Episode 2959 CWSA 09/15/25

Stock market is a little flat, but Tesla is up over 7%.

We'll talk about that a little bit today.

Let's get your comments going.

Hey everybody, come on in.

Grab a seat.

Make sure you've got a delicious beverage.

You're going to need it.

It's good for hydration, too.

So many benefits of a beverage.

All right, we're almost there.

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

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

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

All you need for that is a copper micro glass.

Attack your shells inside a canteen jug or flask vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

Enjoy me now for the unparallel pleasure of the dopamine of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

And it happens.

That's right.

Now go.

So much better.

So, do you all remember how much I was slurring my words for about the last five months?

Mostly, I think that was painkillers.

I think um but I've been off the painkillers now for number of weeks, couple months actually.

And for the first time, I'm feeling that my voice has returned.

Wow.

Whatever those painkillers do, they're they're pretty brutal.

They didn't help with pain at all, but they made me stupid and slur.

I almost had to quit podcasting cuz I just sounded like a drunk all the time.

Anyway, enough about that.

Let's talk about the news.

So, you know, the AI company Perplexity, now they're being sued.

They've been sued about other stuff, copyright stuff, but now Mariam Webster is suing them because apparently they surface definitions that look like they came from Miam Webster's IP.

So, they're going to have to deal with that.

And apparently, the lawyers used the word plagiarize to make their point.

So they showed the definition on Miriam Webster of the word plagiarize and then they showed how it's defined in perplexity.

Same way that's pretty that's pretty fun lawyering using the word uh plagiarism as your example.

Well, you've heard that uh one of the best uses for AI is writing code.

And now I'm I'm getting different opinions.

I saw somebody say online today on X that they used to have to supervise a bunch of Indian programmers which is kind of hard because of the time difference and language and all that sometimes language.

Um, but other uh coders say that there are lot too many examples where somebody relied on AI and it created garbage that they didn't know was garbage and until it was kind of too late.

So apparently if you're not an expert at writing the super prompts and if you don't check every line of code that AI writes, it really doesn't work.

some say, but then others say, "Oh, yeah, somebody this today said, oh, I I did a 50hour project in 5 hours." So, I don't know what's going on here, but there must be certain kinds of, if I if I had to guess, if it's a type of program that has existed before, maybe it does pretty well.

But what if it's a program that you've invented in your mind or it's your assignment and nobody's ever written it before?

Can AI do that?

I don't know.

I don't know.

So, you know, I'm the uh resident AI skeptic that I don't think it will change the world as fast and in the way that people assume.

It's just not going to take that many jobs.

I just don't think it's going to work that well.

I don't know that the robots will do the manual labor, you know, unless they're dedicated robots.

They're, you know, just for industry.

That might that might happen.

But no generic robots.

I just don't see it happening.

and coding.

I had thought to myself um that if I were to stop doing this podcasting, I might be tempted to spend all my day learning to code because if you add AI to your, you know, modest skills, you could theoretically get a lot done and then you maybe invent an app or something.

But I thought maybe I can never get there because somebody also who knew a lot today said that uh you have to be really really knowledgeable even to catch AI's mistakes and to know how to give it a prompt.

So we don't seem really close to getting rid of programmers.

We It looks like there'll be pockets where AI makes a really big difference, but in general, you're going to need somebody who really knows what they're doing or else it's useless.

Well, Elon Musk seems to be making all the right moves with Tesla lately now that he's out of politics.

So, one of my predictions that I kept in my head, I I feel like I did not say this out loud, but maybe you can remind me if I ever said this out loud.

People have really short memories.

And I assumed that if uh Elon Musk ever left politics and just said, "All right, I'm going to work on my my companies again." the people would get over it and all of their hatred for Elon would get go away and I thought in a matter of months.

Well, well, Tesla shares have reached uh all the way back to I think above where they were before they took a dump when uh Elon got into politics.

We've got the the robotoax.

The robo taxi is in operation and expanding.

We've got full self-driving.

Uh we've got apparently the numbers are pretty good.

Um I was looking at a post by Nick Cruz Pantain Patane.

