Episode 2946 CWSA 09/02/25

There you are.

Come on in.

That's right.

It's time.

It's time for your favorite thing.

Mine, too.

It's actually my favorite part of the day, usually.

Well, let's check your stocks.

All right, let's not.

We won't check your stocks.

Nope.

I didn't even bring it up.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

Forget your stocks because we're about to have a good time.

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

is called Coffee with Scott Adams.

You've never had a better time.

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

All you need for that is a copper mug or a glass attacker chest, a canteen, jugger, flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.

Go.

Well, I had a little scare today.

I'm preparing for the show and I'm looking at all these little suggestions that war is coming.

in all these small ways like, "Oh, we got the mil the navy is surrounding Venezuela." And uh probably there were three different news items that seemed like an invitation to war.

And all of a sudden outside my window, which was, you know, pitch black because it was before sun up, I I see a flash sort of almost like lightning happened and then I hear boom boom boom.

I'm like, "Oh, shoot.

Are we being bombed?" And I'm thinking, "Are the bombs so big that it's really happening in San Francisco, you know, which is an hour away." Uh, but maybe I can see it cuz I'll tell you one thing, it couldn't be thunder and lightning because this is California and it's September 2nd and it would be a little bit unusual there be any rain and but sure enough there was a 17minute rainstorm which is the only one I remember all summer.

I don't remember it raining all summer which is not unusual for where I live.

Uh, and uh, it was actually kind of frightening when you put it in context of, you know, I'm a little bit worried that somebody might attack the homeland.

Anyway, the good news is finally uh, you can buy a $100,000 coffee robot.

It's a robot that makes your coffee and that's all it does.

That's all it does.

and they say the uh payback would be two to three years.

It's a yet again another single mission robot.

Um I don't know if I told you my coffee robot experience from my local mall.

They they had a coffee robot kiosk set up so you could actually buy coffee from a robot.

And the first several times I saw it, there was a human attendant in case anything went wrong.

But by the time I decided to give it a try one day, uh there was no human attendant.

And you know, I didn't want to try it when the human was there because what's the point?

You know, you want to test the robot, you know, without a human.

So I put in my order and then the robot very slowly goes through the steps of making what I want.

But as soon as I pushed what I wanted, I realized it wasn't really what I wanted, and indeed it was so not what I wanted that I wouldn't have anything to do with it.

And you know, I'd spend some ungodly amount for a cup of coffee and had to stand there just so I could take it and pour it out.

And that was my experience with a coffee robot.

So, you see, if I'd been talking to a human barista, I would have said, even if they'd already started, I would have said, "Oh, darn.

It's my fault I ordered the wrong thing.

Can I adjust?" And the human would have said to me, "No problem." Cuz they would rather have me as a repeat customer.

They would throw away what they started and start doing it the real way.

And I'm thinking, you know, there might be like a hundred different reasons that you just won't put up with a robot.

Like that's one that I wouldn't have imagined that that the the length of time you had to wait for the cup of coffee that you didn't want is so long when you're watching a robot make it.

So anyway, beware of coffee robots taking over.

Well, This might be the funniest story of the day and it's a day of funny stories.

As you know, a climate activist Greta Tunberg uh is on trying to do her second flotillaa to Gaza to protest Israel's um actions there.

And according to uh Breitbart News, um she had to turn back because the winds were too high.

So, let me pull this all together for you if you're not already laughing.

When the weather bothers somebody else, it's climate change.

When the weather cancels her plans, it's weather.

Didn't she Didn't she predict?

And did she predict that there would be more severe storms?

I think she did.

She wasn't right about that.

There were not more severe storms, but the fact that, you know, she tries to change causes from climate change, which is obviously not working out.

Uh, I'll tell you more about that.

And, uh, trying to become the, you know, the Gaza champion, and she gets stopped by the weather.

So, she'll probably take another run at it when the weather gets better.

Well, speaking of climate change, you know that the experts were also saying uh that uh there's going to be more forest fires and because of the warming, everything would be dried out and next thing you know, one match would burn up half the world because it's all dried out.

But, uh the opposite is happening.

Bejorn Lomborg is uh is uh reminding us um you know I believe this has been a long-term trend that there are fewer fires and fire damages every year because we're getting better at managing it basically.

So apparently some new data came out that uh 2025 could become the lowest burn year in the 21st century.

So, uh, big news on Lisa Cook just received.

Bill Ple is saying interesting.

So, we'll talk about that.

Um, so here are the things that climate change confidently told us was going to happen, which would have been verification that they were on to something and that their their understanding of the world was the right one.

And if you didn't believe that climate change was a problem, they were going to prove it to you in 12 years when everything went to hell.

So they told us the coral reefs were in trouble, but indeed they seem to have recovered and it seems to be just normal cyclical behavior.

They told us the oceans would rise.

I haven't seen any reports of any populated place that's having a problem with rising sea level.

Have you?

Is it?

Maybe I just don't see it because the algorithm isn't feeding it to me, but I don't think there is.

Uh, what about the melting Arctic ice?

Didn't we learn that that wasn't going the direction it looked like it should?

And what about the temperatures in the recent years?

Aren't they sort of out of model?

Now, they they would say, well, you know, you could have periods where it's not warming up that much.

Then there'd be other periods where it is.

But I feel like coral reef um hurricanes, storms, fires, rising oceans, melting arctic ice, and even the temperature has sort of paused.

Now what's left?

Isn't Isn't that basically every variable that they told us was going to move in one direction did not?

Every one of them.

Is there anything left of the climate change predictions there?

There might be.

I mean, you would think that they couldn't all move in one in the wrong direction.

There would be at least one variable, wouldn't you think?

There'd be at least one variable that would make it look like the climate change people got it right.

But I'm not sure there is.

There might be no variables that match any of their predictions of doom.

Am I right about that?

I I'll put that as a I'm not 100% sure, but I think every single variable went the wrong way in in recent years.

So, we'll see.

And you know what I always say?

What do I always say at the end of a climate change story?

Wait till you find out about the climate models.

There's a 100% chance that in the future there will be exposees of how the climate models were fraudulent and that they knew they were.

You want to anybody want to make a bet?

I say 100% that someday.

The trouble is I can't put a deadline on it.

It might be 10 years from now, 20 years from now, but I guarantee there's going to be, you know, an investigative journalism situation where they go, "Well, we got a whistleblower and guess what?

They always knew that the models did not predict." That's what I predict.

Well, according to Newsweek, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lnik's talking about how the US government under Trump administration wants to own some of the patents uh for inventions that the universities uh come up with if those universities were taking government money as grants to do the science that created the patents.

To which I say, it's another sign of fascism.

No, it's not.

It would be fascism if perhaps you believe that Trump was going to keep the money for himself.

It's not fascism if he's making you money.

He he literally this would be your the taxpayers's money.

So if he could get some value out of the patents, and there probably would be over time, that wouldn't go to Trump.

He would be long retired.

it goes to us.

So, no, don't worry about it being fascism.

They're literally just trying to give you a bonus.

That's it.

And uh I'm in favor of it.

It does make sense that if if the we taxp are funding the patents, does it make sense that if Harvard gets one that Harvard gets to keep it?

It was our money.

Why why wouldn't we ask for a piece of the action?

Totally makes sense to me.

Well, you will be very sad to learn that Representative Jerry Nadler is retiring.

He wants to says he wants to make room for the the younger generation.

Um, so here's what I think.

You all know that the Democrat party is collapsed and it's not very popular at the moment.

And one of the things that we don't talk about enough, we talk about it in its pieces, but we don't put it all together.

So, I'm going to put it all together.

Here are the pieces.

Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Swallwell, Jamie Rascin.

Now, I could add a few people to that list, but what do they all have in common?

What's besides being noxious Democrats, what do they have in common?

Well, let me tell you.

They they all have a super unpleasant um personas.

Now, I'm curious if I'm operating entirely unbiased when I say that.

Am I?

Because I know that there are Republicans who, you know, cause a turn off ick factor.

So, you know, maybe maybe it just works both ways and the only one I can see is the, you know, the direction that my bias is already tuned to.

Is it my be if if you were to turn on CNN or MSNBC and they had on a prominent Democrat leader, what are the odds that that prominent Democrat leader would be really hard to look at on video?

Let's say uh Schumer, Chuck Schumer.

When Chuck Schumer is on the screen, uh, I want to I want to turn off the picture and go to audio and even then I'm a penguin.

Even then, I don't want to watch him.

He just doesn't have any charisma.

Now, I don't say that about, let's say, AOC.

I don't say that about uh uh Omar, just pick two people.

They have actual charisma.

Would you agree?

you you might not like it.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of their policies.

Don't don't get me wrong.

I'm just saying that they legitimately have really, you know, first rate charisma.

Yeah.

Jasmine Crockett, more to my point, it seems to me that the Democrats, for reasons that I cannot understand, have promoted the opposite kind of people that Trump does.

You know, people make fun of Trump for saying, "Oh, that's a good uh political appointment because this person looks like a movie star." And we all laugh.

It's like, "Oh, he's so shallow." No, he's not.

It's called being right.

That's not shallow.

It's not shallow to understand that people are totally persuaded, very persuaded by things like personality and looks.

So Trump, you know, I don't even have to name names.

You know, you can start with the, you know, the Secretary of Defense and you could go down right down the line.

Trump has some goodlooking people in office.

Am I right?

Male and female.

So he he doesn't discriminate by looks, by gender, which is interesting.

He he likes handsome guys and attractive women.

And now compare that to uh Jerry Nadler, Schiff, Swallwell, Rascin, Schumer.

I'm not wrong, right?

The Democrats have picked the most unpleasant video personas.

You know, the people who just don't come across on video at all.

And Trump went the other way.

He he personally is the most video friendly personality of all time.

and you know certainly for his side and uh they they was the opposite way.

So getting rid of Nadler, I wonder if they'll wise up and uh try to get more pleasantl looking people to lead them.

Well, here's something I haven't developed a full opinion on.

It's the fact that remember the Maha um commission was going to deliver a report in 100 days and they came in at 98 days.

They delivered the report on the root causes um which wouldn't be confirmed but rather you know their their best take at what the root cause is for autism would be.

And so now they've reported it and there are four bullet points of the things that they've identified the Maha Commission as causes of autism.

Are you ready?

Do you have your own guesses as to the causes of autism now that the experts have weighed in?

They are in the four of them are number one ultrarocessed foods.

Number two, environmental toxins.

Number three, chronic stress and inactivity.

And number four, over medicalization of children.

Now, are you like I am completely underwhelmed by that conclusion?

Here's here's my problem.

So I have a questions which you should not you should not confuse.

This is a good time to make sure that people understand the right frame for this.

When I do this podcast uh I never try to talk as an expert unless it's maybe something about persuasion.

you know, if something that's in my my line of expertise, which is narrow, I I try to present myself as you, which is I read the news and I go, "Ah, there's something missing here." Wait, what?

So, I'm basically confirming your suspicions that something's missing and then I take my own guesses and speculations and predictions, but I'm doing it from a consumer of news perspective.

If it looks like or it feels like I'm coming from some kind of expert perspective about things like science or health or something, I'm not.

I'm coming at it from the consumer view.

Trying to match you, not the experts.

And uh when I look at these four things, ultrarocessed foods, environmental toxins, chronic stress and inactivity, and over medicalization of children, I say to myself, uh those are a little too general.

And I also say to myself, at what age is autism normally detected?

Do you know?

So I think the answer is uh uh under two years old.

You can you can get it from you know age two to four or something.

Do you believe that the children who are 2 years old uh have been unusually let's say unusually exposed to ultrarocessed foods, environmental toxins, chronic stress and inactivity and overmedicalization.

I could I could imagine that overmedicalization would apply to somebody under two years old.

Now you could be you could be diagnosed up into adulthood, right?

So that but the earliest would be like two.

Um so my question is why would some people be uh so exposed to ultrarocessed foods that they would get autism and other people would not?

Is there something like 10% of people have some sensitivity that others don't have?

So, there's something about the timing of this because it feels like if these were the triggers and you could get it, if you were born without any propensity for autism, it feels like there would be a lot more adults getting it, right?

Or or or there would be like obvious examples where maybe the um I don't know, the Amish don't get it or something.

