the feds anyway because it's the only result they had.

But we knew there was very credible reports that it wasn't a good number.

Would the feds have the ability to say we're going to skip your state because you don't have a credible number or say we're not going to give a result.

will just keep running the country the way it is because the election is not complete.

There's a state that hasn't weighed in, which would also be bad for Democrats because that would keep Trump in office.

Or could it be that we don't have to have evidence that there was cheating?

Would it be enough for the federal government to say the only the only sources of numbers that we find credible are the ones that don't involve voting machines if they decide to say that and the ones that don't involve mail-in votes.

So the government can say we will accept all of your numbers that do not come from those sort two sources.

And it's not because we have proof that there's any problem with those numbers, but what we do have is a uh we've identified two systems which we have judged not to be credible enough to be acceptable.

Could the Trump administration and therefore future administrations too I guess decide what they would accept based on the credibility of the process by which they collected the numbers?

Had anybody uh floated that idea?

Now I'm not a lawyer and even a lawyer would not have necessarily the you know the domain specific knowledge about elections.

So, I don't know how to test that idea, but I don't think I've heard it before.

It It does seem like the feds have Doesn't it seem to you that the federal government would have the power to reject numbers that were just not credible?

Don't you don't you think that that has some weight?

I don't know.

Maybe it's time to test it.

We'll find out.

Um Trump says that the the Chicago might be next um for the cities that you would flood in some federal resources like the the National Guard and try to uh conquer the violence and the crime there as he is trying to do in Washington DC.

Now, if you judge Washington DC by what's happened so far, um it all looks good, but we don't know what happens if he inevitably has to, you know, reduce the number of forces there, etc.

So, anything could happen.

Um, but hold that in mind.

I'm going to tie this all together.

So, remember, Trump has for federal forces in Washington DC and so far it looks successful.

He might do the same thing in Chicago.

Now, I'm going to switch topics, but I'm going to tie them together, so pay attention.

Um, Bill Maher had his show last night, and of course, we watch him to watch this um very entertaining.

I I would say uh arc from a Trump hater to a damn it, he keeps doing things I like.

And I don't believe Mar is ever gonna become a Trump supporter member of MAGA.

But every week it seems like he gets closer by validating that something that Trump did was, you know, worthy of compliments.

However, just to make sure you know that he would never go all the way to supporting Trump, he he has this one ace in the hole that he says, you know, is disqualifying for Trump.

Oh, yeah.

There's, you know, maybe lots of things you could complain about Trump, but there's this one thing that Bill Maher lets us know almost every week, uh, is completely disqualifying for Trump, and that is the idea that Trump is running a slow motion coup as he as Bill Moore calls it, and that he knows that Trump will never give up power.

Now, he believes that January 6 was an example of that.

However, he is deeply within the hoax realm because Trump did give up power.

He literally gave it up.

He gave it up.

Well, I don't know what show he was watching, but the one I watched, he lost the election.

He complained where we all have a right to and then he peacefully left and then re ran for election again just like the system was designed.

So, but but in Bill Maher's world, he's already proven that he would not give up power and therefore he might not give it up this time either, you know.

And of course, he did talk about Trump uh uh having a 20 Did he talk about this?

That Trump has a hat 2028 hat.

So, Bill Maher believes that Trump is not joking about remaining in power, although he jokes about it a lot.

Um, however, Bill does have a stronger argument when he's watching the the feds move their own little private army, so to speak, the National Guard.

Um, it's not the feds, but they could nationalize it whenever they want if they had an argument.

And he points out that the TR troops are coming more from southern states.

Um, as in it's almost like he's forming a private army.

Do you remember that I said you don't have to worry about the president, any president, but you don't have to worry about Trump trying to take power unless he had his own army because if you don't own the army, there's no way you're going to stay in power.

So you would have to have something like Iran has, you know, the revolutionary guard or you all the dictators have, you know, this smaller uh highly funded and motivated group that can protect at least the capital.

So now he's got his own, this is what Bill Morris would say, he's got his own kind of military that's uh now guarding the capital conveniently.

Now, I would point out that it's not guarding Mara Lago.

So, so it's not like, you know, it's not like the uh street gangs can't get to Trump if they don't want to.

I mean, he's going to be golfing and stuff.

But um on top of that um as Bill Maher correctly points out, the only way you could have any kind of a you know coup, the kind that people fear is if you really did start a process by which you were building toward having your own private army to keep you in power.

Now, does it look to you like that's what's happening?

Do you believe that what you see is Trump starting the beginning of his uh getting a federal eyes under his control?

You know, may maybe later there's some moves where he fires some National Guard leaders and puts his loyalists in there.

You know, maybe something like that.

Well, here's what I think.

Um, if you do the the first thing I'd worry about is if you do another election with voting machines and mail-in ballots, you're kind of asking for a coup because you're you're running a an election system that at least half of the country, and I I believe it's more than half because I think both parties have some questions about these systems.

If you're running a system that the that half of the country does not trust is even a valid way to elect somebody, you're kind of asking for a coup.

And I don't mean just Trump.

I mean, whoever is in power if you keep running a system that the the public doesn't trust.

Yeah.

That it doesn't seem like that could go forever.

But uh in my in my view, Bill Maher has the the TDS problem of his problem with Trump is not the things he's done that we can verify.

He mostly likes that stuff.

And I'll give you some examples in a minute.

It's the things that he worries about that are imaginary.

And that's what it's come down to.

The smartest people who also have TDS, you know, the well-informed people like Bill.

um literally have to imagine an imaginary scenario where a very unlikely set of events happen that you know you could say I told you didn't you see that coming so that's imaginary but um to his credit uh Bill is also very complimentary he was on Friday saying how Trump is so good and he gave lots of examples of how he was so good at uh targeting micro groups within the country and making them happy because he finds their their issue that they're tied to.

So he used the uh Trump going to reschedu weed as something that the the Democrats are just stupid for not doing it first.

They just leave it to Trump.

And so Mark correctly points out that the people who would really like him to do that or like any leader to reschedu weed, um Trump is just going to nail them down.

So it'll be one more group of people that Trump gets for free, which is people who consider that one of their top uh top issues.

But then uh Mah points out accurately that Trump did the same thing with crypto.

He became the the one that the crypto people like and then he got that tiny little population on his side.

He did it with the first step back got the people who were activists and the um you know the what would you call it the reform of the the justice system you know in terms of getting people out of jail early first step act.

He did it with the your toilets and your showers not having enough water pressure.

He did it with pl with straws.

He did it with no tax on tips.

He did it with make America healthy again.

Each of them have a tiny motivated uh really strong set of believers and Trump just checks them off.

Go.

You want this?

No tax on tips.

Boom.

I won Las Vegas.

And it it was sort of full circle for me.

Some of you know that in I think it was 2016 I was on his show uh the real time and I predicted that Trump would win.

So this was before the election when people were not expecting Trump to win and I said he would win and I said the specific reason is that his persuasive skills were unparalleled.

So I I gave my reason and my reason did not have to do with policies.

I didn't I didn't even mention any.

It wasn't about, you know, his fundraising ability.

I said there's one variable.

His his ability to persuade is like we've never seen and and he's going to go right right into the White House.

Now, um you see Bill Bar praising him because he so so adeptly um can identify these little areas where with just the smallest tweak in what you say about it, you you end up owning that whole population, you get them for free.

It's like leaving money on the table.

Oh, you mean all I have to do is say I'm pro crypto and then a million more people will start looking at me as a better candidate.

All right, let's do it in a reasonable way.

I mean, he doesn't do it in a crazy way.

He makes sure that, you know, these things all make sense in their own their own way.

Um, but yes, I would say that uh the Bill Maher is now a complete convert as are most of the world by the way.

most of the world caught up with me in 2016 and they now believe that he they like to use the term he's the best political athlete.

Now I like that but I would say persuasion political athlete is a wider category and and I agree with it.

He is the best political athlete we've ever seen.

But u everybody sees the persuasion element now.

And then Bill Maher uh also astutely mocked Kla Harris for instead of doing all these real world things that people like, you know, like the the straws and the the light bulbs and all this stuff, uh she went after uh saving democracy.

So, she went after a concept.

Trump went after your toilets, your taxes on tips, your crypto, your weed.

Those are all real things.

Almost all of those things you can feel or see or you have a memory of it or an image pops into your head.

The these are really salient touch you.

You can feel them.

You just have a feeling about all those things.

And uh and Kamla is going for saving your democracy.

And the closest I can get to even understanding that topic would be wait what what what's wrong with our democracy.

What the and the only thing I think that needs to be saved is the credibility of our election systems and Trump's trying to do that.

So anyway, um, and now Trump is doing more of what Bill Maher correctly points out is part of his, uh, persuasion genius of really relating to real people.

the the the fact that he's going after crime and also the beautifification of our cities is so so like right in the heart, isn't it?

Because there's nobody who doesn't have a picture in their head of a city with graffiti and garbage and people on the sidewalks.

So right away he's in that visual domain and he's telling you he's going to beautify it and make it beautiful and clean it up and get rid of the crime.

The crime is also something you feel.

I don't feel a loss of democracy, but I definitely feel you know the danger of cats visiting uh the danger of crime and stuff.

But listen to um listen to this statement.

Um, so Trump said recently, and I quote, and listen how visual this is.

Uh, quote, "We are going to make DC totally safe." Trump said, "When people come from Iowa, Indiana, all the big beautiful places, they're not going to go home in a body bag." Oh my god.

They're not going to go home in a body bag.

You see it, right?

You you see the you see the bag and and you can almost see yourself on the inside of it as they're as they're zipping up the body bag.

That is visual persuasion.

It's visual even without the visual because you you fill in the visual in your mind.

But the way he talks about everything is so relatable, so on the money, so you feel it.

Um, it's it's really amazing.

So, what do the Democrats do when faced with the greatest political athlete of our time, having no policies and no leaders?

Well, according to something called the Atlantic Daily, they they've got an article that says that uh some Democrats believe their best bet might be to imitate prominent Republicans.

and they give an example of uh Steven Miller.

So So now if you want to know how how lame Democrats are that first they were trying to uh they said we need our own Trump.

So people like Nuome are are literally pretending to be Trump in a in a mocking way, but they're they're trying to make their own Trump.

All right, we'll have Newsome.

will be doing a lot of insults and he might come up with some nicknames and but they don't really know what part of Trump is the active ingredient.

So the things they're copying that you know get some attention but they're not very effective.

So now they want to find their own Steven Miller.

Uh they've already said they they need their own Charlie Kirk and you know that they talk obsessively about getting their own Joe Rogan.

Now, you could not you could not misunderstand the world any harder than that.

These are extraordinary people.

And if you haven't noticed, the extraordinary people are all being drawn to the same side.

You don't get extraordinary people by acting the way you the Democrats act.

the the extraordinary people either were born on the right uh or they said, "Uh, the left is freaking crazy.

I'm going to go toward the common sense world where I can get something done." So, no, you can't you can't find your own Steven Miller.

Do you do you know how much uh personal hell somebody like Stephen Miller had to go through before he got to be Stephen Miller?

It was almost nobody would sign up.

So I don't I don't know too much about Steven Miller's personal life, but don't you assume that the level of you know personal risk and sacrifice he's put into this is way bigger than ordinary people put into anything.