He has this um there are more affordable models coming.

He's got his pay packages in place.

But here's the best part.

This this is pure Elon Musk.

He just bought it allegedly.

Uh although Grock says it's not true, but I think Grock might be a little behind.

So I'll I'll take a fact check on this if this turns out to be fake news.

But um I did see that Elon allegedly bought a billion dollars of Tesla shares on Friday.

Now that would be sort of an unusual thing to do.

um you know it's not sort of the the time when people would buy a billion dollars of their stock.

More likely this is the time when people would be pruning their stock and using the money for something else.

But he put a billion dollars into Tesla.

Now why would he do that?

Well he said he said repeatedly that the stock could go up by 10x 10 times.

He obviously believes this is really going to happen, you know, with robots and self-driving cars and stuff.

And so his billion dollars probably will make him $10 billion.

So he made one trade.

It's probably worth $10 billion in a few years.

So anyway, in case you don't know, I do own some Tesla stock.

So when I talk about the stock price and the the future of Tesla, you should know that I have a monetary incentive.

I don't think it's affecting what I say, but you know, people are biased people.

So in all likelihood, it's biasing what I say about Tesla.

Um, I saw a post from an ex user, Ryan Lungquist, who uh showed a picture where he turned his his garage into a pub, kind of a pub hangout place for the neighbors um with a pool table in the middle and, you know, all kinds of cool barlike decorations in the wall and stuff.

And uh he said, "I had some people over last night to play pool in my garage.

One of the best things I ever did was create a space that's easy to invite people to.

Um, and it looks like it's working.

And I thought to myself, that feels like the most comfortable way you could ever get together.

What What would be more comfortable than being on your own neighborhood and the the garage is open so you don't have to wonder what it looks like in there?

You know, I'm I'm always a little hesitant to go into a house behind a closed door because you can't see what's in there until you're in there, and then you might be stuck.

You might be stuck with people you don't want to be with or something.

But if the garage is open, if the weather's good, uh, and you could say your friends are in there, you would you would just be drawn in.

I mean, the the door is open.

Why wouldn't you?

So, I love that idea.

I'd love to see that become a thing.

You know, it would ruin your garage and then there would be cars parked where you don't want them.

But I like the man cave idea that's open to the the street.

Kind of cool.

Well, the Wall Street Journal tells us that the reason our government data is so bad uh is that people are not responding to surveys as much as they did.

So whenever the government says did you get a job or not get a job or whatever they're surveying uh they get the wrong answer because the people are they're just not answering at least and the and so that doesn't give you a representative sample if people don't respond.

So that's why all your government data looks a little extra hanky lately.

It might not be entirely because people are, you know, lying weasels and and they're trying to manipulate the numbers.

It might be that they're lying weasels who don't know how to get the right number.

They just don't have a mechanism and they don't want you to think they're useless because they would get fired.

If somebody said to their boss, "All right, here's the deal.

We can't get the numbers you need and there's no way to fix it because people don't respond to surveys and there's not any other way to do it.

So what would your boss say?

All right, I think I'll keep paying you and putting out these bad numbers.

Well, not in the long run.

In the long run, you don't pay somebody to produce numbers you know are wildly wrong.

So, it's hard for the employee to ever say, "Yeah, you know, maybe maybe you shouldn't be using this sketchy these sketchy numbers.

They're always wrong." But remember what I say, all data is fake.

Now, is that literally true?

No.

Not for, let's say, some engineer is measuring something before making a decision.

That's probably true.

You know, they probably got the right data.

if it's, you know, just some engineer measuring something.

But for anything that's big and complicated and national and important in scope, that's all fake.

It's all fake all the time.

Every time.

And that's that's probably the single hardest thing that I could ever convince somebody is reality.

That all data that matters.

You know, the big stuff is all fake.

And there are reasons for that.

I mean, you could go through the reasons.

There's always somebody who can make money from it.

In this case, the data wasn't even available.

There's always a reason, but all all data of anything important is fake.

Did you know RFK Jr., I guess, said at uh I believe he was at Charlie Kirk's uh vigil.