I just feel like maybe what happened here was uh they wanted to make sure they came in under a 100 days and all they did is put their suspicions into bullet points.

I don't feel like I don't feel like we learned anything.

Do you?

But they said nothing about um genetics.

And certainly there's some people who think genetics is um behind it.

I don't know exactly how, you know, why would it be suddenly spiking?

That doesn't make sense.

Anyway, and then I saw a video, I don't know what I don't know if it's really recent, but probably not too long ago that RFK Jr.

was talking to uh uh Bill Maher and uh RFK Jr.

said um if you look at the studies he's talking about the the co vaccinations he said if you look at the studies that were done of the Fiser vaccine the people who got the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate from all causes um and Bill said uh but could that be the disease itself uh and then RFK Jr.

said, "Well, the vaccine doesn't work, does it?" Meaning that, you know, people were getting the disease even if they had the vaccination.

So, there's 23% higher death rate from all causes.

And uh do you think that there's a counterargument to that?

If the only thing you knew was only what RFK Jr.

said in that interview, would you feel that you were confident that you knew what was going on?

Is that enough enough variables for you?

That uh the people who got the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate from all causes.

Now, you want to hear the counterargument to that.

Here's a counterargument.

There's no study like that.

That doesn't exist.

Just doesn't exist.

Uh so Mary from neurorad oncology on X uh did a long uh explanation about the actual study he was referring to and apparently there's no there was no statistical difference.

So the the answer is not oh how do we explain the 23% and all that.

The answer is that didn't happen.

It's not in the study.

Now is Mary right?

I don't know.

Mary seems very smart.

So, is RFK Jr.

right?

Did he leave out some variables?

How would I know?

I mean, I can't really check the work of either Mary or RFK Jr., but let let me give you another reframe that will just break your brain.

You ready?

You've heard me say this before, but now I'm gonna apply it to this situation, and now it's gonna click for you.

Get ready for this.

This one's a mindblower.

Okay.

Now, I've told you a million times that there's a problem with reproducibility of studies.

Meaning that over half of them, if you count the the intentionally fraudulent ones and intentionally fraudulent publications and all that, probably over half turn out not to be true or not to be reproducible.

All right.

Now take that fact that usually you know by a slight amount usually any report about science is going to turn out to be wrong.

So then you hear a fact like this from RFK Jr.

but that there's a study.

Turns out, you know, maybe that doesn't exist or the study doesn't actually say that, but there's a factoid gives you.

What should be your default?

If you haven't done any research, you've done no research.

What should be your default opinion about that data?

Here would be the wrong way to look at it.

Well, that agrees with my preconceived notion.

That looks pretty good to me.

I think we've got a we winner.

Oh, yeah.

Nope.

That's just what I thought would happen.

That I mean, I told you I was smart.

I had that prediction and Yeah.

Yeah.

Here it is.

So, that would be the wrong way to do it.

I hear would be the right way to do it.

It's probably not true.

And it wouldn't matter who said it if they're quoting.

So, so you got two problems here.

One is, is was this study even valid?

And the answer is probably not.

And that's only based on probability of all studies.

They're usually not true.

Yeah.

A little over 50%.

Uh but on top of that, Mary explains that he interpreted the study wrong.

So you've got the risk that somebody interpreted wrong or the risk that they left out a key part or a risk that you misunderstood what they said.

On top of that is a risk that the science was to begin with.

So that's the world we live in.

Your your default assumption should be.

I have learned nothing.

There's no information here.

I would like to know and maybe if there were lots of studies and time went by and you know the consensus moved in one direction or not, you might feel more confident.

But no, if somebody just throws out some shocking number like that that doesn't agree with other experts, probably not true.

Could be.

Can't rule it out, but probably not.

Probably not.

All right.

So, thank you, Mary, for that very useful analysis.

But if you want to see her full analysis, look in my feed on X.

Um, President Trump has announced that uh Rudy Giuliani is going to get the Medal of Freedom.

Now, I don't know if that was triggered by the fact that Rudy had that serious accident, vehicle accident that he's recovering from.

Um, or it was going to happen anyway and, you know, just they're going to do it now to cheer him up.

I don't know how that worked, but he's recovering.

And uh so he was in New Hampshire and pulled over cuz some woman who had been the victim of uh domestic abuse flagged him down.

And uh he must have parked.

This is me speculating based on what little we know of the situation.

I think he pulled over to help and then he was going to stay there with her until the police got there cuz he helped her contact the police.

So, the police showed up and then he pulled into traffic and just got rammed from behind by a 19-year-old uh woman.

And uh they didn't say that she was on her phone, but when I hear 19year-old woman uh you know hits some other car so hard that it just obliterates it and puts somebody in the hospital, I kind of automatically think might have been on the phone.

I mean, I don't want to start any rumors or anything, but it's the first thing I think, right?

Isn't that the first thing you think?

Because it's sort of hard, you know, even if you came around a blind turn, it's sort of hard to hit somebody that hard if you're even watching the road.

So, anyway, I don't know if alcohol was involved or anything else.

We don't know.

So, we won't assume, but I will assume that probably the place that he pulled over to help was not the safest place to pull over.

Meaning that when he pulled back into traffic, there probably was some lack of visibility from the oncoming traffic.

That's probably what happened.

Probably just a lack of visibility.

A place you would never have pulled over like unless you were helping some woman who was a victim of something.

So he did the right thing and took probably took a little extra physical risk to get it done.

Well, no, definitely because he got in between a an abuser and the abuse.

So that's pretty baller actually.

You know, he's 100 years old and he's he still decided he was going to get involved in that and then he was going to wait with her, which means that there was a risk that the abuser was was going to show up any minute.

So that's pretty brave and uh he took some risks to help a person and um sadly it didn't work out.

So Medal of Freedom time.

Well, according to the Daily Mail, the Trump administration is uh thinking of a visa integrity fee.

So the people who travel to the US and require are required to have a visa would have to pay an extra 250 above what they already pay.

So, it' be a $442 just to be allowed to come in the United States to visit.

To which I say, "Yeah, it's about time we had a cover fee." And I also would recommend a two drink minimum.

If you're coming in from a visa country, I want 4042 of your dollars and uh you got to commit to a two drink two drink minimum.

That's how you become the hottest country.

You know, a year ago, the US was dead.

It was a dead country.

Dead, I say.

But now it's the hottest country.

Oh, it's so hot.

Yeah, we can charge a cover fee.

That's how hot we are.

You just listen to Mr.

Trump.

He'll tell you that.

Well, Tom Feden of Judicial Watch has a success.

Another success.

Um, I guess he sued Oregon to force them to clean up their voter roles.

And Oregon had the the worst u voter roles, meaning they had the most people eligible to vote according to the voter roles who were not really eligible to vote.

They were dead or they moved away or some other thing.

And uh he won in court.

So now Oregon is going to have to fix their voter rules.

He's also sued California and Illinois.

Same same thing.

Now, do you think that'll make a difference?

Do you do you buy into the fact that maybe the worse the voter roles are, uh, the worse it is for Republican candidates because it's the Democrats who are abusing that system?

I don't know.

I I would say that, um, it's a sort of thing where there's a 100% chance that it's abused a little.

What I don't know is is it abused a lot, you know, enough to change an election that I don't know, but we'll find out.

So maybe, you know, maybe it's a movement in the right direction, but we'll find out.

Um, and then there was uh CNN had a uh interview with Brad Todd who's a political commentator and he he said uh that we know the 2020 census the errors were almost always to the detriment of red states.

Did you know that?

Did you know that the 2020 census was considered, you know, flawed in some ways, but that the flaws were overwhelmingly in one direction?

Now, there there were both flaws on blue and red states, but the red states had the majority of flaws.

And uh CNN host said, "Do we know that?" And Todd said, "We do know that." The Census Bureau's own audit of its work has proven that.

Okay.

If it's their own audit, I do believe that one.

Um, so if they redo the census, which Trump is asking for, and especially now that he's, you know, deported a number of, uh, non-citizens, this should be another electoral advantage for Trump, right?

So, how many advantages are the Republicans stacking up at this point?

Let's say they have completely destroyed the entire architecture of the fake news traditional media.

How big a deal is that for their election chances?

Really big.

And and they've uh dominated the podcasting, you know, space so far.

Really good.

That's really good.

And then uh Tom Feden and maybe some others doing some things to clean up the voter roles.

How much difference will that make?

Might make a lot.

We don't know.

Might make a little, might make none.

Don't know yet.

But it's all everything that might be making a difference is all leaning in one direction at this point.

Um what about Trump wanting to get rid of uh being able to vote without voter ID?

Welf gets away with that and also bans uh voting by mail uh unless except for the special cases then those will be two things that at least Republicans believe would take away some Democrat advantage.

Then I saw the comments.

Thank you.

That the cuts in USAID and the uh the other dismantling of the NGO dark money networks, the the pressure that's being put on ACT blue, which is a big funer of Democrat stuff, but they're they're being accused of having some foreign influence and trying to repackage big money into little money, which would be illegal.

So their funding sources are gone.

Their fake news protection racket still exists, but is is basically only looked at by people over 70.

I think the median age is 70 for traditional news.

And the median age for podcasting is something in the low30s, I think.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't uh 100% of everything that's big enough to be in the news all heading in the same direction?

Oh, and then I I forgot to even mention the redistricting.

So, they got redistricting, cleaning up voter roles.

Maybe they'll have movement on the mailin ballots and the the ID.

They've got the uh maybe the census will be redone.

That's a lot, isn't it?

And you know, you could argue that the reason Trump won, and I don't have any evidence of this, but it's just one of those things that you can imagine might be true.

There was a really big uh movement to have observers, especially lawyers, uh, at the election for 2024.

I think Laura Trump and company were behind that.

I wonder if that change made anybody back off from any shenanigans.

Now again, I don't know that they planned any.

I don't know that there ever have been any shenanigans.

It just looks like it.

And then we see that Trump is uh got the military surrounding Venezuela.

Now, I do not believe that I have any uh confident data that says Venezuela was involved in any kind of, you know, rigging our election, but that's an accusation you hear.

I just don't think that that's a has a evidence.

What would happen if the pressure that Trump is putting on militarily on Venezuela produced maybe not a war because I don't want that but maybe a negotiation and maybe Trump would say I'll make you a deal.

I'll go a little bit easy on you if you reveal everything you know about what may or may not have you know been interference in our elections.

We might find out because of the military pressure.

We might find out if Venezuela had anything to do with any of her past elections.

Again, I don't want to be sued.

So, I want to say clearly I'm not aware of any evidence of that.

Um I just know that that's a a speculation that's floating around.

Well, um I guess tomorrow Thomas Massiey's organized a uh um an event, do you call it an event in Congress?

Uh press conference with 10 victims of Epstein sex trafficking.

So that's tomorrow at uh 10:30, I assume, Eastern time.

Now, what would you expect from 10 victims of Epstein sex trafficking?

uh taking questions.

How many of you believe that they're going to name names you have never heard before?

I don't expect that.

It would be it would be an amazing thing.

Um good or bad, it'd be amazing if it if it happened.

Here's what I suspect.

So, you know, dampening your enthusiasm for this.

What I would expect is that they'll all say that Epstein victimized them.

They might throw in, you know, Prince Andrew because it feels like he's already sullied, like you wouldn't be adding anything.

They just, oh yeah, and we'll throw in the name that you've heard before.

Um, so I've got a feeling it's not going to make as much news as you thought.

And one of the reasons might be that there were there was a god-awful amount of money set aside for settlements.

And if you were one of the victims and you could prove it, and it seems like it'd be easy enough to prove um or at least easy enough to prove that you might be able to prove it if you went to court.

They're probably a whole bunch of victims who got big paychecks to shut up.

So they might they might end up saying, you know, I can't talk about that because I've got some kind of agreement, you know, to settle.

And I wouldn't blame them for that.

By the way, I don't think that the each of them individually has some larger u responsibility to the public.

I don't think so.

He's dead.

You know, Epstein's out of the picture.

I think they should take the money.

And if part of that was they had to agree to shut up about it, it's not a perfect solution, but I wouldn't I wouldn't fault them for taking the deal.

I'm pretty sure I would have.