And that would be true of Charlie Kirk and it's probably true of Joe Rogan and certainly true of Trump.

You don't you don't just go find one, you know, you don't hold auditions to find yourself your own Steven Miller.

You those only grow naturally.

You know, you don't build them.

And somehow that the the Democrats live in such a an imaginary entertainment fictional world that they can they believe that they can build heroes uh when there's no example of anybody else ever doing it.

Has anybody else ever built themselves a Joe Rogan?

No.

Do you know how much hard work Joe Rogan put into his career?

I mean, if you haven't looked into the number of things he's done and the the skills he's picked up and the chances he took and, you know, that whole road, you don't you don't just imitate that.

See, you have to be born into that mindset that that would make it possible for you to become, you know, a Joe Rogan.

But I should point out, if I haven't said this directly, the newsome strategy of just mocking Trump and doing funny truth, well, funny posts that use Trump style and then swearing a lot and showing up on on all kinds of podcasts and having your own podcast and stuff.

That's it's kind of working now.

It's working in this narrow sense.

It's working in the sense that he's getting all the attention.

So he's and people are starting to assume that he's the likely primary winner to be the candidate.

So it's working for him because it makes him look like he's fighting Trump the most.

And he's getting the most attention and we know that attention is, you know, half of the battle.

And apparently it's helping him raise money.

And we know that money makes a difference.

But uh I should point out the following things.

Number one, it's August.

In August, there's not really much news to compete with uh Newsome doing a funny truth social mock.

I would also point out it's not the sort of thing you can do forever.

They they managed to hit on a really clever little uh vine which is which is mocking the posts and using that style.

But how long would you be willing to be entertained by that?

I feel like three is the most I can handle.

I'm not even sure I'll read a third one.

But the first two I read because they were kind of clever.

They were well executed.

whoever is doing the you know the strategy and writing those I don't know if it's Newsome himself but it's well done you know as what it is it's well done but uh do you think anybody's going to change their vote I if we've already accepted and even the Democrats have kind of grudgingly accepted that Trump is the best persuader and communicator of all time.

So, of all time, and if what you're doing is mocking him for the thing that is the best of all time, his communication skills.

So, if you were mocking him for something he was doing poorly, that could be a really good strategy.

But if you're mocking somebody for a skill, in this case, communication skill in which he is possibly the best in the world in all time, that doesn't really leave a mark.

All it is is it's like a tribute band.

Let me say that again.

Wait, wait until you feel this.

He's become a tribute band for a candidate who's not even running for office again.

Think about how weak that is.

He's the tribute band.

Again, let me say it again.

If if Trump were a bad communicator and he were mocking his bad communication skills, that might be something that that might leave a mark.

But if the whole point of Trump's communication is even both sides admit, okay, it's the best anybody's ever been in the world in the history of the whole world.

It's nobody's ever been close.

If you're dealing with that as a thing you're mocking, I don't know how good your mocking would have to be, but all it does is all it does is draw attention to the fact that he's the best communicator we've ever seen.

And then on top of that, it turns you into the tribute band.

Uh, I'll give you a I'll give you a choice.

You can go watch the Beatles uh give a concert in their prime if you could travel back in time, or you could go to Vegas and you could watch a tribute band play their songs.

Which one would you pick?

the Tribute Band or the Beatles.

So, that's sort of the comparison that Newsome was setting up.

And then then he adds the cursing.

Of all the things that Trump does, his cursing is the least important but easiest to copy.

So the the appeal of the cursing is that it's easy to do and maybe a little bit of fun.

Uh it's not his most important variable.

It's not what makes Trump Trump.

If he never swore once, Trump would still be Trump.

I mean, you're you're talking about less than 1% of his technique, which he does well.

He's really good at cursing just the right amount.

Uh but they they they think that's the thing to copy.

Anyway, I I think it would be hilarious if uh all the Republicans who are pundits uh played a hoax in which we pretend that the cursing is really working for us.

So, every time you you go on a podcast and you get interviewed, you say, you know, I have to admit that uh Nuome seemed like an empty suit to me and he didn't feel like he did a good job.

But lately, with all the cursing, I'm getting a different feeling about him now.

A man who could curse like that, well, that's a leader.

I mean, I used to like it when Trump would curse, but I believe Nome is cursing even more.

And I'm really drawn to that.

So, I've decided to, you know, reregister as a Democrat.

Um, so I can vote for him in the primary.

Yeah.

I I wasn't even motivated to vote until I heard him cursing and I was like, damn it, that man can curse.

And then try to do try to make it look like the cursing was the active ingredient so that they never get close to understanding that they really need ideas and they learn how they need to learn how to do persuasion and then they would know what the active ingredient part is.

Let me tell you where the active ingredient is.

You don't want to go home in a body bag.

Okay?

You could feel that now compared to uh Trump is uh effing up the city.

I use a swear word.

Did anybody catch that?

I used a swear word.

One of those is fourstar A++ persuasion.

It's the body bag one.

Yeah.

It's not the Oh, he's effing things up.

Oh, I'm going to effing fight so hard.

Oh.

Oh, mockery.

I got a happy cat right there.

All right.

People can't see you if you if you lay down there.

They're going to have to look at me.

Well, Trump was asked about Newsome, of course, and uh Trump said, "Uh, I know Gavin very well.

He's an incompetent guy with a good line of So Trump Trump does the cursing.

And again, I don't think it's true, but I I love, you know, just recreationally, I like believing that Trump knows that the more he swears, the more they'll think that's the magic sauce.

And see if he can see if he can get into a swearing contest with them.

and they'll have nothing.

Nothing at all.

Well, so here's how I like uh this reframe from Trump or it's a frame, I guess, that uh that Gavin is incompetent.

He's guy, but he's got a good line of Doesn't that feel kind of perfect?

Because uh Nim has that pretty boy, you know, a little bit too good-looking hair.

He has his hair is too good.

He's a little too tall.

His tan is a little bit too good.

And that sort of biases you to think that maybe he's not that competent cuz he's Yeah, it's hard to be good-looking and competent at the same time.

You know, not too many people pull that off.

I mean, I I do obviously, but uh not too many people can pull that off.

So, it's a really good frame.

It's sticky.

He's an incompetent guy with a good line of All right, Joelle.

Here's an update on John Bolton being raided by the FBI.

Um, can I lay my notes on you, Cat?

I need them to be sort of right there, but that's sort of where you are.

I'm just going to lay them right on top of you.

All right.

All right.

It's working.

So, Gary the cat is so relaxed that he doesn't mind if I put my notes on top of him.

No, stay down there.

It's okay.

Anyway, um update on Bolton.

So, there's uh some thought that the reason he was being rated is he had some uh potentially classified materials and that he mentioned them in his book.

So, that uh there's no there's no real question whether the materials are classified because we already saw the book.

And I guess um I think even the judge because it it became a court case um and I think the judge even admitted as a statement of fact that it was classified material and he shouldn't have had them.

But uh he was still allowed to publish the book.

So but there is some thought that it was more than that and that he might have been behind some other leaks.

We don't have evidence of that, but uh we do know that Ratcliffe, the head of the CIA, is the one who provided the information that was the predicate, as they like to say, for the FBI to go into his house.

So, what would the CIA know that the FBI didn't know already?

So, there might be something there.

We don't know.

We'll keep an eye on that.

So, do you believe that uh that the Bolton action is more evidence that Trump is on a revenge tour?

And how do you feel about that if you think that's what's happening?

Um, here's my take.

I believe that the worst thing the country could do is to get into a revenge situation where every new administration uh wipes out the prior administration, tries to put him in jail, but we're there and I have mixed feelings about it.

I don't like it.

But on the other hand, the only thing that keeps society together is the risk of mutual destruction.

The the reason that we're, you know, civilized is because we don't want somebody to kill us for being univilized around other people.

That's it.

The only thing that keeps us together as a society is the risk that if we go too far, somebody's going to go right too far on our ass.

And what we're watching, in my opinion, is Trump executing mutually assured destruction and that he it is revenge and it's necessary.

Now, you might say, "But Scott, by taking the gloves off and going so hard at his enemies, which he is clearly doing, um, it's just going to make them go hard and it will be this endless cycle of revenge." To which I say, why is it even necessary for him to get revenge?

If you don't do something to somebody, they don't need revenge.

So maybe you should learn that you can make the cycle stop just by not trying to lawfare a guy who might become your president later.

So I'm completely in favor of the revenge in the context of mutually assured destruction.

I do believe that the Democrats went way too far in trying to put him in jail and I think they went way too far in putting other Republicans in jail.

quite a few of them.

Uh the ones who were around Trump, you know, his accountants and his all of his associates, they went after his family members, they went through his his wife's underwear drawer.

They went hard.

And so, in my opinion, if he did not unleash full mutually assured destruction, and he is, but if he had not, it would have empowered them to be like that in the future.

He he has to go full salt the earth and he's got to he's got to pull as many of those weeds as he can in the time that he has because society requires that you not be what the anti-Trumpers were.

You you can't be in power.

You cannot be in power and be like that because whoever comes after you is going to get the revenge and we're just going to sit back and watch.

You know, do people like me have the power to put the brakes on this by complaining?

And the answer is yes.

Yes.

Th this would be one of the categories.

I it wouldn't wouldn't be true for every category, but for some categories like this, um if people like me, you know, the people who talk about politics and are pro.

Trump, etc., if if we were unified against this, he'd he'd cut it out because there are enough of us.

I mean, Trump is smart enough that he knows he needs the the pundits, the podcasters, and that that world supports him.

If we were all on the other side and said, "No, no, no.

Don't be a revenge administration.

We can't handle this.

It might trigger civil war." If we said that, we could slow him down.

And so, I'm taking some risk and taking some responsibility at the same time.

Um, I'm taking some responsibility because he's the candidate I support that I'm also going to share that risk.

I feel like he has a free hand for full revenge as long as there's backing for it.

I mean, it doesn't count if he just starts taking out people who were good at their job at being Democrats.

That doesn't count.

If if somehow he started looking for, I don't know, some dirt on Fetterman just so they could find some way to put him in jail, I'd be against that.

very very much against that.

That would flip me immediately.

But so far it looks like he's only getting rid of people who participated in hoaxes against him or acts which I would consider unethical, you know, going after the January sexers, for example.

So he's on strong ground.

I'm I'm completely supportive of if they want to call it revenge, go ahead.

I call it mutually assured destruction has been activated and he's the agent of it.

And he's going to make sure that if you think about uh lawfaring the next leader, maybe you should think about what happens when you do that.

Maybe you should think that that that leader is going to kick your ass if he gets a chance.

So that's okay with me.

Hold society together.

Um, apparently, uh, Chairman Comr, Republican, is looking at, uh, subpoenaing Kla Harris to talk about the, uh, hiding of Biden's, you know, health problems.

>> And I have two feelings on that.

Number one, um, yes.

Yes, I would like to know what she says about that.

And uh and the other feeling is yes.

And why haven't we done that yet?

Why is it even a question?

She was the vice president.

That's the most obvious person to ask.

What did you know?

And when did you know it?

And why didn't you do something about it?

So yeah, I hope that happens.

I don't know that it will.

And if she did, maybe she would just take the fifth, which would look really weak.

Well, believe it or not, we now have the Galain Maxwell transcript and audio.