There were lots of them around the country, and he was at the one at the Kennedy Center.

and uh he revealed that Charlie Kirk was what he called the primary architect of putting RFK Jr.

together with President Trump.

Are you having the same reaction that I'm having when you hear that?

Wait a minute.

If Charlie Kirk had never done anything else in his life, if he'd never done a single thing in his life but that one thing, he he was the architect and I think that's the right the right word, an architect to put RFK Jr.

into a productive super important role and have President Trump be comfortable with it if that's the only thing he ever did.

Now, of course, it's early or if Gay Junior soft has to come through and, you know, produce the goods, but I think he will.

I think he will.

Um, that's one of the biggest accomplishments in the world.

Let me say that again.

Putting RFK Jr.

and Trump together and making it work.

If Charlie did that, that's one of the biggest accomplishments in the world.

And he got there honestly by being the person who would talk to everybody.

So everybody would talk to Charlie.

Didn't matter what side you were on because he was friendly and great networker, etc.

It wasn't an accident that he was in a position to make that happen.

That was all just a accumulation of skill until he was in a position to do that.

Now we're I think we're finding out all kinds of things that he advised behind the scenes that were really really really important to the country.

So I think we're all just being wowed by his legacy as it emerges and we're we're learning new stuff about it.

Wow.

That I mean all you can say about that is wow.

That's all from one person.

Uh I don't I don't know if this is new, but I saw a clip of uh Bill Maher praising the rights willingness to engage in dialogue.

Uh actually, it is new.

It's after Charlie Kirk's assassination.

Um I should tell you that there are two accounts that I enjoy especially following because they summarize the news and that's really useful.

So Jason Cohen um is a great follow on X if you want to get summaries of all the good news stuff makes it easy and Mario and Noel I've mentioned before but Jason Cohen you probably want to follow him if you if you want to know the latest anyway so he write so he had that clip Jason did so Bill Maher was right and here's what he said so Bill Maher said Charlie Kirk was a guy who was always talking and I talked to him here the right-wingers say what you want about them, but they talk to you.

Now, this is one of Bill Maher's best contributions to political discourse.

He has gone into the belly of the beast, so to speak, because he talked to Trump.

And although they don't agree on everything, of course, he just found out, oh, wait, he's not Hillary.

He's he's actually really really just fun to be with.

And then he then he hangs out with Charlie Kirk on his on his other show and he comes away saying, "Huh, he's totally open to talking about anything." And so the fact that he's had that experience and he's willing to take some chance with his audience to just say that that's that's his observed truth, really useful.

Really useful.

It's one of the best things he's ever done.

Um, but he says the left really has much more of a I don't talk to you, I don't want to deal with you.

You're deplorable, I can't break bread with you attitude.

All the right-wingers, they don't have that attitude.

Can you believe that?

He said all the right-wingers, he said, all the right-wingers will talk to you.

As far as I can tell, that's true.

Can you think of any exception?

Can you think of anybody who would say, "I won't talk to you." I've never seen that.

Never seen it.

My experience with the left is the same as yours.

They don't want to talk to you.

They want to talk over you and they want to make sure you don't talk.

Why do they do that?

I believe and and this this might sound like I'm, you know, hyperbole or, you know, I'm exaggerating to make a point or something like that.

I'm not.

So, the following is dead serious.

I believe that they know that their opinions can't be supported.

I believe they know their arguments don't hold together.

I believe they know that.

And probably the reason they know that is most people rehearse their arguments in their head, you know, so at least you know what you would have said if somebody asked you.

And I think that they know on some level they can't support their views and so they um they go the other way.

They make sure that you can't talk and that you're you're cancelled if you do.

And uh once once I think uh people understand that the Democrats are an anti-talking um it's easier to kill you than it is to change your mind kind of a group.

That will be probably about the time that the entire uh Democrat party dissolves.

Now, it'll come back.

It I'm sure it'll come back.

We need two parties, but the Democrat party is teetering on the edge of something like a total collapse because the moral bankrupt uh element of it is kind of hard for anybody to ignore at this point.

Yeah.