So, we'll watch that.

Gavin Newsome lost in court again.

Joel Pollock of Breitbart tells us, um, I'm always bad on the, uh, lawyer and court stories, so let's let's see if I can get close to this.

The the question was two bills and uh uh one of them required the large online platforms to block the posting of material deceptive content.

So in other stuff basically anything that would matter that was um that was deceptive related to elections.

Um and that did not that was not affirmed by the court.

Um, it also borrows material deceptive content.

So that would be deep fakes, I think.

And well, no, not necessarily deep fakes, but anything that's material decept materially deceptive.

And Joel points out that that would have included something like Kla Harris claiming that Trump once said that Nazis were very fine people.

So there's no way you could use that standard because you'd be jailing everybody who opened their mouth in politics.

because all the all the politicians are saying things that are not true and they probably know they're not true on both sides.

So you couldn't really in a practical way have a law that said you're going to jail if you say something that's not true at least in this country.

I mean maybe other countries.

And then there was one of the uh what are they one of the proposed laws would uh require the online platforms to regulate deep fakes but that was rejected as well.

So basically, um, Newsome wanted California to have some control over the content online, and the court said, "Get out of here.

You're not going to have any more control than you already have, at least in regard to these specific things." I think the judge said something about it would also kill the joke.

So that that would be an awesome response if you're a judge.

Yeah, that wouldn't be funny if he had to admit it's a deep fake before somebody watched the video.

So, I I think the judge says something along those lines, which is awesome.

All right, so satire and parody are now still protected.

This is one of those times when I'm happy to be an American because free of speech is a mighty, mighty powerful thing in this country.

We will fight for it.

But uh in Britain, according to GB News, one of their comedians got arrested at gunpoint when he came into Heathrow, uh Graham Linham.

So I guess he created something called Father Ted, which they would know in England, but we wouldn't know here.

And uh he did some posts in the past, I don't know how long ago, but he this is what they arrested him for.

And he called trans women violent.

and he mocked a protest photo uh with trans people in it and he said, "I hate them." And that was enough for him to be arrested at gunpoint entering the country.

Now, compare California and the United States where the judge said, "Get out of here.

You'd ruin the joke." Yeah, he's knocked it.

that the trouble is if you try to if you try to ban anything along these lines, you get this.

So, Great Britain is giving us the clearest lesson on why you shouldn't be that way.

I mean, this is the clearest, you know, it it removes all doubt about which is the better system.

There's no ambiguity about this.

What great murderous son.

And by the way, let let me make this personal.

You might know that I've said some things that other people have uh interpreted as being over the line.

Now, I didn't actually ever say anything that was over the line, but I was widely cancelled for other people's opinion of what my opinion was.

Is that fair?

Those of you who had been following my story, my characterizing that, well, I didn't get cancelled for my opinion.

In fact, I've never found anybody who disagreed with me yet.

Never.

Nobody.

Not even one person.

Uh, but I've had lots of people who believe I was saying or thinking something I wasn't saying and thinking, and they were mad about that thing that they imagined I did.

And they were so unified in their belief that this thing that didn't happen did happen that I was cancelled worldwide.

Lost my entire reputation and and business.

Now, what would happen if I if I pull into Heathrow and they look at my, you know, my history and then they believe what other people believed about it.

Would they say, "Aha, this horrible speech monster is coming into our country.

We're going to have to arrest him." And would they have grounds?

You know, this is not hypothetical.

This is like a genuine real world problem.

So, what would I do?

You know what would be my smartest move if I don't know I would be arrested for someone else's opinion of what my opinion was that wasn't my opinion.

I could go to jail for that.

It looks like now I would love it if somebody said that's not true because of this reason or that reason.

It wouldn't apply to you.

But I'll tell you, I wouldn't ever go there.

That as long as there's a comedian who got arrested for something he said on social media, I don't care what that was.

You know what I mean?

It doesn't really matter what that was.

That's enough for me to say, I'm never going near that place.

There must be something that somebody could misinterpret as being over the line.

I would never go into a system that was designed that way.

It's just not safe.

So that's the end of Great Britain or the UK or whatever they want to call themselves.

That the whole England, UK, Great Britain thing, it's like way too complicated.

Could you make that easier?

Well, meanwhile in uh Chicago Cargo, or you could call it Chicago, uh this weekend, 54 people were shot and seven killed.

Now, I will grant you it was a three-day weekend, and I assume they're counting all three days.

54 people.

54 people were shot.

How many people were shot in Gaza?

How How many I mean, literally, are are there days when more people get shot in Chicago than in a hot war?

I'll bet there are, you know, individual days.

So, oh my god, Chicago.

Stay away from Chicago.

Does anybody disagree?

No, nobody disagrees with that opinion that you should stay away from Chicago, but I'd probably get arrested in uh I'd get arrested in the UK for saying stay away from Chicago.

Well, Trump has uh posted on truth a uh uh complimentary um I guess monologue on DC Mayor Bowser.

So, you might know that DC Mayor Bowser started out by being positive about Trump helping with crime in her city.

And uh then for a while she sort of tried to backtrack a little bit and be a little critical, but then in the end she fully embraced him and said some good words in public and uh seems to be completely on board.

And what that caused was Trump to do a very complimentary piece on it.

He called her the very popular uh DC mayor and uh so New York Post is writing about this by the way and uh he praised her u Mayor Muriel Bowser for cooperating and uh he said, "Wow, Mayor Muriel Bowser of DC has become very popular because she worked with me and my great people in bringing crime down to virtually nothing, blah blah blah." Um he said her statements and actions were positive instead of others like and then he mentions Pritsker and uh Wesmore and P and new scum he calls them uh etc.

Now here's your persuasion lesson for the day.

This is a lesson which I've given you before but every time you see an example of it it helps you internalize it.

Right?

The persuasion lesson is this.

You want to create the largest gap between making you happy and making you unhappy.

That that's what he's doing with the mural mural bow browser thing.

Trump went immediately from a critic to my god the most popular mayor.

You're great.

And that's what everybody's observing.

So the observers are saying to themselves, let me say if I go against him like Pritsker, he's going to insult me physically, uh, you know, my look, my intelligence, my my honesty.

He might actually just destroy me the way he has so many other people such as, uh, Jeb Bush.

So, it looks like it's a really, really, really bad idea to go against Trump because he can he can primary you.

He can insult you and he can give you a nickname that will never go away.

Um, he can really hurry you and that's even before he was president.

He just had the persuasive ability.

But if you if you take a chance of working with him to get something useful done, he's going to tell the whole world that that you worked with him and you're a genius and uh you're the best mayor that's ever been there.

So that's the largest difference between make you happy and make you unhappy and he broadcasts it.

So by his actions everybody sees that this is you know very certainly the case right you you can see that he does this intentionally it's very powerful well according to the hill terra sudtor is writing about uh did you know I bet most of you didn't even know this that thousands of people were protesting um on Monday protesting against President Trump and billionaires were Are you aware of the anti-Trump anti-billionaire protests in uh according to Mayday Strong who organized it uh that there were a thousand protests around the country in more than 900 cities I guess some cities had more than one protest and uh and the big push that's backed by the AFL CIO is dubbed workers over billionaires.

Okay.

Did any of you even notice that there were a thousand protests on Monday?

Anybody?

There there was a protest in my little uh East Bay, California town.

Uh apparently there was quite a number of people who were dressed in Palestinian garb marching in even my town, which is surprising.

Um, but I didn't see it.

So, my take on it is that uh this is the most low energy generic artificial protest I've ever seen.

May I summarize the total effect of a thousand protests around the country against excuse me, got to yawn against Trump and billionaires.

Okay, that's just generic, guys.

Are you even trying?

Is this the best you've got on the anti-Trump side?

We'll do a thousand protests.

Some of them will be five people.

Low energy.

We'll not I I don't even know if it was in the news.

Barely.

All right.

um the Airbnb co-founder Joe Gabia, who is one of the people who helped on u Doge by the way, but he tells about his transition from being a lifelong Democrat to a Trump backer.

And he talks about how the uh Trump's approach to the border was the main thing that sold him because he just thought it was insane that uh you would open the border.

And imagine being a billionaire, you know, founding Airbnb and knowing that it was just being destroyed by opening the border along with everything else.

But yeah, um so apparently that got him interested enough to sort of look into the whole Trump phenomenon a little deeper and uh he liked that RFK Jr.

was part of the package.

He liked that Elon Musk uh was going to get involved and put it all together and decided to work on Doge, etc.

But here's here's what I want to add to this story.

Do you believe that the Airbnb co-founder would have been able to publicly support Trump, unless the Fine People hoax had been debunked?

Could a CEO go public as pro.

Trump while the Fine People hoax was still raging?

I don't think so.

Now, I've told you before that the Fine People Oaks is has been named by both Joe Rogan and Elon Musk as something that kind of turned him.

It made it the the reason that the fine people hoax was so important is that um respected people could never back Trump as long as that was out there.

Everything else they could deal with if they didn't like a policy or something, you could deal with that.

But you couldn't deal with the reputational destruction of saying you were going to back the guy who, according to the hoax, had uh complimented neo-Nazis.

So, I'll hearken back to the time I told you that I would help destroy that hoax with, you know, the good work of Steve Cortez and Joel Pollock and uh Greg Guffeld and a number of people who we just hammered on that thing until eventually even Snopes said it was a hoax.

That's the current situation.

But to me, yeah, if you look at how uh RFK Jr.

and Musk um their their acceptance of Trump's policies uh made it easier for the Airbnb founder to move in that direction.

So, he's confirming that that's the case.

So, do you do you see the dominoes?

And I told you that the the fine people hoax was the what I call the tentpole hoax.

that if you got rid of that, it would allow respected people to say, "All right, let's take the good policies I like." Because the respected people wanted to close the border.

They just couldn't say it out loud because it would sound pro.

Trump.

Now they can.

So, that's kind of cool.

Howard Stern has said he's not coming back to his show this Tuesday.

It's a little unclear what his future is because I I guess Syria said they wouldn't renew his contract.

Was his contract really $100 million a year for five years?

I I think it was.

And and uh over the course of his career, Stern's audience has been as high as 20 million people.

And at the moment, it's 125,000 daily listeners.

He went from 20 million to 125,000.

Now, some large percentage of that is just moving to serious, you know, FM exclusively.

That probably takes away most of it, but boy, that's a big difference.

All right, you want to get scared?

Oo, going to scare you.

There is something called the Pentagon pizza report uh which does report on the traffic in the Domino's and the Papa John's that are closest to the Pentagon.

Now, why would you report on the volume of pizza being bought next to the Pentagon?

Well, I believe the idea is that if they're buying a lot of pizza, it's cuz they're working through dinner and that if you track the pizza, you can find out when the Pentagon is getting ready for some big action because they would all be, you know, working through the night and stuff.

So, apparently, uh, there's above average traffic at the Domino's and the Papa John's near the Pentagon, as if something's brewing.

On top of that, Trump has says he's making an announcement from the Oval Office today at 2:00 p.m.

Eastern time.

At the same time, we've got military in Venezuela.

We've got the president saying he's going after the cartels, and we've got the everpresent Ukraine Russia war.

Um, and who knows?

I don't think Taiwan's going to be invaded by China this week, but there's a lot of warish stuff that's just sort of in the atmosphere.

It just enough to worry you.

But on top of that, France has apparently put out the order domestically for the hospitals to prepare for war.

Um, now the way they're explaining it is that uh that would be more normal.

they should always be having a plan that if there were mass casualties from a war that they would know how to handle it just in case.

So, it's more of a just in case thing.

But still, if France is is preparing for a land war in Europe and we've got, you know, ships around Venezuela and the cartels are active and Russia and Ukraine are going on and the and the Pentagon's ordering more pizza and the Trump's got an announcement today.

It makes you wonder if there's anything brewing.

I'm going to say probably not.

Probably not.

But it is weird that there there are a number of signals in that direction.

So, we'll see.

The Trump announcement could be anything really.

He's so good at getting attention and, you know, teasing things.

It really could be anything.

Well, uh, as you know, number of leaders are in China, um, and, uh, cozying up to, uh, President Xi, but apparently Putin and India's Modi seem to be a little extra chummy in China.