Um, I think it's is it fully unredacted?

It might be.

Um, where uh Trump's ex-personal lawyer who now works for him in another capacity um interviewed her and asked all the important questions.

So, there were quite a few things that came out of it.

Uh, so I'll run down the list.

Um big part of the list I got from data republican.

So on X the data republican account did a good job of summarizing you know some of the things we learned.

All right.

So before I tell you what we've learned, can we all agree on the following?

She is not a credible witness.

Everybody.

because otherwise it's going to drive me crazy when I look in the comments and you're yelling at me and saying, "Scott, you fool.

Don't you know that she lies?" Can we Can we all start by saying we all understand she's not a credible witness on anything she says?

Say it.

Say it out loud.

I understand she's not a credible witness.

And then I can save some time when I tell you the thing she said so I don't have to stop after every one and say, "But remember, I'm smart enough to know it's not necessarily true because she said it." Are we all on the same page?

Can we handle this?

All right.

All right.

Uh Gla Maxwell says that Trump never did anything inappropriate and that he was a gentleman in all respects and that he was never even around a massage setting.

Hold hold.

I know you want so badly to say but but she got in return a better jail.

So, of course she said that cuz he might pardon her.

Hold hold.

We all understand that.

You don't need to say it in the comments.

You don't.

No matter how much of an NPC you are, you don't have to say it.

We all know.

All right.

Uh, she also said that Bill Clinton never went to the island and I don't think she believes she saw him do anything inappropriate either.

Huh.

So, you're telling me that Bill Clinton uh the guy who's associated with the highest body count through his wife um that he never did anything on the island either.

Huh.

Well, totally believable.

Um, she said Trump did not receive any massages.

Uh, she said Bill Clinton didn't even visit the island.

She said there's no client list.

Epstein didn't work for any intelligence agency.

Um, she said that there were no cameras on the island.

Uh, so that there there are no videos.

I know.

Hold.

Hold.

Don't make me say it again.

Hold.

Uh, let's see.

Uh, so apparently Galain Maxwell said she she worked with Clinton to set up the Clinton Global Initiative.

Uh, and I believe that's the entity that everybody assumes was was a payfor-play was was a huge, you know, bribery mechanism so that foreigners could pay large amounts of money into it.

And then Hillary Clinton when she was uh state department andor senator I guess um would have would have done what they wanted in return for that large amount of money to their Clinton global initiative which they allegedly may have siphoned off for themselves.

Um and uh she believes that Jeffrey Epstein actually funded the Clinton Global Initiative and that that that was the main reason that Clinton and Epstein had a relationship is uh financial.

Okay.

And let's see.

Um, so the the new movie that's uh emerging, uh, I'm going to call the Mike Benz filter on it, is that it's possible, and I'm not going to say that this is my view of it, but it's possible that the um, the sex crimes were entirely Epstein doing it himself andor just some people close to him that he might, you know, may have pulled into the the scene, but that it might not have be about it might not be blackmail that rather he seems to have been involved in very large financial entities and and uh transactions and that he seemed to be an expert on rich people hiding and moving money that can't be tracked.

So that makes sense if he was setting up the uh the Clinton global whatever it was that he was an expert on helping rich people make money illegitimately andor hiding it illegitimately.

And it could be that everything we think was, you know, a blackmail scheme and working with intelligence agencies may have been nothing but a whole bunch of opportunities that were big ones.

So they he may have intersected with some intelligence people, but that he wasn't on their payroll.

It's entirely possible that he worked with some of them and that maybe he helped him out in some cases in return for some other favors.

So I wouldn't say that he had no contact with any intelligence people, but it might be that that wasn't sort of what defined him.

It could be that was just opportunistic or something and that really he was just looking for gigantic financial transactions and that it helped him to have close personal relationships with people, not necessarily for blackmail, but if if you did some, let's say hypothetically, um you had some rich friend and the two of you got into some sketchy sexual behavior, here that the two of you knew about but other people didn't, you probably would be more uh open to, you know, working with that person so they didn't sell you out.

So, it could be that the situation with uh with Epstein was more nuanced, but that's not my that's not my view.

I'm just saying that there there more than one movie is now appeared.

We don't know which one is true.

Uh Gain thought that uh Epstein did not kill himself, so she thinks he was murdered, but doesn't know by who.

Um she denies that she solicited women for Epstein.

Um I've certainly read lots of details that would suggest that she did.

Um, she did not see underage girls involved with anything non-consensual or anything improper.

Okay, we don't believe that.

Maxwell says that uh again, I'm using the uh data Republicans summary here.

Uh says there's never been a list, you know, like a client list, which would make sense if he wasn't in the business of just blackmail.

If he was in the business of knowing as many rich people as possible and helping them, you know, set up clever schemes with their money, it could be that the sexual stuff was just it made sense in some cases, didn't make sense to bring somebody into that world in other cases, and he just discriminated.

Um, and Maxwell said there was no blackmail and no intelligence ties, as I said.

And uh Epstein managed the money of Elizabeth Johnson, a Johnson and Johnson heir in the '9s.

And he had a business relationship with the ex head of the ex CEO of Barclays.

I don't know why that's important.

And he helped Linda Rothschild financially, but Rothschild will deny it.

U I don't know why this stuff is important.

and uh he hung out with the president of Colombia and met with Castro in Cuba.

Larry Summer was a personal friend of Epstein, Larry Summer.

So, he's a very prominent Hillary Clinton friend and prominent Democrat.

Uh Maxwell says she thinks she met Alex Soros, the son of George Soros, at an event, but doesn't remember the exact context.

Um, she said that Sergy Brin held a birthday party with EP, possibly with Epstein, uh, and that Elon Musk was present.

All right, that doesn't mean anything.

Bobby Kennedy knew Epstein.

That doesn't mean anything.

Um, Trump seemed friendly with Epstein, but explicitly says she never saw anything improper.

Um, and that Epstein liked to invite famous scientists like Steven J.

gold for dinner.

He liked talking science.

All right.

Well, so in summary, uh we can't believe a single thing that Maxwell said, but here's the genius of it from Trump's perspective.

Uh I saw a lot of accounts on social media say, and there it is.

Maxwell says that Trump never did anything.

Case closed.

Is it?

I mean, that's as far as you can get from being a credible report.

So, I don't think the case is closed.

I don't think that Trump did anything inappropriate.

But I but to imagine that Maxwell could be the one to confirm it.

However, because people are not, you know, up to date on all the details of a story like this, the fact that Maxwell did very clearly deny that Trump did anything inappropriate, Trump and all of his supporters will forever be able to say that.

And the person who might know the difference is saying, "No, no, that came from Maxwell.

You can't trust that." But it won't matter because the mere existence of the fact that Ma Max Maxwell said as clearly as possible that he was not involved in anything is really going to carry a lot of persuasion weight.

It should not, but it will because it's associated with a person and there's an actual quote and it'll be repeated and repeated and repeated and most people will only hear it as a headline.

Maxwell says Trump didn't do anything wrong.

They they will forget that maybe she had something to gain and she was, you know, playing the system.

They will not see the context where everything else she said looks pretty unbelievable, pretty sketchy.

Maybe half of it looks just obviously sketchy.

So, it's going to lose over time.

It's going to lose all the nuance that would help you not find it credible.

And by repetition and the fact that people just hear the highlight, it will become very persuasive in Trump's favor.

And it already is.

All right.

Uh and Trump said, uh the Democrats don't know what to do, so they keep bringing this stuff up.

meaning the Epstein and stuff.

He said it's a hoax to diminish the significance of what we've done over the past seven months.

Well, I don't know if you know that's completely true, but uh they certainly would like uh the public to think about it more than his accomplishments.

Um Tulsi Gabbert shut down something called the uh foreign malign influence center.

Now, if you heard it was the foreign mallayion influence center, you would assume that their job was to keep foreign entities from influencing the US in a negative way.

But allegedly um it was used to suppress uh free speech in the United States.

So, it was a clever workound to actually control the United States.

So, she shut that down.

It makes you wonder how many entities are there that are funded by taxpayers, but if you knew what they did, you'd say, "Wait a minute.

I don't want that.

Stop doing that right away." Um, according to Nature Publication, uh, peer reviewers are more likely to prove an article for peer review, uh, that cite their own work.

Now, I didn't know that was true, but if you had asked me, I probably would have guessed it was true.

So, since scientists get they get benefits for how many times they're cited, so it makes their own work look more important.

So, if you want to if you want to get a peer reviewer to say good things about your study, you just cite the person who's the peer reviewer as one of your sources.

And then the odds of them saying, "Oh, yeah, this is a good paper." Because it increases their own citations goes way up.

Surprise.

Nobody's surprised by that.

I think the science is at least 50% fake.

Meaning at least, and it might be, I think it's a lot more actually.

It's probably closer to 75, but most of what you hear about science is fake.

Um, I've been fascinated by the uh, Eric Weinstein take on science that progress in physics stopped.

I forget what year he says, but there's an actual year or decade, I guess, in which progress in physics just sort of stopped.

And the idea was um, that the only thing that's worth looking at is um, string theory.

But that never quite completely paid off and and that science has just stalled.

And it's not because we're not able uh but rather there's some force that maybe we don't completely understand that is stalling science intentionally.

Why?

I don't know.

I don't know.

But it does seem that uh physics hit a wall.

So that part I've also observed long ago and I also have been criticizing string theory for years saying it does seem like they're not really making any progress on this thing.

Is any of this real?

Well, Sean Ryan on his podcast has has a guest, the host of something called the Y Files that many of you have seen on You.

Tube.

And HJ Gentiel, I think, is the name of the host.

And uh that show does uh you know, lots of conspiracy theory kind of stuff, but he he's not a true believer.

uh often he'll say after he tells you the conspiracy, he'll say, "But probably not true and here's the reason why." So he's he's not like a crazy conspiracy guy.

He's just somebody who talks about crazy conspiracies.

Um and he doesn't he he doesn't automatically just, you know, throw them away, but he's not, you know, somebody who just believes every conspiracy theory, right?

So he's fairly credible, I find.

And what he said was uh I mixed up my notes here, but he said that the uh the pyramids must have been used to generate electricity.

And he had a theory that there's some chemical that they found there that shouldn't be there unless they were doing that.

And uh somehow it might be built to shoot the electricity up into the atmosphere so that in a uh Nikolai Tesla kind of way somebody else could suck it out of the atmosphere and use the power.

Yeah, Gary's still here.

Good boy.

He just loves going to sleep to my voice.

So do you.

But anyway, my uh my take on that besides the fact it's it's interesting is if you look at the stories that we just talked about today and how many of them we don't know the truth.

I mean, we don't really know the truth on the Epstein thing.

We went through the whole Russia hoax.

We've got uh people who believe that Trump is doing a slow motion coup.

I mean, I don't even know how historians are going to write the history of what we're going through right now because we have two to three completely different narratives for every set of facts.

So, what does the history book do?

And then we look at the pyramids.

So, here's the context I want to give you.

What are the odds that our understanding of the pyramids the the kind of traditional one where the Egyptians built it but it was really hard but we don't know how but it was just humans building you know maybe tombs or something like that.

What are the odds that almost all of our stories in the modern time, like right now, are fake, but we got the pyramid story right?