The left doesn't talk, it talks over.

Now, by the way, that's a really good frame to put out there.

The left doesn't talk, they talk over you.

The reason is that if you say that and then you get into a debate with a leftist and they start talking over you, which they will u with the exception, by the way, of Jenk, but one of the reasons I like Jenk, uh, Wager, I think it's pronounced.

I never know how to pronounce his last name, but Jenk um is fabulous in letting you talk and doesn't like to be interrupted if if you interrupt him.

And I appreciate that as well.

But um even though I quite often disagree with Jenk, um I've had two, you know, online conversations with him.

He does not interrupt.

He does not.

And when you see that, it automatically infers some credibility to his point of view.

Um, and I think he's just sensational in the showing you how to do this.

Uh, all right.

I know you have your problems with Jenk, but uh, he's he's good on free speech.

Really good.

Well, you're not surprised that 23 and me, the company that was taking your DNA and telling you all about yourself, they're going out of business, but they sold your DNA.

Oh my god.

They sold it or gave it to a nonprofit that the founder of the company apparently is involved with.

So, how many of you use 23 and me with the assumption that, well, there's no way they're going to sell my DNA to somebody without permission?

Well, whatever was your worstc case assumption about your privacy of your DNA?

Well, here it is.

Your worst case scenario.

It's apparently just available for anybody who wants it.

Um, now that's too far.

is not available for anybody who wants it, but it's definitely not protected.

Definitely not protected.

Now, I will confess that I used 23 and me and like anybody who's paying attention, I was completely aware that my DNA would not be private ever again.

I didn't care.

I I suspect it's unlikely that that will ever matter to me.

I don't prefer it.

It's not my first choice.

I'd rather that they that nobody had access to my DNA unless I let them.

But I don't really expect a problem.

I mean, what would it be?

Somebody makes a special poison that only works on me or something like that.

I mean, what are the odds?

So, um, we can agree that if we had a choice, we would not have this happen.

but probably not the biggest problem in in the world.

Um, all right.

I continue to be amazed and baffled by the following.

How many of you say that since the pandemic there's an obvious uptick in turbo cancers?

How many think that's a true statement?

Since the pandemic, there is a uh obvious confirmed uh major uptick in cancers.

True.

True or false?

What do you say?

The answer is trueish.

So, here's how you get two movies on one screen.

How can it be both true and false?

It is.

It's both true and false.

I remember the way I worded the question was is there a major uptick in cancer since the pandemic?

That is confirmed mostly in the young apparently.

So the young are having an especially tough time and oncologists are seeing lots of the young come in with cancers that sometimes they've never seen.

So the young have a big uptick in cancer.

So therefore, it's true that there's a big uptick in cancer since the pandemic and therefore logically it's either from the vaccinations or it's from the co itself but you believe it's from the vaccinations.

All right.

How how can it be true that there's a big uptick in children getting rare cancers?

That part is true.

but also not true that it had anything to do with the pandemic.

How could both of those be true?

There's a big uptick since the pandemic, but the pandemic is not blamed for the uptick.

Do you believe that?

Here's how you could believe it.

I don't know what's true here.

I really don't know what's true, but the claim is that the uptick is a continuing trend from well before the pandemic.

So in other words, if you graphed it, you would indeed see an a super alarming increase in young people with cancer, but it started so far before the pandemic, like years before that it's just a continuation of a straight line.

So given that the trend was already well established and all we're seeing is that the continuation of the trend, it does not um give you any confirmation that the pandemic itself was much of a cause of it.

Now there was a decrease because there was fewer people going to the doctor.

So decrease in just spotting the cancer and then there was increase in cancer because the people had not been treated because of the pandemic.

But that was a brief effect.

If you look at the long-term trend, uh apparently there's a lot more of it cancer, but it doesn't seem to have a, you know, confirmed um confirmed uh, you know, connection to the pandemic.

Now, I'm not going to ask you to believe me.

You know why?

All data is fake.

All data is fake.

Do you think you can rely on that data to know what's going on?

I don't I don't I don't.

But there are some things that um there at one point you may have thought was true and I wonder if you still do.