If people are wondering about that, I guess India buys their their military equipment and a lot of the oil from Russia.

And uh even their their weapons industry in India is based on the Russian models.

So they need the need the Russian parts and help to even have a weapons industry.

So but it looks like there are a whole bunch of countries that coincidentally are not pro America that are trying to send the message that they're all good buddies.

I don't know if a coalition of dictators like that can really hang together because it seems like it'd be hard to trust any of them.

Um, but Russia's biggest gas company, Gasprom, is signing a pipeline deal.

Put a pipeline um through Siberia to Mongolia.

So I would say that the chess board is uh moving quite a bit and I'm kind of impressed by the the bricks countries and and even this meeting here.

It does seem like there there is a hardening of the anti-American position and I would not ignore that because it's starting to look serious.

I wasn't too worried about bricks until recently.

uh the BRICS uh organization but I would be worried if uh India gets cleaved off and and gets into more of Russia and China's probably Russia Russia's orbit that would worry me but I am impressed with Modi uh India's Modi he's a he's a smart player and he knows when not to cause trouble and when to be friends and I feel like he could pull off you know being friends with everybody if he wants to and it looks like he is.

Um, in other news, there's a new AI product uh called uh Hunan World Voyager or something and it's an AI in which it creates I think infinite worlds.

Um, if I understand it correctly, I saw a bunch of examples.

That's what it looks like.

So, in other words, you could tell your AI to create you, I don't know, a uh uh an early early history uh let's say uh primitive dwellings or something and just like a video game and you could walk through the streets of whatever you told it to create forever and it would just create new streets or remember what the old ones were and you could go back to them.

Now, if you can create an ondemand simulation where no matter where the characters go or wherever you go, um it just creates new landscape and and it remembers it.

So, you could come back later.

What What does that tell you is going to happen?

Well, let me let me predict.

If it becomes uh routine to be able to create entire infinite environments of all kinds of different kinds, it's guaranteed that somebody's going to populate them with uh avatars or characters.

You might call them agents, but they be AI uh run little characters.

Now, some of them could be NPCs, meaning that they don't have an internal voice and they That doesn't mean you're an NPC if you don't have an internal voice.

U but they uh they wouldn't be main characters and there would be some main characters in there but you could program the main characters to act as though they believe that they are the base reality and that they do not understand that they are a simulation.

They think that's the real world and they would live their life you maybe in a sped up time even but they could live their whole life believing that they have consciousness and free will and that they are the base reality.

Now when that happens and I guarantee it's going to happen there's a 100% chance that's going to happen that somebody will make little characters that believe they're real and act like they're real and everything else.

Um, what will that tell you about our base reality?

It's going to get a little bit dicey believing that you're not a simulation cuz the evidence for us being a simulation is largely going to be based on whether we could make one that we knew was a simulation, but the people in it did not.

And that's there's a there's now a 100% chance we'll be able to do that maybe in a year.

You know, I wouldn't bet on a year, but three years, five years, you don't think in five years there will be simulated realities that we could use to, I don't know, learn something or explore something.

You know, I've told you that I have so many problems with uh water leaks that if I'm a simulation, I believe I was created by a plumbing company to to figure out the best way to approach lots of different leaks because they're all unique and they're they're big ones and bad ones, you know, they're never easy.

and and and all you'd have to do is create the simulation and then introduce a whole bunch of different leak possibilities that match what the real world their base reality would have and then just let me try to solve them in a time period that I thought was years but the simulation could complete in a second.

So they run the simulation, they make me live an entire life fixing problem after problem that's related to the leaks and then uh they check it later and see if the AI has learned something that it could not have learned from humans because it wasn't the right kind of training data.

You had you had to create a world to create training data maybe.

So that's my theory.

Well, uh, Putin is mocking the people who think that Russia is getting ready for some kind of big land war in Europe.

And I like the fact that he's mocking it.

I you shrugged it off as hysteria.

Do you believe there's any chance that that uh Russia would want to move into either Germany or France?

They might try to pick off a Baltic company country or something, but so who knows?

Anything's possible.

Remember I kept telling you that the uh Ukraine war is going to turn into an all robot war?

Well, apparently we're getting really close to that because unbeknownst to me, but now the Wall Street Journal is reporting that uh Ukraine is already using AIdriven uh drone swarms.

Now, if you could have an AIdriven drone swarm, the AI could decide whether to shoot somebody or blow up something or not.

It might get it wrong, but so do the people.

I don't know if it would get it wrong more than the humans.

Maybe it would be less, but they apparently have um they've been using probably over a 100 drone attacks and they've been doing it for a while.

And the new software would allow them to send out let's say three drones and if one of them got disabled, the other two could pick up its mission and and somehow they the drones by contacting each other can figure out a lot more of what's going on.

and and and adjust.

But the software that they're currently using could go up to 25 drones.

So, in theory, we're very close.

I don't know if we're there yet, but we're very close being able to say, "All right, this little area that's controlled entirely by German, I'm sorry, not German.

Uh, entirely by Russian forces, go fly over there with your 25 drones.

look for highv value targets and coordinate an attack and then just let them go and everything will start blowing up that looks like anything that's you know serious military stuff.

Would it accidentally kill some civilians?

Yes, exactly like now.

So it wouldn't be worse necessarily.

All right.

Uh, China's developed a 6G chip that's capable of 100 gigabit per second speeds.

I saw Rohan Paul writing about that.

Um, to which I say, I've long suspected that our belief that China won't be able to catch up with us in chipm and technology because of some racist reason.

We always have, you know, so we always have some racist reason like, oh, the Chinese will never be able to innovate.

Well, I've never believed that.

I've always believed that China might be more secretive and the entire time we're thinking, uh, they'll never catch up with their microchip technology, that they've already caught up and that they're just not revealing it yet.

Well, this 100 gigabit per second chip um so so that would make your mobile devices, you know, way faster, etc.

Um that would suggest that they have very good chipmaking capabilities and maybe better than we assume.

So keep an eye on that.

Um, and then, uh, some publication called the Brussels signal is reporting that one of China's big economic problems, and I'm not sure how much to believe this, is that the domestic people don't spend a lot of money.

So, they don't have a domestic um, market, basically big enough to support what they want to do.

So, the Chinese citizens are very conservative with their money.

So they like to pack it away and save it instead of spending it.

But the economy requires spending to, you know, keep everybody afloat.

So China is trying to manipulate their public to be more spendy, but the public says, "I'm not sure I trust the system enough that I want to draw down my savings because it's the only way I'll be able to retire." So I don't know.

The China is either on the brink of self-destruction or it's about to dominate the world.

And every day there's evidence of both.

Um, according to just the news, Chinese networks are laundering billions of dollars through the US um in support of the cartels.

But the amount of money is just staggering.

So, the Treasury has this financial crimes enforcement network and they said that banks have flagged 312 billion in transactions from suspected Chinese money laundering networks.

Wow.

So, the good news is that the Trump administration and probably Scott Bent and maybe others uh are getting real serious about tracing the the evil money.

So that might have more to do with shutting down the cartels and anything else that happens.

It might be a money uh tracking the money problem.

Well, in uh in Germany, there's a uh right-wing party that's gaining in popularity, the AFD party.

And apparently in their biggest is it what do they call it?

state or uh province, I don't know what it's called, but uh there were four of their candidates that died suddenly and unexpectedly before a major state election.

Four members of the same party, and only one of them was even over 70, died unexpectedly and suddenly.

Uh does that feel like a coincidence to you?

It might be.

We're still waiting for information on that.

But that didn't look It makes me wonder if the story is real.

Maybe the story is fake.

I don't know.

Well, I almost didn't believe this was real because it wasn't much of a big story that Israel assassinated the prime minister uh of uh Yemen.

That that's that really happened, right?

that they took out the leader of a country.

And I feel like I didn't really see much news about it.

I think it happened, right?

It's kind of weirdly, you know, blacked out of the news.

Anyway, so I might be wrong about some detail of that.

Maybe maybe it was just the Hoodi leader and not the Yemen leader or something like that.

There there's something about that that doesn't make sense.

But uh anyway um and now the most important news of the day u everything else was sort of a preparation for this.

The most important news of the day is that my book Loser think the second edition is now available on Amazon.

It's only on Amazon and I'm still working on the audio book which will be a different audio um expert, not me.

So, it won't be my voice.

So, if you're waiting for my voice, don't wait.

Um, but you can get it in hard cover and soft cover and uh Kindle and it's the it's the same book as the first edition, but the first edition got cancelled when I got cancelled.

So, it's just putting it back in play.

And that means that now there's second editions of Windbiggley.

This is actually the first edition.

I couldn't find my copy of the second edition.

The one you want to buy if you're looking for Windigley is the one with the blue cover.

So this is the first edition.

And then Reframe Your Brain, if you haven't seen the reviews for this, it's unbelievable.

I I did not expect that this would be my best reviewed book of all time, but it is.

and better review than almost any book you'll ever see.

So, this one's changing the world, changing people's lives quite a bit actually.

Um, then my uh very influential book, How to Fill Almost Everything Still Win, also second edition, also available.

and my God's Debris, which I combined three, well, two books plus a short story into one larger book called Gods to Breathe, the Complete Works, now available at Amazon.

So, if you like fiction and and uh a little bit of sci-fi and philosophy and religion, God's Debris is your book.

That one's just for fun.

If you want to if you want to change your career or you're stuck in a rut or you want to give advice to somebody who's stuck in a rut, then my book How to Fill Almost Everything and Still Win Big would be the gift item you're looking for or for yourself.

Reframe your brain if you've got if you just want to tune your brain to be more efficient and happy and uh that you'll find probably some reframes which is just a different way of thinking of something that makes it more productive.

Win biggly.

If you want to learn about persuasion, learn the tricks that Trump uses as explained by me.

But again, not the one with the black cover.

You want the one with the blue cover, the second edition.

And then loser think is about unproductive ways of thinking, which is what I uh I give you on a lot of the podcasts.

So, when I'm talking about um why analogies are not thinking, I know a lot of you disagree, but you want to read my argument about it before you make up your mind.

And uh other poor ways of thinking.

Um this book will set you free so that you won't make those problems, but you also be able to identify them in other people.

All right.

So, ladies and gentlemen, um, oh, also it's not available yet, but the 2026 Dilbert calendar will be available.

This time it will be on Amazon.

So, if you've got Prime, you can get your free shipping.

That was when when we did it without Amazon.

Uh, people balked at the shipping because you can't match free shipping.

But this year, it's too early.

It's not it's not listed yet, but the uh the work is done.

So, we've designed it.

We're getting ready to print it.

All right.

It's all made in America, too.

America made.

Um, and uh, that is all I ask of you.

Just find one of those things that you think you'll like and then we're both happy.

All right.

I'm going to talk uh, privately to the fine people and locals, the beloved members of Locals.

The rest of you, thanks for putting up with me for an hour.

Thanks for joining and I will see you same time tomorrow, same place.

All right.

There you are. Come on in. That's right.

It's time.

It's time for your favorite thing. Mine,

too. It's actually my favorite part of

the day, usually.

Well, let's check your stocks.

All right, let's not. We won't check

your stocks. Nope. I didn't even bring

it up. I don't even know what you're

talking about.

Forget your stocks

because we're about to have a good time.

[Music]

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization. is

called Coffee with Scott Adams. You've

never had a better time. But if you'd

like to take a chance on elevating your

experience to levels nobody could even

understand with their tiny shiny human

brains. All you need for that

is a copper mug or a glass attacker

chest, a canteen, jugger, flask, a

vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure, the dopamine end of the day,

the thing that makes everything better.

It's called, that's right, the

simultaneous sip. Go.

Well, I had a little scare today.

I'm preparing for the show and I'm

looking at all these little suggestions

that war is coming. in all these small

ways like, "Oh, we got the mil the navy

is surrounding Venezuela."

And uh probably there were three

different news items that seemed like an

invitation to war. And all of a sudden

outside my window, which was, you know,

pitch black because it was before sun

up, I I see a flash sort of almost like

lightning happened and then I hear boom

boom boom. I'm like, "Oh, shoot.

Are we being bombed?"