Do you think there's any chance that our understanding what I I'll say the the normal understanding where the the Egyptians just built it themselves and forgot how.

Do you think there's any chance that's real?

So, I don't know.

I wouldn't necessarily say that any one of the other theories is correct.

So, I'm not buying into the, you know, it was used to generate electricity, although it might.

I don't rule it out.

Uh, I I just have the general the general observation that if all of our stories that are in the public today are fake, what are the odds we got the pyramid thing right?

It's close to zero, right?

I mean, almost 0% chance that we have a clean, clear understanding of what the pyramids are all about.

Well, there's a according to a company, according to Interesting Engineering, the publication, uh there's an idea for a hybrid delivery system that would be part electric vehicle and part robot.

So, the electric vehicle would go to your house, the robot would get out of it to deliver the package, and then there would also be some kind of lock box, not for everybody, but for prime customers if they want one.

So, so nobody could steal it because the robot would be able to lock it in the box.

And I'm thinking to myself, yeah, that is where everything needs to go.

You should be able to get everything cheaply and fast.

Uh, although I still I still think that sending my Tesla to pick it up might make sense.

By the way, I think I would be ready to buy a Tesla if it could deliver itself to my driveway.

So, if you hear that Pleasant in California um will allow you to buy something online and have it delivered to your driveway, um, let me know.

I'll probably buy a buy a Tesla the same same day.

I just don't want to go to the showroom.

I'm I'm just trying to cut out that process.

Um, well, speaking of California, the Daily Wire is reporting Luke Rosak that there's a California anti-poverty activist and also a gigantic Democrat donor who was running a massive carbon credit scam.

Oh my god.

So, every large complicated thing is a a scam.

and corrupt every one of them.

Anyway, um that is all I had to talk about today.

How do we do?

We went long today, but you loved it.

Um so Owen Gregorian will be doing his spaces event in a few minutes.

I'm going to go private and just chat with my beloved uh local subscribers and uh Owen will be firing up the spaces.

So, look for that.

That's a audio event on X and you can talk more about this or other stuff.

And uh all right, locals coming at you in 30 seconds will be private.

Grab a seat. There's always room in the

front.

Let's see if I can get your comments

working. And then

well then we've got an interactive

experience like none other.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization at

least since the younger dus. But you

have to look it up if that didn't make

sense to you. But if you'd like to take

a chance of elevating your experience up

to levels that nobody can even

understand with their tiny shiny human

brains.

Well, all you need for that is a copper

mug or a glass of tanker challen

jug or flask a vessel of any kind. Fill

it with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine

hit of the day. The thing that makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip and it happens now.

Oh, Paul, your timing is amazing.

You You always catch me looking at the

comments just right.

All right. After the show today, Owen

Gregorian will be hosting, as is now

traditional, a spaces event. So, go find

Owen Gregorian

and spaces. It's on the X platform.

That's the voice only service, so you

can chat and ask questions and get

answers and all that. All right.

Well, I guess the uh the stock market

hit record highs yesterday after the uh

Fed chair. He hinted that maybe interest

rates could be a little bit lower in

September.

So, I don't know if uh if Trump's

browbeating of him and insulting and

threatening him made any difference at

all. Probably not. If it made any

difference, probably it was a difference

of he delayed it longer than he could

have. But maybe good news is coming.

However, there is uh some suggestion

that Trump might fire that uh that

governor of the Fed. That would be the

position below the Fed chair. And uh the

reason would be Bill Py and his people

found that she allegedly

may have lied on some mortgage

applications and said she had more than

one primary residence, which is

impossible. Apparently, it's fairly

common. I think 4%

of uh homes or something like that are

uh illegitimately

um primary residents. So, it's a pretty

common crime if it turns out she's

guilty. I don't know if she is, but uh

that was a lot of pressure to put on the

Fed for what could turn out to be no

benefit whatsoever.

I guess the Fed will be independent.

Well, according to Howard Lutnik,

commerce secretary,

um,

I now own a little bit of stock in

Intel.

I wasn't expecting that, but apparently

the United States and therefore as a

resident that would include me. Um,

apparently the United States took a 10%

stake in Intel. Now, we had talked about

that might be happening, but they

actually got that done. That's a done

deal. They they've signed that

agreement, I guess. And while some

people will say, well, there's another

example of fascism where the government

owns the companies, to which I say 10%

that's not owning anything except maybe

profits. and the government is uniquely

situated to make or break a company, you

know, to make it successful. So, my

guess is this is going to be a

tremendously good deal and that Trump

has once again found a way to monetize

things. Um, it he finds bad news and

then he monetizes it.

It's basically the the same thing he did

in his business life. He would find a

building that was, you know, suboptimal

and then buy it and monetize it by

improving it. And uh he he finds every

opportunity to do that. So Intel may

have been like the property that was

suboptimal. And maybe I assume, now this

is an important assumption. It might be

wrong, but I'm assuming that there's a

pretty specific thing that the

government will do for Intel somehow

that would make them more likely to

succeed. Otherwise, why would they give

them 10%.

But there will be more to learn about

that.

All right, here's a story that will

sound like it's a joke, but it's not.

You know that there's a big software

company called Microsoft. I think you've

heard of it. Microsoft.

Well, uh, Elon Musk is going to start a

competing company. Instead of calling it

Microsoft, it'll be called Macro hard.

Macro hard.

Uh now apparently

uh even though Elon says the name is

tongue andcheek, you know, it's a jokey

name, it's a real thing. And the real

thing is that he's recruiting he's

recruiting

um I guess software people to uh to

build a competitor to Microsoft's office

that would be an AI based um approach.

Now tie together the other stories.

What would happen if you could uh do the

main things that you want to do without

buying Microsoft software or without

using apps because let's say your phone

and your laptop were running AI and

that's it. It was just running AI. So if

you wanted it to act like a spreadsheet,

you just say, "Hey, AI, act like a

spreadsheet." And boom, you'd have a

spreadsheet. It would just created on

the fly. It wouldn't exist anywhere

until he asked for it. And you know,

maybe you'd say, well, maybe it would

have a template that it used or

something. Um, same with a, you know,

the word processor. You just say, hey,

I'm going to write a letter. Boop. and

it would create that interface as if it

never existed before. Now imagine that

you've you've got that.

Um, and then imagine that your companies

also include a network of satellites

that can make it unnecessary to use a

phone company because pretty much

everywhere on Earth, you'll have this uh

high high-speed bandwidth access to a

satellite. That would be Elon Musk. So

if he can build the best AI

and then he can use the AI to replace

all apps and operating systems in our

devices. So that would include your

phones

and your laptops.

All of that would go away.

and and if uh Elon is successful, he

would own all of that.

Do you do you even understand how big a

play that is? He's making a play to put

Microsoft out of business and Apple too

and take all of their business.

Microsoft and Apple at the same time.

Oh, no, not that. I'm sorry. Did I say

that he was going to try to take

Microsoft and Apple's business? I didn't

mean that. I meant I meant Microsoft,

Apple, and all of the mobile phone

company business because his satellites

will be the mobile phone company.

So, he's going to be your internet

provider, your phone provider, your

operating system.

and he's already 75% there because the

AI is the important part, right? We we

already assume that if uh if Elon Musk

decided he wanted to build a phone

that he could figure out how to

manufacture a phone. I mean, he might

not do it in the United States for the

same reasons that nobody else does,

but yeah, he could either find a partner

or start a company and manufacture a

phone. So, the future, I believe, is

uh laptops

and mobile phones that have only AI and

it does everything you want to do. Whoa,

wouldn't that be cool? All right. So,

uh, not only will Elon Musk be the first

trillionaire, but he might be the first

hundred trillionaire

if he pulls that off. That that would be

worth I mean, how much is that worth if

he replaces all of those companies,

entire businesses, and it looks like

he's got a I'd give him a 25% chance of

pulling that off. Maybe higher, might be

75%.

And here's another thing that AI might

do. Um, it might replace GPS.

So, it turns out that if you've got

detailed satellite maps and you've got

cameras on your car that your car can

sort of look down the street and compare

it to, I guess, like a Google map that

that maps a street and it will just

figure out where you are by what it

looks like, no matter where you are.

Now, it might only be used as a a fillin

for when GPS fails. So, in other words,

you could imagine your car would have

the AI ver navigation where it just

looks where you are and tells you what

where you must be, but uh only it would

only kick in when the GPS failed

perhaps.

But how cool is that to not have GPS and

still have AI tell you where you are?

Now, it's not going to work if you're in

the middle of a forest, but would work

wherever the streets have been mapped.

That's almost everywhere.

Well, one of the what probably is

several dildo throwers at the WNBA

games. You know about that. Um, multiple

people, I think, probably multiple

people have thrown a colorful dildo onto

the the court during basketball games.

women's basketball and I think somebody

did it on a football turf yesterday as

well. But one of those dildo throwers uh

has been caught. He's a family man from

Ohio

who traveled all the way to New York, I

guess, to throw a dildo onto a WNBA

court. And he's not even like a big fan

of WNBA.

Why would you do that?

He's a family man and a small business

owner and there's no indication that

things are going wrong in his life, but

he still thought it was necessary to

travel across state lines to throw dildo

and disrupt a WNBA game.

Where did that come from? Was that just

for fun? Did Did he Yeah. Did he lose a

bet? Did somebody pay him to do it? Was

it a dare?

That's not good judgment. Anyway,

um apparently Vladimir Zalinski of

Ukraine has already asked if he can buy

a a collection of dildos to drop on the

Russians because the the charges against

the man who got caught throwing the

dildo is uh all related to it being

dangerous. you know, sort of a dildo

violence, if you will. There's a claim

that the dildo hit somebody.

I don't know that that's true. But if

it's true that uh colorful dildos are

that dangerous, I think Zinsky should

start dropping them out of drones. It

really make a difference in that war.

Um, speaking of uh dildos that are being

dropped in various places, Kla Harris is

launching a book tour for her book 107

days. Um, now it's pretty gutsy to write

a book about your failed presidential

campaign, unless it's about why you

failed.

And I suspect it's not going to be that.

It's probably about how awesome she was

and she probably won, but maybe uh maybe

Russia hacked hacked the election

systems.

Who who would buy who would buy a book

from somebody who's most famous for not

even being able to talk in public?

Uh, if the book were called Word Salad

and it it was nothing but, you know,

nonsense words that AI put together or

something, that would make more sense.

But who would read it? Who wants to hear

from the loser unless they're funny or a

good writer? Do you think she's a

terrible speaker in public, but she's a

good writer? No. Do you think she wrote

one word of it? Probably not. you know,

I assume it's a ghost writer. Um, so it

wouldn't really be her voice and she

didn't win the election and she doesn't

have any wisdom to impart.

Wow, I bet you can't wait to buy that

book. You better get in line now. Yeah,

get in line.

Well, according to The Hill um and

others, I guess there's a phrase which I

hadn't heard until today, a romantic

recession.

So, in America and probably other

places, there's a romantic recession.

So, that would mean that people are

having less sex or dating less and all

that. But now there's a Bank of America

survey

that says that uh half of Gen Z adults

are sp are spending zero money on

dating.

Half.

Now,

isn't that the way it almost always was?

If you're counting men and women, hasn't

it always been only half of them are

spending money on dates and the other

half are having the money spent on them?