How many of you believe that during the pandemic healthy young athletes were dropping dead on the field?

How many how many of you thought that was true?

I'm pretty sure that's debunked.

There's no evidence that anything like that ever happened.

But for a while, I think almost everybody I knew thought it was happening.

I I doubted it from the beginning.

Um under the theory that if that were happening, these sports teams would not be able to stop talking about it.

I mean, they would know, but they weren't.

They were acting like nothing was happening.

So I thought, hm, how could all these healthy athletes be dropping dead and yet the the people who own the sports teams, they they're acting like nothing's happening.

So that's when I suspected that that was maybe not true.

And so far, no evidence that that was ever true.

What about the stories about the um the autopsies that showed that people had all this coagulated blood that's totally unnatural?

How many of you thought that was true?

Probably still do, right?

How many think that the the um the I'm sorry, the morticians when they're preparing the body, how many of you think they're seeing uh unnatural blood?

That's not true.

That's not happening.

Yeah.

Apparently the reality beyond that is that it's normal and well understood that sometimes dead people have that coagulated blood and there's nothing really that changed.

Now that's what I believe to be true.

So it's always useful to look at how many things you once thought were true that now there's no evidence they were ever true.

Now could I be wrong about one of those things?

Absolutely.

Could I be wrong about everything um in terms of the risks?

Absolutely.

Because there's no data that I would trust to set me straight or to confirm that I was right.

There's no data I trust about the pandemic.

But it is fascinating that such obvious questions we don't really know.

Don't really know even now.

All right.

Um, let's see.

So, there was a New Jersey nurse that got suspended for calling out a doctor who had been cheering after Charlie Kirk's death.

Fox News was reporting on that.

So instead of the doctor being released for bad behavior of cheering the death of a human being, seems very undoly.

Seems like the worst thing a doctor could do in his spare time.

Um they're apparently going to suspend the nurse without pay.

Terrific.

Terrific there.

Great job, guys.

Well, I I think somebody besides me has probably mentioned this.

Maybe you haven't heard it yet, but do you really believe that only the left cheers about bad things happening to people?

Cuz I don't live in that world.

Do you remember Paul Pelosi and the hammer attack?

Did anybody on the right make fun of that?

what was really a terrible thing.

I mean, just terrible.

Imagine Paul Pelosi now he's got to live with probably some permanent parts of the injury.

I believe he had to he has to think about that.

He has to be in a house where that happened.

So, he'll think about it every day.

He I mean, that was terrible.

But did any people on the right laugh about it?

Yeah, even Trump did.

Trump did a joke about uh Pelosi is what she call him a she called that guy the homeless hammer guy.

Homeless hammer guy.

Yeah, even Trump did.

So, um I'm going to say two things that sound like they're contradictory, but I'll tell you they're not.

One is I don't think either side has the monopoly on, you know, cheering for people that they think are monsters having a bad day, even if they're not a monster.

I mean, I don't have a particular problem with Paul Pelosi.

Um, so I don't I don't think there's any moral superiority going on, but what there is is a lot of payback and a lot of what I call mutually assured destruction.

So, the right is having a good old time cancelling as many of the Charlie Kirk haters who who made the mistake of going public with their cheering.

And I'm all for that.

I'm all for it.

Not because the right is morally superior, but because, you know, once cancelling becomes a thing, you got to you got to cancel back.

Uh I just don't think there's anything else you could do.

Could it make things worse?

Might it escalate the cancelling?

Maybe.

But I'll tell you what you can't do is nothing.

What you can't do is nothing.

And um if it uh you know, if it changes the balance of power, um I'd like to see people getting cancelled for calling the right Nazis or fascists.

You know, if we could take it to the next level, that'd really be fun.

really be fun.

So, I'm 100% in favor of the cancelling as cruel and you know tough as they are because it needs to work both ways.

You you can't have the cancelling work in one direction.

Absolutely not.

Bad analogy.

Well, let me explain analogies since 75% of the public doesn't know how an analogy works.

An analogy does not try to make every element of the analogy the same as the subject you're talking about.