And I'm thinking, "Are the bombs so big

that it's really happening in San

Francisco, you know, which is an hour

away." Uh, but maybe I can see it cuz

I'll tell you one thing, it couldn't be

thunder and lightning because this is

California and it's September 2nd and it

would be a little bit unusual there be

any rain and but sure enough there was a

17minute rainstorm

which is the only one I remember all

summer. I don't remember it raining all

summer which is not unusual for where I

live. Uh, and uh, it was actually kind

of frightening when you put it in

context of, you know, I'm a little bit

worried that somebody might attack the

homeland. Anyway,

the good news is finally

uh, you can buy a $100,000 coffee robot.

It's a robot that makes your coffee

and that's all it does. That's all it

does. and they say the uh payback would

be two to three years. It's a yet again

another single mission robot. Um I don't

know if I told you my coffee robot

experience from my local mall. They they

had a coffee robot kiosk set up so you

could actually buy coffee from a robot.

And the first several times I saw it,

there was a human attendant in case

anything went wrong. But by the time I

decided to give it a try one day, uh

there was no human attendant. And you

know, I didn't want to try it when the

human was there because what's the

point? You know, you want to test the

robot, you know, without a human. So I

put in my order and then the robot very

slowly goes through the steps of making

what I want. But as soon as I pushed

what I wanted, I realized it wasn't

really what I wanted, and indeed it was

so not what I wanted that I wouldn't

have anything to do with it. And you

know, I'd spend some ungodly amount for

a cup of coffee and had to stand there

just so I could take it and pour it out.

And that was my experience with a coffee

robot. So, you see, if I'd been talking

to a human barista, I would have said,

even if they'd already started, I would

have said, "Oh, darn. It's my fault I

ordered the wrong thing. Can I adjust?"

And the human would have said to me, "No

problem." Cuz they would rather have me

as a repeat customer. They would throw

away what they started and start doing

it the real way. And I'm thinking, you

know, there might be like a hundred

different reasons that you just won't

put up with a robot. Like that's one

that I wouldn't have imagined that that

the the length of time you had to wait

for the cup of coffee that you didn't

want is so long when you're watching a

robot make it. So anyway,

beware of coffee robots taking over.

Well,

This might be the funniest story of the

day and it's a day of funny stories. As

you know, a climate activist Greta

Tunberg uh is on trying to do her second

flotillaa to Gaza to protest Israel's um

actions there. And according to uh

Breitbart News, um she had to turn back

because the winds were too high.

So,

let me pull this all together for you if

you're not already laughing.

When the weather bothers somebody else,

it's climate change.

When the weather

cancels her plans, it's weather.

Didn't she Didn't she predict?

And did she predict that there would be

more severe storms? I think she did. She

wasn't right about that. There were not

more severe storms, but the fact that,

you know, she tries to change causes

from climate change, which is obviously

not working out. Uh, I'll tell you more

about that. And, uh, trying to become

the, you know, the Gaza champion, and

she gets stopped by the weather. So,

she'll probably take another run at it

when the weather gets better.

Well, speaking of climate change, you

know that the experts were also saying

uh that uh there's going to be more

forest fires and because of the warming,

everything would be dried out and next

thing you know, one match would burn up

half the world because it's all dried

out. But, uh the opposite is happening.

Bejorn Lomborg is uh is uh reminding us

um you know I believe this has been a

long-term trend that there are fewer

fires and fire damages every year

because we're getting better at managing

it basically. So apparently some new

data came out that uh 2025 could become

the lowest burn year in the 21st

century.

So,

uh, big news on Lisa Cook just received.

Bill Ple is saying

interesting.

So, we'll talk about that. Um,

so

here are the things that climate change

confidently told us was going to happen,

which would have been verification that

they were on to something and that their

their understanding of the world was the

right one.

And if you didn't believe that climate

change was a problem, they were going to

prove it to you in 12 years when

everything went to hell.

So they told us the coral reefs were in

trouble, but indeed they seem to have

recovered and it seems to be just normal

cyclical behavior. They told us the

oceans would rise. I haven't seen any

reports of any populated place that's

having a problem with rising sea level.

Have you?

Is it? Maybe I just don't see it because

the algorithm isn't feeding it to me,

but I don't think there is. Uh, what

about the melting Arctic ice?

Didn't we learn that that wasn't going

the direction it looked like it should?

And what about the temperatures in the

recent years? Aren't they sort of out of

model? Now, they they would say, well,

you know, you could have periods where

it's not warming up that much. Then

there'd be other periods where it is.

But I feel like coral reef um

hurricanes, storms,

fires, rising oceans, melting arctic

ice, and even the temperature

has sort of paused. Now what's left?

Isn't Isn't that basically every

variable that they told us was going to

move in one direction did not? Every one

of them. Is there anything left of the

climate change predictions

there? There might be. I mean, you would

think that they couldn't all move in one

in the wrong direction. There would be

at least one variable, wouldn't you

think? There'd be at least one variable

that would make it look like the climate

change people got it right. But I'm not

sure there is. There might be no

variables that match any of their

predictions of doom. Am I right about

that? I I'll put that as a I'm not 100%

sure, but I think every single variable

went the wrong way in in recent years.

So, we'll see. And you know what I

always say? What do I always say at the

end of a climate change story?

Wait till you find out about the climate

models. There's a 100% chance that in

the future there will be exposees of how

the climate models were fraudulent and

that they knew they were. You want to

anybody want to make a bet? I say 100%

that someday. The trouble is I can't put

a deadline on it. It might be 10 years

from now, 20 years from now, but I

guarantee there's going to be, you know,

an investigative journalism situation

where they go, "Well, we got a

whistleblower and guess what? They

always knew that the models did not

predict."

That's what I predict.

Well, according to Newsweek, Secretary

of Commerce Howard Lnik's talking about

how the US government under Trump

administration wants to own some of the

patents

uh for inventions that the universities

uh come up with if those universities

were taking government money as grants

to do the science that created the

patents. To which I say, it's another

sign of fascism.

No, it's not.

It would be fascism if perhaps you

believe that Trump was going to keep the

money for himself.

It's not fascism if he's making you

money.

He he literally this would be your the

taxpayers's money. So if he could get

some value out of the patents, and there

probably would be over time, that

wouldn't go to Trump. He would be long

retired. it goes to us. So, no, don't

worry about it being fascism. They're

literally just trying to give you a

bonus. That's it. And uh I'm in favor of

it.

It does make sense that if if the we

taxp are funding the patents, does it

make sense that if Harvard gets one that

Harvard gets to keep it? It was our

money. Why why wouldn't we ask for a

piece of the action? Totally makes sense

to me.

Well, you will be very sad to learn that

Representative Jerry Nadler is retiring.

He wants to says he wants to make room

for the the younger generation.

Um, so here's what I think. You all know

that the Democrat party is collapsed and

it's not very popular at the moment. And

one of the things that we don't talk

about enough, we talk about it in its

pieces, but we don't put it all

together. So, I'm going to put it all

together. Here are the pieces.

Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff,

Swallwell,

Jamie Rascin. Now, I could add a few

people to that list, but what do they

all have in common? What's besides being

noxious Democrats, what do they have in

common? Well, let me tell you.

They they all have a super unpleasant

um personas.

Now, I'm curious if I'm operating

entirely unbiased when I say that. Am I?

Because I know that there are

Republicans who, you know, cause a turn

off ick factor. So,

you know, maybe maybe it just works both

ways and the only one I can see is the,

you know, the direction that my bias is

already tuned to. Is it my be if if you

were to turn on CNN

or MSNBC

and they had on a prominent Democrat

leader, what are the odds that that

prominent Democrat leader would be

really hard to look at on video?

Let's say uh Schumer, Chuck Schumer.

When Chuck Schumer is on the screen,

uh, I want to I want to turn off the

picture and go to audio and even then

I'm a penguin. Even then, I don't want

to watch him. He just doesn't have any

charisma. Now, I don't say that about,

let's say, AOC. I don't say that about

uh uh Omar,

just pick two people. They have actual

charisma. Would you agree? you you might

not like it. I'm not saying I'm in favor

of their policies. Don't don't get me

wrong. I'm just saying that they

legitimately have really, you know,

first rate charisma. Yeah. Jasmine

Crockett, more to my point, it seems to

me that the Democrats, for reasons that

I cannot understand,

have promoted the opposite kind of

people that Trump does. You know, people

make fun of Trump for saying, "Oh,

that's a good uh political appointment

because this person looks like a movie

star." And we all laugh. It's like, "Oh,

he's so shallow." No, he's not. It's

called being right. That's not shallow.

It's not shallow to understand that

people are totally persuaded, very

persuaded by things like personality and

looks.

So Trump, you know, I don't even have to

name names. You know, you can start with

the, you know, the Secretary of Defense

and you could go down right down the

line. Trump has some goodlooking people

in office. Am I right? Male and female.

So he he doesn't discriminate by looks,

by gender, which is interesting. He he

likes handsome guys and attractive

women. And now compare that to uh Jerry

Nadler, Schiff, Swallwell, Rascin,

Schumer.

I'm not wrong, right? The Democrats have

picked the most unpleasant video

personas. You know, the people who just

don't come across on video at all. And

Trump went the other way. He he

personally is the most video friendly

personality of all time. and you know

certainly for his side and uh they they

was the opposite way. So getting rid of

Nadler, I wonder if they'll wise up and

uh try to get more pleasantl looking

people to lead them.

Well, here's something I haven't

developed a full opinion on. It's the

fact that remember the Maha um

commission was going to deliver a report

in 100 days and they came in at 98 days.

They delivered the report on the root

causes

um which wouldn't be confirmed but

rather you know their their best take at

what the root cause is for autism would

be. And so now they've reported it and

there are four bullet points of the

things that they've identified the Maha

Commission as causes of autism. Are you

ready?

Do you have your own guesses as to the

causes of autism now that the experts

have weighed in? They are in the four of

them are number one ultrarocessed foods.

Number two, environmental toxins.

Number three, chronic stress and

inactivity.

And number four, over medicalization of

children.

Now,

are you like I am completely

underwhelmed by that conclusion?

Here's here's my problem. So I have a

questions which you should not you

should not confuse. This is a good time

to make sure that people understand the

right frame for this. When I do this

podcast uh I never try to talk as an

expert unless it's maybe something about

persuasion. you know, if something

that's in my my line of expertise, which

is narrow, I I try to present myself as

you, which is I read the news and I go,

"Ah, there's something missing here."

Wait, what? So, I'm basically confirming

your suspicions that something's missing

and then I take my own guesses and

speculations and predictions, but I'm

doing it from a consumer of news

perspective.

If it looks like or it feels like I'm

coming from some kind of expert

perspective about things like science or

health or something, I'm not. I'm coming

at it from the consumer view. Trying to

match you, not the experts.

And uh when I look at these four things,

ultrarocessed foods, environmental

toxins, chronic stress and inactivity,

and over medicalization of children, I

say to myself, uh those are a little too

general.

And I also say to myself, at what age is

autism normally detected? Do you know?

So I think the answer is uh

uh under two years old. You can you can

get it from you know age two to four or

something. Do you believe that the

children who are 2 years old

uh have been unusually

let's say unusually exposed to

ultrarocessed foods, environmental

toxins, chronic stress and inactivity

and overmedicalization.

I could I could imagine that

overmedicalization

would apply to somebody under two years

old. Now you could be you could be

diagnosed up into adulthood, right? So

that but the earliest would be like two.

Um

so my question is why would some people

be uh so exposed to ultrarocessed foods

that they would get autism and other

people would not?

Is there something like 10% of people

have some sensitivity that others don't

have?

So, there's something about the timing

of this because it feels like if these

were the triggers and you could get it,

if you were born without any propensity

for autism, it feels like there would be

a lot more adults getting it, right? Or

or or there would be like obvious

examples where maybe the um I don't

know, the Amish don't get it or

something. I just feel like maybe what

happened here was uh they wanted to make

sure they came in under a 100 days and

all they did is

put their suspicions into bullet points.

I don't feel like I don't feel like we

learned anything. Do you? But they said

nothing about um genetics.