Isn't that exactly how it's always been?

Half of the people spend nothing on

dates and the other half spend all of

it. I don't know. I don't know if that's

anything new there.

But it found that 53% of men Oh, so they

did divide it by gender. 53% of men and

54% of women didn't spend a dime on

dates.

Okay.

I I feel like um if men were willing to

pay for dates all the time, you know, if

they could afford it, but they probably

can't at the moment, that don't you

think that more women would say yes to

dates if they knew that they would not

spend a penny? Doesn't that seem like

that would make a difference?

Cuz I feel like you would go on a date

that was a little marginal if you didn't

have to spend any money. But if it was

like, well, you know, we're gonna date a

few times and you're gonna pay for our

expensive dinner once and pay once. I

don't know. You're not going to do the

marginal ones.

All right. Uh, in other good news,

apparently the US and Canada are making

progress in getting some kind of a

permanent trade deal. And indeed, the US

had dropped some

pe uh what would you I guess you'd call

it some uh revengey tariffs that we put

on them and then Canada just dropped

some tariffs that they had on us to

reciprocate.

But um Canada and the US are heading

toward it looks like resolving

everything.

And so we go back to what did you

predict would happen with tariffs?

Did you predict that it would be doom

and gloom because you know we would ask

for things we couldn't get or whatever?

Um or did you believe that Trump was

simply using it as a negotiating tactic

and uh when it was all said and done

that we would just end up with better

trade deals? I was um I certainly didn't

know if the old tariff thing would, you

know, cause a problem and I'm still not

positive, but it looks like it's a huge

success for Trump at this point. Um

things could change, but at this point

it looks like a huge success. So now it

looks like we're happy with our Canada

tariffs, so we don't really need to

negotiate anything. That's what Scott

Besson said. We've got uh Europe looks

like it it's getting close to being

handled, but it's not an emergency in

any way. Canada's coming online. But

what caught my attention was Carney is

bad at negotiating. Here's something

that Carney said out loud in public in

the context of still negotiating with

the United States.

He actually said that Canada has the

best trade deals in the world with the

US and so he'd like to keep that, you

know, keep that situation.

Now, here's some advice. If you're

negotiating,

you should never say you've already

given us the best deal in the world.

Why would you why would we give you

anything else? If you if you just told

us you had the best deal that anybody

had in the whole world, which might be

true, by the way,

that's not much incentive for us to uh

to give up anything else, is it? It's

like, let me see. So, you've got the

best trade deal in the world is what

you're saying, but you're asking for

more.

Why would we give you any more? You just

said you had the best deal in the whole

world. The world. Look how many

countries there are. Have you counted

the number of countries, Cardi? It's a

bunch. Lots of countries. And you have

the best in the world. You're not

getting anything else.

So yeah, if you're negotiating, don't

start with you've already given us the

best deal in the world.

Well, Representative Mike Lawler,

I like the fact he has Law right now

right last name. Lawler. So he's uh

floating a bill according to the New

York Post um to charge fentinel

traffickers with attempted murder. Now

that would be a trafficker.

So I don't think that necessarily means

your local street dealer. I think that

means the person who takes it across the

border, but I'm not positive. But it

would be uh attempted murder and you

could get up to life in prison. Good

idea.

I like it.

Life in prison. All right. So, I had a

shocking

um revelation yesterday.

I I'm always fascinated when there's

something that I just assumed was true

and find out is totally untrue.

And I I feel like you're in the same

position. So, I'm going to talk about

something that probably you think is

real.

And

according to what I learned yesterday is

not even a little bit real. And it goes

like this. Do you believe that the

company named Black Rockck and some

other big uh money companies have been

buying up single family homes in the

United States

so much so that it's a a big force on

rising prices and making those homes

unaffordable? How many of you believe

that that's a real thing that's

happening in the real world? Let me say

it again and listen carefully, right?

So, you have to listen carefully. Do you

believe that a company called Black

Rockck money company Black Rockck in

Vanguard and State Street? Um, do you

believe that they buy and have purchased

so many single family homes in the

United States that it is raising the

price of homes in the United States? I

believe that.

I kept hearing it over and over again.

All right, you ready? You ready to find

out what's true?

This is going to blow your mind.

And I didn't know this until I saw the

Amuse account on X. And you should be

following Amuse just like it sounds.

Just Amuse and uh follow it. But there's

long thread. Here's the first thing you

got wrong. There is a company that buys

single family homes in the United

States, but it's Black Stone. It's not

Black Rock. Black Rockck's not even in

that business. So the first thing is

it's not Black Rockck and I don't

believe it's the others either, but

there is a company called Black Stone

that has bought some tens of thousands

of uh single family homes.

But the total amount that that these

money people have bought is.1%

of the supply.

1% not 1%

onetenth of 1%.

Do you believe that the prices of homes

in the United States are higher because

uh Black Stone, not Black Rock,

and uh some others own.1%

of them?

Almost certainly not. It's way too It's

way too small a percentage to be

affecting the total price of homes. I

mean, maybe a little bit, but you

wouldn't even be able to measure it. So,

you know, my my source there is the Muse

account. So, if you have anything to

fact check me on, let me know later. But

how many of you did that blow your

minds?

How many of you thought that was true?

That Black Rock

had bought so many homes, it was raising

the price of homes.

I actually believed that.

I actually believed it that nothing is

real. So, I've got a little bit of a

theme for today. The theme is nothing's

real. It's all fake.

Well, uh, the Texas Senate passed their

GOP redistricting map

and, uh, so it looks like they'll gain

five seats or the Republicans will gain

five seats in in Texas. And according to

Axios, April Rubin is writing that

Trump's plan is to get as many as a 100

seats

um through a combination of uh having

the Republican states redistrict. I

assume that means

even if the Democrats also do more

redistricting that the Republicans could

still pull ahead because they're they're

they're less gerrymandered in general.

so that they would have more room to

grow, so to speak. But on top of that,

Trump's trying to get rid of mail-in

ballots.

And he believes if he does those two

things that the Republicans would pick

up a 100 seat Republican majority. Does

that sound

too aggressive?

Meaning that there's no way that's going

to happen? I don't know.

I I have to put this in the category of

tariffs where I hear the idea and I

think to myself, I don't know. I don't

know. I I believe that uh Black Rockck

buying houses thing. I mean, I got

fooled by that. So, I guess anything's

possible. Um maybe maybe.

But some people say that Trump will not

succeed in getting rid of mail and

ballots because the states have full

control

of how they do the elections. But I'm

going to ask you a question that's going

to make your head go, "Wait a minute.

Does that make a lot of sense or am I

going crazy?" You ready? So here here's

another mind bender. If you haven't been

exp because I haven't heard anybody say

this. Um to my best of my knowledge

um I haven't seen any news report with

the suggestion I'm about to make. Okay,

let's um let's accept the assumption

that the states have the ability to run

their election any way they want. Okay,

we all we all would understand that. And

therefore, if Trump tried to do an

executive order or even if the Congress

made some law that they tried to apply

to the states, the courts would throw it

out because the states definitely have

the power to decide how to run the

election in their state. So, I think

we'd all agree on that.

But here's my question.

Does the federal government have the

ability to reject

any states numbers that they find not

credible for any reason whatsoever?

Let's say there was a report that was uh

very well sourced that showed that one

state um had cheated on an election.

Would the federal government be required

to accept that result? Let's say the the

state tried to push it on the feds

anyway because it's the only result they

had. But we knew there was very credible

reports that it wasn't a good number.

Would the feds have the ability to say

we're going to skip your state

because you don't have a credible number

or say we're not going to give a result.

will just keep running the country the

way it is because the election is not

complete. There's a state that hasn't

weighed in, which would also be bad for

Democrats because that would keep Trump

in office. Or could it be that we don't

have to have evidence that there was

cheating? Would it be enough for the

federal government to say the only the

only sources of numbers that we find

credible are the ones that don't involve

voting machines if they decide to say

that and the ones that don't involve

mail-in votes.

So the government can say we will accept

all of your numbers that do not come

from those sort two sources. And it's

not because we have proof that there's

any problem with those numbers, but what

we do have is a uh we've identified two

systems which we have judged not to be

credible enough to be acceptable.

Could the Trump administration and

therefore future administrations too I

guess decide what they would accept

based on the credibility of the process

by which they collected the numbers?

Had anybody uh floated that idea? Now

I'm not a lawyer and even a lawyer would

not have necessarily the you know the

domain specific knowledge about

elections. So, I don't know how to test

that idea,

but I don't think I've heard it before.

It It does seem like the feds have

Doesn't it seem to you that the federal

government would have the power to

reject numbers that were just not

credible?

Don't you don't you think that that has

some weight? I don't know. Maybe it's

time to test it. We'll find out.

Um Trump says that the the Chicago might

be next um for the cities that you would

flood in some federal resources like the

the National Guard and try to uh conquer

the violence and the crime there as he

is trying to do in Washington DC. Now,

if you judge Washington DC by what's

happened so far, um it all looks good,

but we don't know what happens if he

inevitably has to, you know, reduce the

number of forces there, etc. So,

anything could happen. Um, but hold that

in mind. I'm going to tie this all

together. So, remember, Trump has for

federal forces in Washington DC and so

far it looks successful. He might do the

same thing in Chicago. Now, I'm going to

switch topics, but I'm going to tie them

together, so pay attention. Um, Bill

Maher had his show last night, and of

course, we watch him to watch this um

very entertaining.

I I would say uh arc from a Trump hater

to a damn it, he keeps doing things I

like. And I don't believe

Mar is ever gonna become a Trump

supporter member of MAGA. But every week

it seems like he gets closer by

validating that something that Trump did

was, you know, worthy of compliments.

However, just to make sure you know that

he would never go all the way to

supporting Trump, he he has this one ace

in the hole that he says, you know, is

disqualifying for Trump. Oh, yeah.

There's, you know, maybe lots of things

you could complain about Trump, but

there's this one thing that Bill Maher

lets us know almost every week, uh, is

completely disqualifying for Trump, and

that is the idea that Trump is running a

slow motion coup as he as Bill Moore

calls it,

and that he knows that Trump will never

give up power.

Now, he believes that January 6 was an

example of that.

However, he is deeply within the hoax

realm because Trump did give up power.

He literally gave it up.

He gave it up.

Well, I don't know what show he was

watching, but the one I watched, he lost

the election. He complained where we all

have a right to and then he peacefully

left and then re ran for election again

just like the system was designed. So,

but but in Bill Maher's world, he's

already proven that he would not give up

power and therefore he might not give it

up this time either, you know. And of

course, he did talk about Trump uh uh

having a 20 Did he talk about this? That

Trump has a hat 2028 hat. So, Bill Maher

believes that Trump is not joking about

remaining in power,

although he jokes about it a lot. Um,

however, Bill does have a stronger

argument when he's watching the the feds

move their own little private army, so

to speak, the National Guard. Um, it's

not the feds, but they could nationalize

it whenever they want if they had an

argument. And he points out that the TR

troops are coming more from southern

states.

Um, as in it's almost like he's forming

a private army. Do you remember that I

said you don't have to worry about the

president, any president, but you don't

have to worry about Trump trying to take

power unless he had his own army because

if you don't own the army, there's no

way you're going to stay in power. So

you would have to have something like

Iran has, you know, the revolutionary

guard or you all the dictators have, you

know, this smaller

uh highly funded and motivated group

that can protect at least the capital.