Because if it were the same in all the ways, it wouldn't be an analogy.

It would just be the same thing.

And that wouldn't tell you anything.

So if you can find the part about the Paul Pelosi that's the same, then you'll know what I'm saying.

But if you say, "But Scott, you fool.

There was no hammer involved in the Charlie Kirk thing, so your stupid analogy is terrible." No, an analogy is only focusing on one part.

In both cases, something had happened to somebody on one side of the political aisle and other people had fun with it.

That is a valid point.

Don't don't give me but he was married to a politician that's different.

No no you don't understand how analogies work.

Stop focusing on the part that are not the point.

All right enough of that.

Um so Washington DC the mayor says that the police will no longer cooperate with ICE to get rid of illegal people in the city.

illegal migrants.

Um, and I believe I saw the the mayor of Memphis uh acting a little bit like he wasn't so into having help.

He he seems like he's playing it both ways.

It's like he's against it because he's on the left, but he's sort of in favor of it a little bit.

He's a little bit confusing.

I can't I can't get a read on the Memphis.

Um, but Trump says that he'll uh he'll maybe declare a national the hell was that cat?

Uh, we'll declare a national emergency and federalize DC if he has to.

Um, and I believe he would.

I believe he would actually carry through with that.

All right.

Um, and now Trump is threatening on a true social.

He threatened uh the governor of New York State who has now endorsed the communist Zoran Mandami for New York City mayor.

And uh so Trump says um that he doesn't like that she uh is endorsing the communist as he would say.

And then he says no reason um we'll be wa we'll be watching the situation closely.

No reason to be sending good money after bad.

So, he's actually threatening that he would withhold federal money from New York State because the governor is backing a communist for mayor.

To which I ask, is that legal?

Can the federal government withhold federal money that's been approved uh because he doesn't like the politics of one of the politicians or one or more of them?

That doesn't seem like something that would pass through the courts, but I don't know.

We'll see if it makes any difference.

So, the updates on the Tyler Robinson, the uh the shooter.

You all know who that is.

Guy who assassinated Charlie Kirk.

He has not confessed and he's not cooperating.

All right.

Well, that's weird.

Um, I guess it doesn't matter if he confesses or not.

I mean, he might have a slightly nonzero chance of, I don't know, saying he was innocent and maybe somehow getting off.

I don't know.

It seems unlikely.

But anyway, um, one of the sub stories that is coming out of this is that the governor of Utah, that's Governor Cox, uh, is becoming very high-profile.

It's getting a lot of attention.

people having positive and negative thoughts about him.

But uh so it's a story about a guy who may or may not have been a little bit trans sometime who was dating a trans um and uh it's being handled by Governor Cox.

So all I notice is there are a lot of in that one story.

Okay.

Um, I saw a post by coddled affluent professional who noted, as I have noted as well, that it seems like the climate change hysteria has sort of magically gone away.

Have you all noticed that?

Remember, we used to be just inundated with, oh, the climate's going to kill you.

You don't have much time left.

You better spend all your billions of dollars.

um blah blah blah and uh cuddled affluent professional said he had two theories for why we're not hearing so much about climate change hysteria.

Um one is that the climate hysteria was astroturfed.

In other words, maybe billionaires were funding it and uh they had some they had their own reasons, but it wasn't because it was real.

and funding got pulled with Biden out.

So, it could be that the people who were looking to make gigantic amounts of money by convincing you that the green stuff, well, not the green stuff, but more the climate hysteria was real.

Um, they don't have any money to make because the the money's been getting dried up.

So instead of saying, "Oh, it's worse than it was before," because now we still have the climate emergency, but can you believe it?

The money to address it has been taken away.

So now it's way worse, right?

So if the funding had been taken away, shouldn't there be more complaining about the emergency?

Not less.

Unless the degree of complaining was directly related to how much important people thought they could make in terms of getting funding from the government.

That's a pretty good theory.

I don't know if it's true, but another one is there's so much money to be made in AI that no one wants to criticize the energy industry anymore because if you go hard on climate change and clamp down on, let's say, fossil fuels, we would kill our AI industry.