And certainly there's some people who

think genetics is um behind it. I don't

know exactly how, you know, why would it

be suddenly spiking? That doesn't make

sense. Anyway,

and then I saw a video, I don't know

what I don't know if it's really recent,

but probably not too long ago that RFK

Jr. was talking to uh uh Bill Maher

and uh RFK Jr. said um

if you look at the studies he's talking

about the the co vaccinations he said if

you look at the studies that were done

of the Fiser vaccine the people who got

the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate

from all causes

um and Bill said uh but could that be

the disease itself

uh

and then RFK Jr. said, "Well, the

vaccine doesn't work, does it?" Meaning

that, you know, people were getting the

disease even if they had the

vaccination. So, there's 23% higher

death rate from all causes.

And uh do you think that there's a

counterargument to that?

If the only thing you knew was only what

RFK Jr. said in that interview, would

you feel that you were confident that

you knew what was going on? Is that

enough enough variables for you? That uh

the people who got the vaccine had a 23%

higher death rate from all causes. Now,

you want to hear the counterargument to

that.

Here's a counterargument. There's no

study like that.

That doesn't exist. Just doesn't exist.

Uh so Mary from neurorad oncology on X

uh did a long uh explanation about the

actual study he was referring to and

apparently there's no there was no

statistical difference. So the the

answer is not oh how do we explain the

23% and all that. The answer is that

didn't happen. It's not in the study.

Now is Mary right? I don't know. Mary

seems very smart. So, is RFK Jr. right?

Did he leave out some variables? How

would I know? I mean, I can't really

check the work of either Mary or RFK

Jr., but

let let me give you another reframe that

will just break your brain. You ready?

You've heard me say this before, but now

I'm gonna apply it to this situation,

and now it's gonna click for you. Get

ready for this.

This one's a mindblower. Okay. Now, I've

told you a million times that there's a

problem with reproducibility of studies.

Meaning that over half of them, if you

count the the intentionally fraudulent

ones and intentionally fraudulent

publications and all that, probably over

half

turn out not to be true or not to be

reproducible.

All right. Now take that fact that

usually you know by a slight amount

usually any report about science is

going to turn out to be wrong.

So then you hear a fact like this from

RFK Jr. but that there's a study. Turns

out, you know, maybe that doesn't exist

or the study doesn't actually say that,

but there's a factoid gives you. What

should be your default? If you haven't

done any research, you've done no

research. What should be your default

opinion about that data? Here would be

the wrong way to look at it. Well, that

agrees with my preconceived notion. That

looks pretty good to me. I think we've

got a we winner. Oh, yeah. Nope. That's

just what I thought would happen. That I

mean, I told you I was smart. I had that

prediction and Yeah. Yeah. Here it is.

So, that would be the wrong way to do

it.

I hear would be the right way to do it.

It's probably not true. And it wouldn't

matter who said it if they're quoting.

So, so you got two problems here. One

is, is was this study even valid? And

the answer is probably not.

And that's only based on probability of

all studies. They're usually not true.

Yeah. A little over 50%.

Uh but on top of that, Mary explains

that he interpreted the study wrong. So

you've got the risk that somebody

interpreted wrong or the risk that they

left out a key part or a risk that you

misunderstood what they said.

On top of that is a risk that the

science was to begin with.

So that's the world we live in. Your

your default assumption should be. I

have learned nothing. There's no

information here. I would like to know

and maybe if there were lots of studies

and time went by and you know the

consensus moved in one direction or not,

you might feel more confident. But no,

if somebody just throws out some

shocking number like that that doesn't

agree with other experts, probably not

true. Could be. Can't rule it out, but

probably not. Probably not.

All right. So, thank you, Mary, for that

very useful analysis. But if you want to

see her full analysis, look in my feed

on X.

Um,

President Trump has announced that uh

Rudy Giuliani is going to get the Medal

of Freedom. Now, I don't know if that

was triggered by the fact that Rudy had

that serious accident, vehicle accident

that he's recovering from. Um, or it was

going to happen anyway and, you know,

just they're going to do it now to cheer

him up. I don't know how that worked,

but he's recovering. And uh so he was in

New Hampshire and pulled over cuz some

woman who had been the victim of uh

domestic abuse flagged him down.

And uh he must have parked. This is me

speculating based on what little we know

of the situation. I think he pulled over

to help and then he was going to stay

there with her until the police got

there cuz he helped her contact the

police. So, the police showed up and

then he pulled into traffic and just got

rammed from behind by a 19-year-old

uh woman. And uh they didn't say that

she was on her phone,

but when I hear 19year-old woman uh you

know hits some other car so hard that it

just obliterates it and puts somebody in

the hospital, I kind of automatically

think might have been on the phone. I

mean, I don't want to start any rumors

or anything, but it's the first thing I

think, right? Isn't that the first thing

you think? Because it's sort of hard,

you know, even if you came around a

blind turn, it's sort of hard to hit

somebody that hard if you're even

watching the road. So, anyway, I don't

know if alcohol was involved or anything

else. We don't know. So, we won't

assume, but I will assume that probably

the place that he pulled over to help

was not the safest place to pull over.

Meaning that when he pulled back into

traffic, there probably was some lack of

visibility from the oncoming traffic.

That's probably what happened. Probably

just a lack of visibility. A place you

would never have pulled over like unless

you were helping some woman who was a

victim of something. So he did the right

thing and took probably took a little

extra physical risk to get it done.

Well, no, definitely because he got in

between a an abuser and the abuse. So

that's pretty baller actually. You know,

he's 100 years old and he's he still

decided he was going to get involved in

that and then he was going to wait with

her,

which means that there was a risk that

the abuser was was going to show up any

minute. So that's pretty brave and uh he

took some risks to help a person and

um sadly it didn't work out. So Medal of

Freedom time.

Well, according to the Daily Mail, the

Trump administration is uh thinking of a

visa integrity fee. So the people who

travel to the US and require are

required to have a visa would have to

pay an extra 250 above what they already

pay. So, it' be a $442

just to be allowed to come in the United

States to visit. To which I say, "Yeah,

it's about time we had a cover fee." And

I also would recommend a two drink

minimum. If you're coming in from a visa

country, I want 4042 of your dollars and

uh you got to commit to a two drink two

drink minimum. That's how you become the

hottest country. You know, a year ago,

the US was dead. It was a dead country.

Dead, I say. But now it's the hottest

country. Oh, it's so hot. Yeah, we can

charge a cover fee. That's how hot we

are. You just listen to Mr. Trump. He'll

tell you that.

Well, Tom Feden of Judicial Watch has a

success. Another success. Um, I guess he

sued Oregon to force them to clean up

their voter roles. And Oregon had the

the worst u voter roles, meaning they

had the most people eligible to vote

according to the voter roles who were

not really eligible to vote. They were

dead or they moved away or some other

thing. And uh he won in court. So now

Oregon is going to have to fix their

voter rules. He's also sued California

and Illinois. Same same thing. Now, do

you think that'll make a difference? Do

you do you buy into the fact that maybe

the worse the voter roles are, uh, the

worse it is for Republican candidates

because it's the Democrats who are

abusing that system? I don't know. I I

would say that, um, it's a sort of thing

where there's a 100% chance that it's

abused a little. What I don't know is is

it abused a lot, you know, enough to

change an election that I don't know,

but we'll find out.

So maybe, you know, maybe it's a

movement in the right direction, but

we'll find out.

Um, and then there was uh CNN had a uh

interview with Brad Todd who's a

political commentator and he he said uh

that we know the 2020 census the errors

were almost always to the detriment of

red states. Did you know that? Did you

know that the 2020 census was

considered, you know, flawed in some

ways, but that the flaws were

overwhelmingly in one direction? Now,

there there were both flaws on blue and

red states, but the red states had the

majority of flaws. And uh CNN host said,

"Do we know that?" And Todd said, "We do

know that." The Census Bureau's own

audit of its work has proven that. Okay.

If it's their own audit, I do believe

that one. Um, so if they redo the

census, which Trump is asking for, and

especially now that he's, you know,

deported a number of, uh, non-citizens,

this should be another electoral

advantage for Trump, right?

So, how many advantages are the

Republicans stacking up at this point?

Let's say they have completely destroyed

the entire architecture of the fake news

traditional media. How big a deal is

that for their election chances?

Really big. And and they've uh dominated

the podcasting,

you know, space so far. Really good.

That's really good. And then uh Tom

Feden and maybe some others doing some

things to clean up the voter roles. How

much difference will that make? Might

make a lot. We don't know. Might make a

little, might make none. Don't know yet.

But it's all everything that might be

making a difference is all leaning in

one direction at this point. Um what

about Trump wanting to get rid of uh

being able to vote without voter ID?

Welf gets away with that and also bans

uh voting by mail uh unless except for

the special cases then those will be two

things that at least Republicans believe

would take away some Democrat advantage.

Then I saw the comments. Thank you. That

the cuts in USAID

and the uh the other dismantling of the

NGO dark money networks, the the

pressure that's being put on ACT blue,

which is a big funer of Democrat stuff,

but they're they're being accused of

having some foreign influence and trying

to repackage big money into little

money, which would be illegal. So their

funding sources are gone. Their fake

news protection racket still exists, but

is is basically only looked at by people

over 70.

I think the median age is 70 for

traditional news. And the median age for

podcasting is something in the low30s, I

think. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but

isn't uh 100% of everything that's big

enough to be in the news all heading in

the same direction? Oh, and then I I

forgot to even mention the

redistricting. So, they got

redistricting, cleaning up voter roles.

Maybe they'll have movement on the

mailin ballots and the the ID. They've

got the uh maybe the census will be

redone.

That's a lot, isn't it? And you know,

you could argue that the reason Trump

won, and I don't have any evidence of

this, but it's just one of those things

that you can imagine might be true.

There was a really big uh movement to

have observers, especially lawyers, uh,

at the election for 2024. I think Laura

Trump and company were behind that. I

wonder if that change

made anybody back off from any

shenanigans. Now again, I don't know

that they planned any. I don't know that

there ever have been any shenanigans. It

just looks like it.

And then we see that Trump is uh got the

military surrounding Venezuela.

Now, I do not believe that I have any uh

confident data that says Venezuela was

involved in any kind of, you know,

rigging our election, but that's an

accusation you hear. I just don't think

that that's a has a evidence.

What would happen

if the pressure that Trump is putting on

militarily on Venezuela produced maybe

not a war because I don't want that but

maybe a negotiation

and maybe Trump would say I'll make you

a deal. I'll go a little bit easy on you

if you reveal everything you know about

what may or may not have you know been

interference in our elections. We might

find out because of the military

pressure. We might find out if Venezuela

had anything to do with any of her past

elections. Again, I don't want to be

sued. So, I want to say clearly I'm not

aware of any evidence of that. Um I just

know that that's a a speculation that's

floating around.

Well, um I guess tomorrow Thomas

Massiey's organized a uh um an event,

do you call it an event in Congress? Uh

press conference with 10 victims of

Epstein sex trafficking. So that's

tomorrow at uh 10:30, I assume, Eastern

time. Now, what would you expect from 10

victims of Epstein sex trafficking?

uh taking questions.

How many of you believe that they're

going to name names you have never heard

before?

I don't expect that. It would be it

would be an amazing thing. Um good or

bad, it'd be amazing if it if it

happened. Here's what I suspect.

So, you know, dampening your enthusiasm

for this. What I would expect is that

they'll all say that Epstein victimized

them. They might

throw in, you know, Prince Andrew

because it feels like he's already

sullied, like you wouldn't be adding

anything. They just, oh yeah, and we'll

throw in the name that you've heard

before. Um, so I've got a feeling it's

not going to make as much news as you

thought. And one of the reasons might be

that there were there was a god-awful

amount of money set aside for

settlements. And if you were one of the

victims and you could prove it, and it

seems like it'd be easy enough to prove

um or at least easy enough to prove that

you might be able to prove it if you

went to court. They're probably a whole

bunch of victims who got big paychecks

to shut up. So they might they might end

up saying, you know, I can't talk about

that because I've got some kind of

agreement, you know, to settle. And I

wouldn't blame them for that. By the

way, I don't think that the each of them

individually has some larger

u responsibility to the public. I don't

think so. He's dead. You know, Epstein's

out of the picture. I think they should

take the money. And if part of that was

they had to agree to shut up about it,

it's not a perfect solution,

but I wouldn't I wouldn't fault them for

taking the deal. I'm pretty sure I would

have.