So now he's got his own, this is what

Bill Morris would say, he's got his own

kind of military

that's uh now guarding the capital

conveniently.

Now, I would point out that it's not

guarding Mara Lago. So, so it's not

like, you know, it's not like the uh

street gangs can't get to Trump if they

don't want to. I mean, he's going to be

golfing and stuff. But um on top of that

um as Bill Maher correctly points out,

the only way you could have any kind of

a you know coup,

the kind that people fear is if you

really did start a process by which you

were building toward having your own

private army to keep you in power. Now,

does it look to you like that's what's

happening? Do you believe that what you

see is Trump starting the beginning of

his uh getting a federal eyes under his

control? You know, may maybe later

there's some moves where he fires some

National Guard leaders and puts his

loyalists in there. You know, maybe

something like that.

Well, here's what I think. Um,

if you do

the the first thing I'd worry about is

if you do another election with voting

machines and mail-in ballots, you're

kind of asking for a coup because you're

you're running a an election system that

at least half of the country, and I I

believe it's more than half because I

think both parties have some questions

about these systems. If you're running a

system that the that half of the country

does not trust is even a valid way to

elect somebody,

you're kind of asking for a coup. And I

don't mean just Trump. I mean, whoever

is in power if you keep running a system

that the the public doesn't trust. Yeah.

That it doesn't seem like that could go

forever. But uh in my in my view, Bill

Maher has the the TDS problem of his

problem with Trump is not the things

he's done that we can verify. He mostly

likes that stuff. And I'll give you some

examples in a minute. It's the things

that he worries about that are

imaginary.

And that's what it's come down to. The

smartest people who also have TDS, you

know, the well-informed people like

Bill.

um literally have to imagine

an imaginary scenario where a very

unlikely set of events happen that you

know you could say I told you didn't you

see that coming so that's imaginary but

um to his credit

uh Bill is also very complimentary he

was on Friday saying how Trump is so

good and he gave lots of examples of how

he was so good at uh targeting micro

groups within the country and making

them happy because he finds their their

issue that they're tied to. So he used

the uh Trump going to reschedu weed as

something that the the Democrats are

just stupid for not doing it first. They

just leave it to Trump. And so Mark

correctly points out that the people who

would really like him to do that or like

any leader to reschedu weed, um Trump is

just going to nail them down. So it'll

be one more group of people that Trump

gets for free, which is people who

consider that one of their top uh top

issues. But then uh Mah points out

accurately that Trump did the same thing

with crypto. He became the the one that

the crypto people like and then he got

that tiny little population on his side.

He did it with the first step back got

the people who were activists and the um

you know the what would you call it the

reform of the the justice system you

know in terms of getting people out of

jail early first step act. He did it

with the your toilets and your showers

not having enough water pressure. He did

it with pl with straws. He did it with

no tax on tips. He did it with make

America healthy again. Each of them have

a tiny motivated

uh really strong set of believers and

Trump just checks them off. Go. You want

this? No tax on tips. Boom. I won Las

Vegas.

And it it was sort of full circle for

me. Some of you know that in I think it

was 2016

I was on his show uh the real time and I

predicted that Trump would win. So this

was before the election when people were

not expecting Trump to win and

I said he would win and I said the

specific reason is that his persuasive

skills were unparalleled.

So I I gave my reason and my reason did

not have to do with policies.

I didn't I didn't even mention any. It

wasn't about, you know, his fundraising

ability.

I said there's one variable. His his

ability to persuade is like we've never

seen and and he's going to go right

right into the White House. Now, um you

see Bill Bar praising him because he so

so adeptly

um can identify these little areas where

with just the smallest tweak in what you

say about it, you you end up owning that

whole population, you get them for free.

It's like leaving money on the table.

Oh, you mean all I have to do is say I'm

pro crypto and then a million more

people will start looking at me as a

better candidate. All right,

let's do it in a reasonable way. I mean,

he doesn't do it in a crazy way. He

makes sure that, you know, these things

all make sense in their own their own

way. Um, but yes, I would say that uh

the Bill Maher is now a complete convert

as are most of the world by the way.

most of the world caught up with me in

2016 and they now believe that he they

like to use the term he's the best

political athlete.

Now I like that but I would say

persuasion

political athlete is a wider category

and and I agree with it. He is the best

political athlete we've ever seen. But u

everybody sees the persuasion element

now.

And then Bill Maher uh also astutely

mocked Kla Harris for instead of doing

all these real world things that people

like, you know, like the the straws and

the the light bulbs and all this stuff,

uh she went after uh saving democracy.

So, she went after a concept.

Trump went after your toilets, your

taxes on tips, your crypto, your weed.

Those are all real things. Almost all of

those things you can feel or see or you

have a memory of it or an image pops

into your head. The these are really

salient touch you. You can feel them.

You just have a feeling about all those

things. And uh and Kamla is going for

saving your democracy. And the closest I

can get to even understanding that topic

would be wait what

what what's wrong with our democracy.

What

the and the only thing I think that

needs to be saved is the credibility of

our election systems and Trump's trying

to do that. So anyway, um,

and now Trump is doing more of what Bill

Maher correctly points out is part of

his, uh, persuasion genius of really

relating to real people. the the the

fact that he's going after crime and

also the beautifification of our cities

is so

so

like right in the heart,

isn't it? Because there's nobody who

doesn't have a picture in their head of

a city with graffiti and garbage and

people on the sidewalks.

So right away he's in that visual domain

and he's telling you he's going to

beautify it and make it beautiful and

clean it up and get rid of the crime.

The crime is also something you feel. I

don't feel a loss of democracy, but I

definitely feel you know the danger of

cats visiting uh the danger of crime and

stuff. But listen to um

listen to this statement.

Um,

so Trump said recently, and I quote, and

listen how visual this is. Uh, quote,

"We are going to make DC totally safe."

Trump said, "When people come from Iowa,

Indiana, all the big beautiful places,

they're not going to go home in a body

bag." Oh my god. They're not going to go

home in a body bag. You see it, right?

You you see the you see the bag and and

you can almost see yourself on the

inside of it as they're as they're

zipping up the body bag. That is visual

persuasion.

It's visual even without the visual

because you you fill in the visual in

your mind. But the way he talks about

everything is so relatable,

so on the money, so you feel it. Um,

it's it's really amazing. So, what do

the Democrats do when faced with the

greatest political athlete of our time,

having no policies and no leaders? Well,

according to something called the

Atlantic Daily, they they've got an

article

that says that uh some Democrats believe

their best bet might be to imitate

prominent Republicans. and they give an

example of uh Steven Miller. So So now

if you want to know how how lame

Democrats are that

first they were trying to uh they said

we need our own Trump. So people like

Nuome are

are literally pretending to be Trump in

a in a mocking way, but they're they're

trying to make their own Trump. All

right, we'll have Newsome. will be doing

a lot of insults and he might come up

with some nicknames and but they don't

really know what part of Trump is the

active ingredient. So the things they're

copying

that you know get some attention but

they're not very effective. So now they

want to find their own Steven Miller. Uh

they've already said they they need

their own Charlie Kirk and you know that

they talk obsessively about getting

their own Joe Rogan.

Now, you could not you could not

misunderstand the world any harder than

that.

These are extraordinary people. And if

you haven't noticed, the extraordinary

people are all being drawn to the same

side.

You don't get extraordinary people by

acting the way you the Democrats act.

the the extraordinary people either were

born on the right uh or they said, "Uh,

the left is freaking crazy.

I'm going to go toward the common sense

world where I can get something done."

So, no, you can't you can't find your

own Steven Miller.

Do you do you know how much uh personal

hell somebody like Stephen Miller had to

go through

before he got to be Stephen Miller?

It was almost nobody would sign up. So I

don't I don't know too much about Steven

Miller's personal life, but don't you

assume that the level of you know

personal risk and sacrifice he's put

into this is way bigger than ordinary

people put into anything. And that would

be true of Charlie Kirk and it's

probably true of Joe Rogan and certainly

true of Trump. You don't you don't just

go find one, you know, you don't hold

auditions to find yourself your own

Steven Miller. You those only grow

naturally.

You know, you don't build them. And

somehow that the the Democrats live in

such a an imaginary

entertainment fictional world that they

can they believe that they can build

heroes

uh when there's no example of anybody

else ever doing it. Has anybody else

ever built themselves a Joe Rogan?

No. Do you know how much hard work Joe

Rogan put into his career? I mean, if

you haven't looked into the number of

things he's done and the the skills he's

picked up and the chances he took and,

you know, that whole road, you don't you

don't just imitate that.

See, you have to be born into that

mindset that that would make it possible

for you to become, you know, a Joe

Rogan.

But I should point out, if I haven't

said this directly, the newsome strategy

of just mocking Trump and doing funny

truth, well, funny posts that use Trump

style and then swearing a lot and

showing up on on all kinds of podcasts

and having your own podcast and stuff.

That's it's kind of working now. It's

working in this narrow sense. It's

working in the sense that he's getting

all the attention. So he's and people

are starting to assume that he's the

likely primary winner to be the

candidate. So it's working for him

because it makes him look like he's

fighting Trump the most. And he's

getting the most attention and we know

that attention is, you know, half of the

battle. And apparently it's helping him

raise money. And we know that money

makes a difference.

But uh I should point out the following

things. Number one, it's August.

In August, there's not really much news

to compete with uh Newsome doing a funny

truth social mock.

I would also point out it's not the sort

of thing you can do forever. They they

managed to hit on a really clever little

uh vine which is which is mocking the

posts and using that style. But how long

would you be willing to be entertained

by that? I feel like three is the most I

can handle. I'm not even sure I'll read

a third one. But the first two I read

because they were kind of clever. They

were well executed. whoever is doing the

you know the strategy and writing those

I don't know if it's Newsome himself but

it's well done you know as what it is

it's well done

but uh do you think anybody's going to

change their vote

I if we've already accepted and even the

Democrats have kind of grudgingly

accepted that Trump is the best

persuader and communicator of all time.

So, of all time,

and if what you're doing is mocking him

for the thing that is the best of all

time, his communication skills.

So, if you were mocking him for

something he was doing poorly, that

could be a really good strategy. But if

you're mocking somebody for a skill, in

this case, communication skill in which

he is possibly the best in the world in

all time, that doesn't really leave a

mark. All it is is it's like a tribute

band.

Let me say that again. Wait, wait until

you feel this.

He's become a tribute band for a

candidate who's not even running for

office again.

Think about how weak that is.

He's the tribute band. Again, let me say

it again. If if Trump were a bad

communicator and he were mocking his bad

communication skills, that might be

something that that might leave a mark.

But if the whole point of Trump's

communication is even both sides admit,

okay, it's the best anybody's ever been

in the world in the history of the whole

world. It's nobody's ever been close. If

you're dealing with that as a thing

you're mocking,

I don't know how good your mocking would

have to be, but all it does is all it

does is draw attention to the fact that

he's the best communicator we've ever

seen.

And then on top of that, it turns you

into the tribute band.

Uh, I'll give you a I'll give you a

choice.

You can go watch the Beatles uh give a

concert in their prime if you could

travel back in time, or you could go to

Vegas and you could watch a tribute band

play their songs. Which one would you

pick? the Tribute Band

or the Beatles.

So, that's sort of the comparison that

Newsome was setting up. And then then he

adds the cursing.

Of all the things that Trump does, his

cursing is the least important

but easiest to copy. So the the appeal

of the cursing is that it's easy to do

and maybe a little bit of fun. Uh it's

not his most important variable.

It's not what makes Trump Trump. If he

never swore once, Trump would still be

Trump. I mean, you're you're talking

about less than 1% of his technique,

which he does well. He's really good at

cursing just the right amount. Uh but

they they they think that's the thing to

copy.

Anyway, I I think it would be hilarious

if uh all the Republicans who are

pundits uh played a hoax in which we

pretend that the cursing is really

working for us.

So, every time you you go on a podcast

and you get interviewed, you say, you

know, I have to admit that uh Nuome

seemed like an empty suit to me and he

didn't feel like he did a good job. But

lately, with all the cursing,

I'm getting a different feeling about

him now. A man who could curse like

that, well, that's a leader. I mean, I

used to like it when Trump would curse,

but I believe Nome is cursing even more.

And I'm really drawn to that. So, I've

decided to, you know,

reregister as a Democrat. Um, so I can

vote for him in the primary. Yeah. I I

wasn't even motivated to vote until I

heard him cursing and I was like, damn

it, that man can curse.

And then try to do try to make it look

like the cursing was the active

ingredient so that they never get close

to understanding that they really need

ideas and they learn how they need to

learn how to do persuasion and then they

would know what the active ingredient

part is.

Let me tell you where the active

ingredient is. You don't want to go home

in a body bag.

Okay? You could feel that now compared

to

uh Trump is uh effing up the city.

I use a swear word. Did anybody catch

that? I used a swear word.

One of those is fourstar

A++ persuasion. It's the body bag one.

Yeah. It's not the Oh, he's effing

things up. Oh, I'm going to effing fight

so hard. Oh.

Oh, mockery.

I got a happy cat right there.

All right.

People can't see you if you if you lay

down there. They're going to have to

look at me.

Well, Trump was asked about Newsome, of

course, and uh Trump said, "Uh, I know

Gavin very well. He's an incompetent guy

with a good line of

So Trump Trump does the cursing.

And again, I don't think it's true, but

I I love, you know, just recreationally,

I like believing that Trump knows that

the more he swears, the more they'll

think that's the magic sauce.

And see if he can see if he can get into

a swearing contest with them. and

they'll have nothing. Nothing at all.

Well,

so here's how I like uh this reframe

from Trump or it's a frame, I guess,

that uh that Gavin is incompetent.

He's guy, but he's got a good line of

Doesn't that feel kind of perfect?

Because uh Nim has that pretty boy, you

know, a little bit too good-looking

hair. He has his hair is too good. He's

a little too tall. His tan is a little

bit too good. And that sort of biases

you to think that maybe he's not that

competent cuz he's Yeah, it's hard to be

good-looking and competent at the same

time. You know, not too many people pull

that off. I mean, I I do obviously, but

uh not too many people can pull that

off.

So, it's a really good frame. It's

sticky. He's an incompetent guy with a

good line of

All right, Joelle. Here's an update on

John Bolton being raided by the FBI.

Um,

can I lay my notes on you, Cat? I need

them to be sort of right there, but

that's sort of where you are. I'm just

going to lay them right on top of you.

All right. All right. It's working.

So, Gary the cat is so relaxed that he

doesn't mind if I put my notes on top of

him. No, stay down there. It's okay.

Anyway, um update on Bolton. So, there's

uh some thought that the reason he was

being rated is he had some uh

potentially classified materials and

that he mentioned them in his book. So,

that uh there's no there's no real

question whether the materials are

classified because we already saw the

book. And I guess um I think even the

judge because it it became a court case

um and I think the judge even admitted

as a statement of fact that it was

classified material and he shouldn't

have had them. But uh he was still

allowed to publish the book. So but

there is some thought that it was more

than that and that he might have been

behind some other leaks. We don't have

evidence of that, but uh we do know that

Ratcliffe, the head of the CIA, is the

one who provided the information that

was the predicate, as they like to say,

for the FBI to go into his house. So,

what would the CIA

know that the FBI didn't know already?

So, there might be something there. We

don't know.

We'll keep an eye on that. So, do you

believe that uh that the Bolton action

is more evidence that Trump is on a

revenge tour? And how do you feel about

that if you think that's what's

happening? Um, here's my take.

I believe that the worst thing the

country could do is to get into a

revenge situation where every new

administration

uh wipes out the prior administration,

tries to put him in jail, but we're

there and I have mixed feelings about

it.

I don't like it. But on the other hand,

the only thing that keeps society

together is the risk of mutual

destruction. The the reason that we're,

you know, civilized is because we don't

want somebody to kill us for being

univilized around other people. That's

it. The only thing that keeps us

together as a society is the risk that

if we go too far, somebody's going to go

right too far on our ass. And what we're

watching, in my opinion, is Trump

executing mutually assured destruction

and that he it is revenge

and it's necessary.

Now, you might say, "But Scott, by

taking the gloves off and going so hard

at his enemies, which he is clearly

doing, um, it's just going to make them

go hard and it will be this endless

cycle of revenge." To which I say,

why is it even necessary for him to get

revenge?

If you don't do something to somebody,

they don't need revenge. So maybe you

should learn that you can make the cycle

stop just by not trying to lawfare a guy

who might become your president later.

So I'm completely in favor of the

revenge in the context of mutually

assured destruction. I do believe that

the Democrats went way too far in trying

to put him in jail and I think they went

way too far in putting other Republicans

in jail. quite a few of them. Uh the

ones who were around Trump, you know,

his accountants and his all of his

associates, they went after his family

members, they went through his his

wife's underwear drawer.

They went hard. And so, in my opinion,

if he did not unleash full mutually

assured destruction, and he is, but if

he had not, it would have empowered them

to be like that in the future.

He he has to go full salt the earth and

he's got to he's got to pull as many of

those weeds as he can in the time that

he has because society requires that you

not be what the anti-Trumpers were. You

you can't be in power. You cannot be in

power and be like that because whoever

comes after you is going to get the

revenge and we're just going to sit back

and watch. You know, do people like me

have the power to put the brakes on this

by complaining? And the answer is yes.

Yes. Th this would be one of the

categories. I it wouldn't wouldn't be

true for every category, but for some

categories like this, um if people like

me, you know, the people who talk about

politics and are proTrump, etc., if if

we were unified against this, he'd he'd

cut it out

because there are enough of us. I mean,

Trump is smart enough that he knows he

needs the the pundits, the podcasters,

and that that world supports him. If we

were all on the other side and said,

"No, no, no. Don't be a revenge

administration. We can't handle this. It

might trigger civil war." If we said

that, we could slow him down.

And so, I'm taking some risk and taking

some responsibility at the same time.

Um, I'm taking some responsibility

because he's the candidate I support

that I'm also going to share that risk.

I feel like he has a free hand for full

revenge

as long as

there's backing for it. I mean, it

doesn't count if he just starts taking

out people who were good at their job at

being Democrats. That doesn't count. If

if somehow he started looking for, I

don't know, some dirt on Fetterman just

so they could find some way to put him

in jail, I'd be against that. very very

much against that. That would flip me

immediately. But so far it looks like

he's only getting rid of people who

participated in hoaxes against him or

acts which I would consider unethical,

you know, going after the January

sexers, for example.

So he's on strong ground. I'm I'm

completely supportive of if they want to

call it revenge,

go ahead. I call it mutually assured

destruction has been activated and he's

the agent of it. And he's going to make

sure that if you think about uh

lawfaring the next leader, maybe you

should think about what happens when you

do that. Maybe you should think that

that that leader is going to kick your

ass if he gets a chance. So that's okay

with me. Hold society together.

Um, apparently, uh,

Chairman Comr, Republican, is looking

at, uh, subpoenaing Kla Harris to talk

about the, uh, hiding of Biden's, you

know, health problems.

>> And I have two feelings on that. Number

one, um, yes. Yes, I would like to know

what she says about that. And uh and the

other feeling is yes. And why haven't we

done that yet? Why is it even a

question? She was the vice president.

That's the most obvious person to ask.

What did you know? And when did you know

it? And why didn't you do something

about it? So yeah, I hope that happens.

I don't know that it will. And if she

did, maybe she would just take the

fifth, which would look really weak.

Well, believe it or not, we now have the

Galain Maxwell transcript and audio. Um,

I think it's is it fully unredacted? It

might be. Um, where uh Trump's

ex-personal lawyer who now works for him

in another capacity um interviewed her

and asked all the important questions.

So, there were quite a few things that

came out of it. Uh, so I'll run down the

list. Um big part of the list I got from

data republican. So on X the data

republican account did a good job of

summarizing you know some of the things

we learned. All right. So before I tell

you what we've learned, can we all agree

on the following? She is not a credible

witness. Everybody.

because otherwise it's going to drive me

crazy when I look in the comments and

you're yelling at me and saying, "Scott,

you fool. Don't you know that she lies?"

Can we Can we all start by saying we all

understand

she's not a credible witness on anything

she says? Say it. Say it out loud. I

understand she's not a credible witness.

And then I can save some time when I

tell you the thing she said so I don't

have to stop after every one and

say, "But remember, I'm smart enough to

know it's not necessarily true because

she said it." Are we all on the same

page? Can we handle this? All right.

All right.

Uh Gla Maxwell says that Trump never did

anything inappropriate and that he was a

gentleman in all respects and that he

was never even around a massage setting.

Hold

hold.

I know you want so badly to say but but

she got in return a better jail. So,

of course she said that cuz he might

pardon her. Hold hold. We all understand

that. You don't need to say it in the

comments. You don't.

No matter how much of an NPC you are,

you don't have to say it. We all know.

All right. Uh, she also said that Bill

Clinton never went to the island and I

don't think she believes she saw him do

anything inappropriate either. Huh. So,

you're telling me that Bill Clinton

uh the guy who's associated with the

highest body count through his wife um

that he never did anything on the island

either. Huh.

Well, totally believable.

Um, she said Trump did not receive any

massages.

Uh, she said Bill Clinton didn't even

visit the island. She said there's no

client list. Epstein didn't work for any

intelligence agency.

Um,

she said that there were no cameras on

the island.

Uh, so that there there are no videos.

I know. Hold.

Hold. Don't make me say it again. Hold.

Uh,

let's see. Uh,

so apparently

Galain Maxwell said she she worked with

Clinton to set up the Clinton Global

Initiative.

Uh, and I believe that's the entity that

everybody assumes was was a payfor-play

was was a huge, you know, bribery

mechanism so that foreigners could pay

large amounts of money into it. And then

Hillary Clinton when she was uh state

department andor senator I guess um

would have would have done what they

wanted in return for that large amount

of money to their Clinton global

initiative which they allegedly may have

siphoned off for themselves.

Um

and uh she believes that Jeffrey Epstein

actually funded the Clinton Global

Initiative and that that that was the

main reason that Clinton and Epstein had

a relationship is uh financial.

Okay.

And let's see.