So, we'll watch that. Gavin Newsome lost

in court again. Joel Pollock of

Breitbart tells us, um, I'm always bad

on the, uh, lawyer and court stories, so

let's let's see if I can get close to

this. The the question was two bills and

uh uh one of them required the large

online platforms to block the posting of

material deceptive content. So in other

stuff basically anything that would

matter that was um

that was deceptive related to elections.

Um and that did not that was not

affirmed by the court. Um, it also

borrows material deceptive content. So

that would be deep fakes, I think. And

well, no, not necessarily deep fakes,

but anything that's material decept

materially deceptive. And Joel points

out that that would have included

something like Kla Harris claiming that

Trump once said that Nazis were very

fine people.

So there's no way you could use that

standard because you'd be jailing

everybody who opened their mouth in

politics.

because all the all the politicians are

saying things that are not true and they

probably know they're not true on both

sides. So you couldn't really in a

practical way have a law that said

you're going to jail if you say

something that's not true at least in

this country. I mean maybe other

countries.

And then there was one of the uh what

are they one of the proposed laws would

uh require the online platforms to

regulate deep fakes but that was

rejected as well. So basically, um,

Newsome wanted California to have some

control over the content online, and the

court said, "Get out of here. You're not

going to have any more control than you

already have, at least in regard to

these specific things."

I think the judge said something about

it would also kill the joke.

So that that would be an awesome

response if you're a judge. Yeah, that

wouldn't be funny if he had to admit

it's a deep fake before somebody watched

the video. So,

I I think the judge says something along

those lines, which is awesome. All

right, so satire and parody are now

still protected.

This is one of those times when I'm

happy to be an American because free of

speech is a mighty, mighty powerful

thing in this country. We will fight for

it. But uh in Britain, according to GB

News, one of their comedians got

arrested at gunpoint when he came into

Heathrow, uh Graham Linham. So I guess

he created something called Father Ted,

which they would know in England, but we

wouldn't know here. And uh he did some

posts in the past, I don't know how long

ago, but he this is what they arrested

him for. And he called trans women

violent. and he mocked a protest photo

uh with trans people in it and he said,

"I hate them."

And that was enough

for him to be arrested at gunpoint

entering the country.

Now, compare California

and the United States where the judge

said, "Get out of here. You'd ruin the

joke."

Yeah, he's knocked it. that the trouble

is if you try to if you try to ban

anything along these lines, you get

this. So, Great Britain is giving us the

clearest lesson on why you shouldn't be

that way. I mean, this is the clearest,

you know, it it removes all doubt about

which is the better system. There's no

ambiguity about this. What great

murderous son. And by the way, let let

me make this personal.

You might know that I've said some

things that other people have uh

interpreted as being over the line. Now,

I didn't actually ever say anything that

was over the line, but I was widely

cancelled for other people's opinion of

what my opinion was.

Is that fair?

Those of you who had been following my

story, my characterizing that, well, I

didn't get cancelled for my opinion. In

fact, I've never found anybody who

disagreed with me yet. Never. Nobody.

Not even one person. Uh, but I've had

lots of people who believe I was saying

or thinking something I wasn't saying

and thinking, and they were mad about

that thing that they imagined I did. And

they were so unified in their belief

that this thing that didn't happen did

happen that I was cancelled worldwide.

Lost my entire reputation and and

business.

Now, what would happen if I if I pull

into Heathrow

and they look at my, you know, my

history and then they believe what other

people believed about it. Would they

say, "Aha, this horrible speech monster

is coming into our country. We're going

to have to arrest him."

And would they have grounds? You know,

this is not hypothetical. This is like a

genuine real world problem. So, what

would I do? You know what would be my

smartest move if I don't know I would be

arrested for someone else's opinion

of what my opinion was that wasn't my

opinion.

I could go to jail for that. It

looks like now I would love it if

somebody said that's not true because of

this reason or that reason. It wouldn't

apply to you. But I'll tell you, I

wouldn't ever go there. That as long as

there's a comedian who got arrested for

something he said on social media, I

don't care what that was. You know what

I mean? It doesn't really matter what

that was. That's enough for me to say,

I'm never going near that place. There

must be something that somebody could

misinterpret as being over the line. I

would never go into a system that was

designed that way. It's just not safe.

So

that's the end of Great Britain or the

UK or whatever they want to call

themselves.

That the whole England, UK, Great

Britain thing, it's like way too

complicated. Could you make that easier?

Well, meanwhile in uh Chicago Cargo, or

you could call it Chicago, uh this

weekend, 54 people were shot and seven

killed. Now, I will grant you it was a

three-day weekend, and I assume they're

counting all three days. 54 people.

54 people were shot. How many people

were shot in Gaza?

How How many

I mean, literally, are are there days

when more people get shot in Chicago

than in a hot war? I'll bet there are,

you know, individual days.

So, oh my god, Chicago. Stay away from

Chicago. Does anybody disagree?

No, nobody disagrees with that opinion

that you should stay away from Chicago,

but I'd probably get arrested in uh I'd

get arrested in the UK for saying stay

away from Chicago.

Well, Trump has uh posted on truth a uh

uh complimentary

um I guess monologue on DC Mayor Bowser.

So, you might know that DC Mayor Bowser

started out by being positive about

Trump helping with crime in her city.

And uh then for a while she sort of

tried to backtrack a little bit and be a

little critical, but then in the end she

fully embraced him and said some good

words in public and uh seems to be

completely on board. And what that

caused was Trump to do a very

complimentary piece on it. He called her

the very popular uh DC mayor and uh so

New York Post is writing about this by

the way and uh he praised her u Mayor

Muriel Bowser for cooperating and uh he

said, "Wow, Mayor Muriel Bowser of DC

has become very popular because she

worked with me and my great people in

bringing crime down to virtually

nothing, blah blah blah." Um he said her

statements and actions were positive

instead of others like and then he

mentions Pritsker and uh Wesmore and P

and new scum he calls them uh etc.

Now here's your persuasion lesson for

the day. This is a lesson which I've

given you before but every time you see

an example of it it helps you

internalize it. Right? The persuasion

lesson is this. You want to create the

largest gap between making you happy and

making you unhappy.

That that's what he's doing with the

mural mural bow browser thing. Trump

went immediately from a critic to my god

the most popular mayor. You're great.

And that's what everybody's observing.

So the observers are saying to

themselves, let me say if I go against

him like Pritsker, he's going to insult

me physically,

uh, you know, my look, my intelligence,

my my honesty. He might actually just

destroy me the way he has so many other

people such as, uh, Jeb Bush. So, it

looks like it's a really, really, really

bad idea to go against Trump because he

can he can primary you. He can insult

you and he can give you a nickname that

will never go away. Um, he can really

hurry you and that's even before he was

president. He just had the persuasive

ability. But

if you if you take a chance of working

with him to get something useful done,

he's going to tell the whole world that

that you worked with him and you're a

genius and uh you're the best mayor

that's ever been there. So that's the

largest difference between make you

happy and make you unhappy and he

broadcasts it. So by his actions

everybody sees that this is you know

very certainly the case right you you

can see that he does this intentionally

it's very powerful

well according to the hill terra sudtor

is writing about uh did you know I bet

most of you didn't even know this that

thousands of people were protesting um

on Monday protesting against President

Trump and billionaires

were Are you aware of the anti-Trump

anti-billionaire protests in

uh according to Mayday Strong who

organized it uh that there were a

thousand protests around the country in

more than 900 cities I guess some cities

had more than one protest

and uh and the big push that's backed by

the AFL CIO is dubbed workers over

billionaires.

Okay. Did any of you even notice that

there were a thousand protests on

Monday? Anybody?

There there was a protest in my little

uh East Bay, California town. Uh

apparently there was quite a number of

people who were dressed in Palestinian

garb marching in even my town, which is

surprising.

Um, but I didn't see it. So, my take on

it is that uh this is the most low

energy generic artificial protest I've

ever seen. May I summarize the total

effect of a thousand protests around the

country against

excuse me, got to yawn

against Trump and billionaires.

Okay, that's just generic, guys. Are you

even trying? Is this the best you've got

on the anti-Trump side? We'll do a

thousand protests. Some of them will be

five people. Low energy. We'll not I I

don't even know if it was in the news.

Barely. All right.

um the Airbnb co-founder Joe Gabia, who

is one of the people who helped on u

Doge by the way, but he tells about his

transition from being a lifelong

Democrat to a Trump backer.

And he talks about how the uh Trump's

approach to the border was the main

thing that sold him because he just

thought it was insane that uh you would

open the border. And imagine being a

billionaire, you know, founding Airbnb

and knowing that it was just being

destroyed by opening the border along

with everything else. But yeah, um so

apparently that got him interested

enough to sort of look into the whole

Trump phenomenon a little deeper and uh

he liked that RFK Jr. was part of the

package. He liked that Elon Musk uh was

going to get involved and put it all

together and decided to work on Doge,

etc. But here's here's what I want to

add to this story.

Do you believe that the Airbnb

co-founder

would have been able to publicly support

Trump,

unless the Fine People hoax had been

debunked?

Could a CEO go public

as proTrump

while the Fine People hoax was still

raging?

I don't think so. Now, I've told you

before that the Fine People Oaks is has

been named by both Joe Rogan and Elon

Musk as something that kind of turned

him. It made it the the reason that the

fine people hoax was so important is

that um respected people could never

back Trump as long as that was out

there. Everything else they could deal

with if they didn't like a policy or

something, you could deal with that. But

you couldn't deal with the reputational

destruction of saying you were going to

back the guy who, according to the hoax,

had uh complimented neo-Nazis.

So, I'll hearken back to the time I told

you that I would help destroy that hoax

with, you know, the good work of Steve

Cortez and Joel Pollock and uh Greg

Guffeld and a number of people who we

just hammered on that thing until

eventually even Snopes said it was a

hoax. That's the current situation. But

to me, yeah, if you look at how uh RFK

Jr. and Musk um their their acceptance

of Trump's policies

uh made it easier for the Airbnb founder

to move in that direction. So, he's

confirming that that's the case. So, do

you do you see the dominoes?

And I told you that the the fine people

hoax was the what I call the tentpole

hoax. that if you got rid of that, it

would allow respected people to say,

"All right, let's take the good policies

I like." Because the respected people

wanted to close the border. They just

couldn't say it out loud because it

would sound proTrump. Now they can. So,

that's kind of cool.

Howard Stern has said he's not coming

back to his show this Tuesday. It's a

little unclear what his future is

because I I guess Syria said they

wouldn't renew his contract. Was his

contract really $100 million a year for

five years?

I I think it was. And and uh over the

course of his career, Stern's audience

has been as high as 20 million people.

And at the moment, it's 125,000

daily listeners. He went from 20 million

to 125,000. Now, some large percentage

of that is just moving to serious, you

know, FM exclusively. That probably

takes away most of it, but boy, that's a

big difference.

All right, you want to get scared?

Oo, going to scare you. There is

something called the Pentagon pizza

report uh which does report on the

traffic in the Domino's and the Papa

John's that are closest to the Pentagon.

Now, why would you report on the volume

of pizza being bought next to the

Pentagon? Well, I believe the idea is

that if they're buying a lot of pizza,

it's cuz they're working through dinner

and that if you track the pizza, you can

find out when the Pentagon is getting

ready for some big action because they

would all be, you know, working through

the night and stuff. So, apparently, uh,

there's above average traffic at the

Domino's and the Papa John's near the

Pentagon, as if something's brewing. On

top of that, Trump has says he's making

an announcement from the Oval Office

today at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time. At the

same time, we've got military in

Venezuela. We've got the president

saying he's going after the cartels, and

we've got the everpresent Ukraine Russia

war. Um, and who knows? I don't think

Taiwan's going to be invaded by China

this week, but

there's a lot of warish stuff that's

just sort of in the atmosphere.

It just enough to worry you. But on top

of that, France has apparently put out

the order domestically for the hospitals

to prepare for war.