Um, so the the new movie that's uh

emerging, uh, I'm going to call the Mike

Benz filter on it, is that it's

possible,

and I'm not going to say that this is my

view of it, but it's possible that the

um, the sex crimes were entirely Epstein

doing it himself

andor just some people close to him that

he might, you know, may have pulled into

the the scene, but that it might not

have be about it might not be blackmail

that rather he seems to have been

involved in very large financial

entities and and uh transactions

and that he seemed to be an expert on

rich people hiding and moving money that

can't be tracked.

So that makes sense if he was setting up

the uh the Clinton global whatever it

was that he was an expert on helping

rich people make money illegitimately

andor hiding it illegitimately. And it

could be that everything we think was,

you know, a blackmail scheme and working

with intelligence agencies may have been

nothing but a whole bunch of

opportunities

that were big ones. So they he may have

intersected with some intelligence

people, but that he wasn't on their

payroll. It's entirely possible that he

worked with some of them and that maybe

he helped him out in some cases in

return for some other favors. So I

wouldn't say that he had no contact with

any intelligence people, but it might be

that that wasn't sort of what defined

him. It could be that was just

opportunistic or something and that

really he was just looking for gigantic

financial transactions and that it

helped him to have close personal

relationships with people, not

necessarily for blackmail,

but if if you did some, let's say

hypothetically,

um you had some rich friend and the two

of you got into some sketchy sexual

behavior, here that the two of you knew

about but other people didn't,

you probably

would be more uh open to, you know,

working with that person so they didn't

sell you out.

So,

it could be that the situation with uh

with Epstein was more nuanced, but

that's not my that's not my view. I'm

just saying that there there more than

one movie is now appeared. We don't know

which one is true. Uh Gain thought that

uh Epstein did not kill himself, so she

thinks he was murdered, but doesn't know

by who.

Um she denies that she solicited women

for Epstein.

[Music]

Um I've certainly read lots of details

that would suggest that she did. Um, she

did not see underage girls involved with

anything non-consensual or anything

improper. Okay, we don't believe that.

Maxwell says that uh again, I'm using

the uh data Republicans summary here. Uh

says there's never been a list, you

know, like a client list, which would

make sense

if he wasn't in the business of just

blackmail. If he was in the business of

knowing as many rich people as possible

and helping them, you know, set up

clever schemes with their money,

it could be that the sexual stuff was

just it made sense in some cases, didn't

make sense to bring somebody into that

world in other cases, and he just

discriminated.

Um, and Maxwell said there was no

blackmail

and no intelligence ties, as I said. And

uh Epstein managed the money of

Elizabeth Johnson, a Johnson and Johnson

heir in the '9s. And he had a business

relationship with the ex head of

the ex CEO of Barclays. I don't know why

that's important.

And he helped Linda Rothschild

financially, but Rothschild will deny

it. U I don't know why this stuff is

important. and uh he hung out with the

president of Colombia and met with

Castro in Cuba. Larry Summer was a

personal friend of Epstein,

Larry Summer. So, he's a very prominent

Hillary Clinton friend and prominent

Democrat.

Uh Maxwell says she thinks she met Alex

Soros, the son of George Soros, at an

event, but doesn't remember the exact

context.

Um,

she said that Sergy Brin held a birthday

party with EP, possibly with Epstein,

uh, and that Elon Musk was present. All

right, that doesn't mean anything. Bobby

Kennedy knew Epstein. That doesn't mean

anything. Um, Trump seemed friendly with

Epstein, but explicitly says she never

saw anything improper.

Um, and that Epstein liked to invite

famous scientists like Steven J. gold

for dinner. He liked talking science.

All right. Well, so

in summary, uh we can't believe a single

thing that Maxwell said,

but here's the genius of it from Trump's

perspective. Uh I saw a lot of accounts

on social media say, and there it is.

Maxwell says that Trump never did

anything. Case closed. Is it?

I mean, that's as far as you can get

from being a credible report. So, I

don't think the case is closed. I don't

think that Trump did anything

inappropriate. But I but to imagine that

Maxwell could be the one to confirm it.

However, because people are not, you

know, up to date on all the details of a

story like this, the fact that Maxwell

did very clearly deny that Trump did

anything inappropriate, Trump and all of

his supporters will forever be able to

say that. And the person who might know

the difference is saying, "No, no, that

came from Maxwell. You can't trust

that."

But it won't matter because the mere

existence of the fact that Ma Max

Maxwell said as clearly as possible that

he was not involved in anything is

really going to carry a lot of

persuasion weight. It should not,

but it will because it's associated with

a person and there's an actual quote and

it'll be repeated and repeated and

repeated and most people will only hear

it as a headline.

Maxwell says Trump didn't do anything

wrong.

They they will forget that maybe she had

something to gain and she was, you know,

playing the system. They will not see

the context where everything else she

said looks pretty unbelievable,

pretty sketchy. Maybe half of it looks

just obviously sketchy.

So, it's going to lose over time. It's

going to lose all the nuance that would

help you not find it credible. And by

repetition and the fact that people just

hear the highlight, it will become very

persuasive in Trump's favor. And it

already is.

All right. Uh

and Trump said, uh the Democrats don't

know what to do, so they keep bringing

this stuff up. meaning the Epstein and

stuff. He said it's a hoax to diminish

the significance of what we've done over

the past seven months. Well, I don't

know if

you know that's completely true, but uh

they certainly would like uh the public

to think about it more than his

accomplishments.

Um Tulsi Gabbert shut down something

called the

uh foreign malign influence center.

Now, if you heard it was the foreign

mallayion influence center, you would

assume that their job was to keep

foreign entities from influencing the US

in a negative way. But allegedly

um it was used to suppress uh free

speech in the United States. So, it was

a clever workound to actually control

the United States.

So, she shut that down. It makes you

wonder how many entities are there that

are funded by taxpayers, but if you knew

what they did, you'd say, "Wait a

minute. I don't want that. Stop doing

that right away."

Um, according to Nature Publication,

uh, peer reviewers are more likely to

prove an article for peer review, uh,

that cite their own work.

Now, I didn't know that was true, but if

you had asked me, I probably would have

guessed it was true. So, since

scientists get they get benefits for how

many times they're cited, so it makes

their own work look more important. So,

if you want to if you want to get a peer

reviewer to say good things about your

study, you just cite the person who's

the peer reviewer as one of your

sources. And then the odds of them

saying, "Oh, yeah, this is a good

paper." Because it increases their own

citations goes way up.

Surprise. Nobody's surprised by that. I

think the science is at least 50% fake.

Meaning at least, and it might be, I

think it's a lot more actually. It's

probably closer to 75, but most of what

you hear about science is fake.

Um, I've been fascinated by the uh, Eric

Weinstein take on science that progress

in physics stopped. I forget what year

he says, but there's an actual year or

decade, I guess, in which progress in

physics just sort of stopped. And the

idea was um, that the only thing that's

worth looking at is um, string theory.

But that never quite completely paid off

and and that science has just stalled.

And it's not because we're not able

uh but rather there's some force that

maybe we don't completely understand

that is stalling science intentionally.

Why? I don't know. I don't know. But it

does seem that uh physics hit a wall. So

that part I've also observed long ago

and I also have been criticizing string

theory for years saying it does seem

like they're not really making any

progress on this thing. Is any of this

real?

Well, Sean Ryan on his podcast has

has a guest, the host of something

called the Y Files that many of you have

seen on YouTube. And HJ Gentiel, I

think, is the name of the host. And uh

that show does uh you know, lots of

conspiracy theory kind of stuff, but he

he's not a true believer.

uh often he'll say after he tells you

the conspiracy, he'll say, "But probably

not true and here's the reason why." So

he's he's not like a crazy conspiracy

guy. He's just somebody who talks about

crazy conspiracies.

Um and he doesn't he he doesn't

automatically just, you know, throw them

away, but he's not, you know, somebody

who just believes every conspiracy

theory, right? So he's fairly credible,

I find.

And what he said was

uh

I mixed up my notes here, but he said

that the uh the pyramids must have been

used to generate electricity. And he had

a theory that there's some chemical that

they found there that shouldn't be there

unless they were doing that. And uh

somehow it might be built to shoot the

electricity up into the atmosphere so

that in a uh Nikolai Tesla kind of way

somebody else could suck it out of the

atmosphere and use the power.

Yeah, Gary's still here.

Good boy. He just loves going to sleep

to my voice. So do you. But anyway,

my uh my take on that besides the fact

it's it's interesting is if you look at

the stories that we just talked about

today

and how many of them we don't know the

truth. I mean, we don't really know the

truth on the Epstein thing. We went

through the whole Russia hoax. We've got

uh people who believe that Trump is

doing a slow motion coup. I mean, I

don't even know how historians are going

to write the history of what we're going

through right now because we have two to

three completely different narratives

for every set of facts. So, what does

the history book do? And

then we look at the pyramids.

So, here's the context I want to give

you. What are the odds

that our understanding of the pyramids

the the kind of traditional one where

the Egyptians built it but it was really

hard but we don't know how but it was

just humans building you know maybe

tombs or something like that. What are

the odds

that almost all of our stories in the

modern time, like right now, are fake,

but we got the pyramid story right?

Do you think there's any chance that our

understanding what I I'll say the the

normal understanding where the the

Egyptians just built it themselves and

forgot how.

Do you think there's any chance that's

real? So, I don't know. I wouldn't

necessarily say

that any one of the other theories is

correct. So, I'm not buying into the,

you know, it was used to generate

electricity, although it might. I don't

rule it out. Uh,

I I just have the general the general

observation that if all of our stories

that are in the public today are fake,

what are the odds we got the pyramid

thing right? It's close to zero, right?

I mean, almost 0% chance that we have a

clean, clear understanding of what the

pyramids are all about.

Well, there's a according to a company,

according to Interesting Engineering,

the publication,

uh there's an idea for a hybrid delivery

system that would be part electric

vehicle and part robot. So, the electric

vehicle would go to your house, the

robot would get out of it to deliver the

package, and then there would also be

some kind of lock box, not for

everybody, but for prime customers if

they want one. So, so nobody could steal

it because the robot would be able to

lock it in the box. And I'm thinking to

myself, yeah, that is where everything

needs to go. You should be able to get

everything cheaply and fast. Uh,

although I still I still think that

sending my Tesla to pick it up might

make sense.

By the way, I think I would be ready to

buy a Tesla if it could deliver itself

to my driveway.

So, if you hear that Pleasant in

California

um will allow you to buy something

online and have it delivered to your

driveway,

um, let me know.

I'll probably buy a buy a Tesla the same

same day.

I just don't want to go to the showroom.

I'm I'm just trying to cut out that

process. Um,

well, speaking of California, the Daily

Wire is reporting Luke Rosak that

there's a California anti-poverty

activist and also a gigantic Democrat

donor who was running a massive carbon

credit scam.

Oh my god. So, every large complicated

thing is a a scam.

and corrupt every one of them. Anyway,

um

that is all I had to talk about today.

How do we do? We went long today, but

you loved it. Um so Owen Gregorian will

be doing his spaces event in a few

minutes. I'm going to go private and

just chat with my beloved

uh local subscribers and uh Owen will be

firing up the spaces. So, look for that.

That's a audio event on X and you can

talk more about this or other stuff. And

uh all right, locals coming at you in 30

seconds will be private.