Um, now the way they're explaining it is

that uh that would be more normal. they

should always be having a plan that if

there were mass casualties from a war

that they would know how to handle it

just in case. So, it's more of a just in

case thing. But still, if France is is

preparing for a land war in Europe

and we've got, you know, ships around

Venezuela and the cartels are active and

Russia and Ukraine are going on and the

and the Pentagon's ordering more pizza

and the Trump's got an announcement

today.

It makes you wonder if there's anything

brewing.

I'm going to say probably not.

Probably not. But it is weird that there

there are a number of signals in that

direction. So, we'll see. The Trump

announcement could be anything really.

He's so good at getting attention and,

you know, teasing things. It really

could be anything.

Well, uh, as you know, number of leaders

are in China, um, and, uh, cozying up

to, uh, President Xi, but apparently

Putin and India's Modi seem to be a

little extra chummy in China. If people

are wondering about that, I guess India

buys their their military equipment and

a lot of the oil from Russia. And uh

even their their weapons industry in

India is based on the Russian models. So

they need the need the Russian parts and

help to even have a weapons industry.

So but it looks like there are a whole

bunch of countries that coincidentally

are not pro America that are trying to

send the message that they're all good

buddies. I don't know if a coalition of

dictators like that can really hang

together because it seems like it'd be

hard to trust any of them. Um, but

Russia's biggest gas company, Gasprom,

is signing a pipeline deal. Put a

pipeline

um through Siberia to Mongolia.

So I would say that the chess board is

uh moving quite a bit and I'm kind of

impressed by the the bricks countries

and and even this meeting here. It does

seem like there there is a hardening of

the anti-American position

and I would not ignore that because it's

starting to look serious. I wasn't too

worried about bricks until recently. uh

the BRICS uh organization

but I would be worried if uh India gets

cleaved off and and gets into more of

Russia and China's probably Russia

Russia's orbit that would worry me but I

am impressed with Modi uh India's Modi

he's a he's a smart player and he knows

when not to cause trouble and when to be

friends and I feel like he could pull

off you know being friends with

everybody if he wants to and it looks

like he is. Um,

in other news, there's a new AI product

uh called uh Hunan

World Voyager or something and it's an

AI in which it creates I think infinite

worlds. Um, if I understand it

correctly, I saw a bunch of examples.

That's what it looks like. So, in other

words, you could tell your AI to create

you, I don't know, a uh uh an early

early history

uh let's say uh primitive dwellings or

something and just like a video game and

you could walk through the streets of

whatever you told it to create forever

and it would just create new streets or

remember what the old ones were and you

could go back to them. Now, if you can

create an ondemand simulation where no

matter where the characters go or

wherever you go, um it just creates new

landscape and and it remembers it. So,

you could come back later. What What

does that tell you is going to happen?

Well, let me let me predict.

If it becomes

uh routine to be able to create entire

infinite environments of all kinds of

different kinds, it's guaranteed that

somebody's going to populate them with

uh avatars or characters. You might call

them agents, but they be AI uh run

little characters. Now, some of them

could be NPCs,

meaning that they don't have an internal

voice and they

That doesn't mean you're an NPC if you

don't have an internal voice. U but they

uh they wouldn't be main characters and

there would be some main characters in

there but you could program the main

characters to act as though they believe

that they are the base reality and that

they do not understand that they are a

simulation. They think that's the real

world and they would live their life you

maybe in a sped up time even but they

could live their whole life believing

that they have consciousness and free

will and that they are the base reality.

Now when that happens and I guarantee

it's going to happen there's a 100%

chance that's going to happen that

somebody will make little characters

that believe they're real and act like

they're real and everything else. Um,

what will that tell you about our base

reality?

It's going to get a little bit dicey

believing that you're not a simulation

cuz the evidence for us being a

simulation is largely going to be based

on whether we could make one that we

knew was a simulation, but the people in

it did not. And that's there's a there's

now a 100% chance we'll be able to do

that maybe in a year. You know, I

wouldn't bet on a year, but three years,

five years, you don't think in five

years there will be simulated realities

that we could use to, I don't know,

learn something or explore something.

You know, I've told you that I have so

many problems with uh water leaks that

if I'm a simulation, I believe I was

created by a plumbing company to to

figure out the best way to approach lots

of different leaks because they're all

unique and they're they're big ones and

bad ones, you know, they're never easy.

and and and all you'd have to do is

create the simulation

and then introduce a whole bunch of

different leak possibilities that match

what the real world their base reality

would have and then just let me try to

solve them in a time period that I

thought was years but the simulation

could complete in a second.

So they run the simulation, they make me

live an entire life fixing problem after

problem that's related to the leaks and

then uh they check it later and see if

the AI has learned something that it

could not have learned from humans

because it wasn't the right kind of

training data. You had you had to create

a world to create training data maybe.

So that's my theory.

Well, uh,

Putin is mocking the people who think

that Russia is getting ready for some

kind of big land war in Europe. And I

like the fact that he's mocking it. I

you shrugged it off as hysteria.

Do you believe there's any chance that

that uh Russia

would want to move into either Germany

or France?

They might try to pick off a Baltic

company country or something, but so who

knows? Anything's possible. Remember I

kept telling you that the uh Ukraine war

is going to turn into an all robot war?

Well, apparently we're getting really

close to that because unbeknownst to me,

but now the Wall Street Journal is

reporting that uh Ukraine is already

using AIdriven

uh drone swarms.

Now, if you could have an AIdriven drone

swarm, the AI could decide whether to

shoot somebody or blow up something or

not. It might get it wrong, but so do

the people. I don't know if it would get

it wrong more than the humans. Maybe it

would be less, but they apparently have

um they've been using probably over a

100 drone attacks and they've been doing

it for a while. And the new software

would allow them to send out let's say

three drones and if one of them got

disabled, the other two could pick up

its mission and and somehow they the

drones by contacting each other can

figure out a lot more of what's going

on. and and and adjust. But the software

that they're currently using could go up

to 25 drones. So, in theory, we're very

close. I don't know if we're there yet,

but we're very close being able to say,

"All right, this little area that's

controlled entirely by German, I'm

sorry, not German. Uh, entirely by

Russian forces, go fly over there with

your 25 drones. look for highv value

targets and coordinate an attack and

then just let them go and everything

will start blowing up that looks like

anything that's you know serious

military stuff. Would it accidentally

kill some civilians? Yes, exactly like

now. So it wouldn't be worse

necessarily.

All right. Uh, China's developed a 6G

chip that's capable of 100 gigabit per

second speeds. I saw Rohan Paul writing

about that. Um,

to which I say, I've long suspected

that our belief that China won't be able

to catch up with us in chipm and

technology because of some racist

reason. We always have, you know, so we

always have some racist reason like, oh,

the Chinese will never be able to

innovate.

Well, I've never believed that. I've

always believed that China might be more

secretive and the entire time we're

thinking, uh, they'll never catch up

with their microchip technology, that

they've already caught up and that

they're just not revealing it yet. Well,

this 100 gigabit per second chip um so

so that would make your mobile devices,

you know, way faster, etc. Um that would

suggest that they have very good

chipmaking capabilities and maybe better

than we assume. So keep an eye on that.

Um, and then, uh, some publication

called the Brussels signal is reporting

that one of China's big economic

problems, and I'm not sure how much to

believe this, is that the domestic

people don't spend a lot of money. So,

they don't have a domestic

um, market, basically big enough to

support what they want to do. So, the

Chinese citizens are very conservative

with their money. So they like to pack

it away and save it instead of spending

it. But the economy requires spending

to, you know, keep everybody afloat. So

China is trying to manipulate their

public to be more spendy, but the public

says, "I'm not sure I trust the system

enough that I want to draw down my

savings because it's the only way I'll

be able to retire." So I don't know. The

China is either on the brink of

self-destruction or it's about to

dominate the world. And every day

there's evidence of both.

Um, according to just the news, Chinese

networks are laundering billions of

dollars through the US um in support of

the cartels.

But the amount of money is just

staggering. So, the Treasury has this

financial crimes enforcement network and

they said that banks have flagged 312

billion in transactions from suspected

Chinese money laundering networks.

Wow. So, the good news is that the Trump

administration and probably Scott Bent

and maybe others uh are getting real

serious about tracing the the evil

money. So that might have more to do

with shutting down the cartels and

anything else that happens. It might be

a money uh tracking the money problem.

Well, in uh in Germany, there's a uh

right-wing party that's gaining in

popularity, the AFD party. And

apparently in their biggest is it what

do they call it? state or uh province, I

don't know what it's called, but uh

there were four of their candidates that

died suddenly and unexpectedly before a

major state election.

Four members of the same party, and only

one of them was even over 70, died

unexpectedly and suddenly.

Uh does that feel like a coincidence to

you? It might be. We're still waiting

for information on that. But that didn't

look It makes me wonder if the story is

real. Maybe the story is fake. I don't

know.

Well, I almost didn't believe this was

real because it wasn't much of a big

story that Israel assassinated the prime

minister uh

of uh Yemen.

That that's that really happened, right?

that they took out the leader of a

country. And I feel like I didn't really

see much news about it. I think it

happened, right? It's kind of weirdly,

you know, blacked out of the news.

Anyway, so I might be wrong about some

detail of that. Maybe maybe it was just

the Hoodi leader and not the Yemen

leader or something like that. There

there's something about that that

doesn't make sense.

But uh anyway um

and now the most important news of the

day

u everything else was sort of a

preparation for this. The most important

news of the day is that my book Loser

think the second edition is now

available on Amazon. It's only on Amazon

and I'm still working on the audio book

which will be a different audio um

expert, not me. So, it won't be my

voice. So, if you're waiting for my

voice, don't wait. Um, but you can get

it in hard cover and soft cover and uh

Kindle and it's the it's the same book

as the first edition, but the first

edition got cancelled when I got

cancelled. So, it's just putting it back

in play. And that means that now there's

second editions of Windbiggley. This is

actually the first edition. I couldn't

find my copy of the second edition. The

one you want to buy if you're looking

for Windigley is the one with the blue

cover. So this is the first edition. And

then Reframe Your Brain, if you haven't

seen the reviews for this, it's

unbelievable.

I I did not expect that this would be my

best reviewed book of all time, but it

is. and better review than almost any

book you'll ever see. So, this one's

changing the world, changing people's

lives quite a bit actually. Um, then my

uh very influential book, How to Fill

Almost Everything Still Win, also second

edition, also available.

and my God's Debris, which I combined

three, well, two books plus a short

story into one larger book called Gods

to Breathe, the Complete Works, now

available at Amazon. So, if you like

fiction and and uh a little bit of

sci-fi and philosophy and religion,

God's Debris is your book. That one's

just for fun. If you want to if you want

to change your career or you're stuck in

a rut or you want to give advice to

somebody who's stuck in a rut, then my

book How to Fill Almost Everything and

Still Win Big would be the gift item

you're looking for or for yourself.

Reframe your brain if you've got if you

just want to tune your brain to be more

efficient and happy and uh that you'll

find probably some reframes which is

just a different way of thinking of

something that makes it more productive.

Win biggly. If you want to learn about

persuasion, learn the tricks that Trump

uses as explained by me. But again, not

the one with the black cover. You want

the one with the blue cover, the second

edition. And then loser think is about

unproductive ways of thinking, which is

what I uh I give you on a lot of the

podcasts. So, when I'm talking about um

why analogies are not thinking, I know a

lot of you disagree, but you want to

read my argument about it before you

make up your mind. And uh other poor

ways of thinking. Um this book will set

you free so that you won't make those

problems, but you also be able to

identify them in other people.

All right.

So, ladies and gentlemen, um, oh, also

it's not available yet, but the 2026

Dilbert calendar will be available. This

time it will be on Amazon. So, if you've

got Prime, you can get your free

shipping. That was when when we did it

without Amazon. Uh, people balked at the

shipping because you can't match free

shipping.

But this year, it's too early. It's not

it's not listed yet, but the uh the work

is done. So, we've designed it. We're

getting ready to print it. All right.

It's all made in America, too. America

made. Um, and uh, that is all I ask of

you.

Just find one of those things that you

think you'll like and then we're both

happy. All right. I'm going to talk uh,

privately to the fine people and locals,

the beloved members of Locals. The rest

of you, thanks for putting up with me

for an hour. Thanks for joining and I

will see you same time tomorrow, same

place. All right.