But is the AI industry the same as whoever might be funding and talking about and worrying about and astroturfing the climate change?

I feel like those worlds overlap but not in an important enough way.

So I don't know about that.

The other possibility, I think Mike Servich mentioned this, is that now that Greta Tunberg is a uh I guess she's a Palestinian supporter, Hamas supporter, whichever way you want to go on that.

Um, so she's off the board as if it never mattered.

You have to wonder why would Greta go from this is the biggest problem in the world to another problem that of course you know is is dire and and drastic and uh it's a huge tragedy but it's also just a tiny little part of the world.

How do you go from climate change will kill us all, billions of people, to well, now I'm only going to pay attention to this little tiny little tiny piece of the world.

So, it kind of makes it look like she's just sort of into causes and not so much into worrying about climate change.

It makes it look like she didn't mean it.

I can't can't read her mind.

But when you change from the biggest problem in the whole globe to a little tiny problem in one part of the world, it's hard to take you seriously what you said about the big problem.

You'd still be working on it.

Somebody else said in the comments that climate change was always a luxury belief in Europe, but Europe is having financial problems.

So, is it really the biggest problem in the world if the first thing you do when you have financial problems is you stop paying paying for it?

That doesn't really match the biggest problem in the world, does it?

It kind of puts a lie to it.

It's like, wait a minute.

As soon as money gets tight, that's the first thing that gets unfunded.

The biggest problem in the world.

Now, I realize there's a timing difference, but even so, it feels like not being taken seriously.

And then um uh I'm going to give you the Scott take on this.

My take is that the reason it's no longer a hysteria, climate change, is that the data has been so not cooperating now for several years.

And we don't have we just don't have the signs that they promised us.

Has it not been how many years have we been told that the water level is going up and it didn't?

This year again the number of name storms is down instead of up.

Um the number of uh you know lives lost to uh climate disasters down.

So, pretty much everything from the coral has recovered.

Uh, the ice, it's a little it's a little unknown, but it doesn't look like it's melting as fast as they said.

Um, and let me let me summarize that for you.

All data is fake.

The entire climate change thing was based on data, right?

Do you think any of that data was real?

I didn't.

I never believed that they could measure the temperature of the Earth well enough to know how it's changing from year to year.

No.

No.

In the real world, that's not something humans can do.

It's just too hard.

No, we don't have like a new technology.

We've got a bunch of thermometers that we put in different places around the Earth.

Yeah, they're in structures, but of course there are heat islands and you know they replace them and sometimes they guess what it would have been if it used to be there but it isn't.

I mean it's just a mess.

So climate change I'm not expecting to make a big comeback but I could be wrong.

According to Bank of America, 26% of US workers sought financial help in 2025, which would be up from 13% in 2023.

Uh, I don't know what that means exactly to seek financial help.

Does that mean they couldn't pay their bills?

Does that mean that they applied for a credit card?

Would that be seeking financial help?

So, I don't know what that means, but if it were true that 25% of workers didn't have a way to meet their bills, which I hate to say it, but that feels like that might be about right, you know, based on my lived experience.

I don't see many people who can pay their bills.

Do you?

By that I mean, you know, obviously I know some rich people who can pay their bills, but the people who are not, you know, legitimately rich, they don't really have any plan to ever be able to pay their bills, you know, in the long run, their expenses are way more than their earning potential.

It seems like there's a lot of them.

And if you told me that it's up to 25%, I would say I'm not that surprised.

But I would uh tell you again, I don't know if I mentioned this, but all data is fake.

And that might be fake data.

Meaning that whatever they mean by seeking financial help, who knows what that means.

Well, there have been a bunch of China negotiations.

I think Rubio is doing it.

And Trump is happy about the outcome.

So I guess those talks are over.

Trump is planning to speak to President Xi of China on Friday and uh there Trump is uh teasing that they have a tick tock deal.

Now, do you believe that China agreed to a tick- tock deal that that Trump would be happy with uh without agreeing to the overall trade deal?

Why would they do that?

Why would they give that up unless they had gotten everything they could get from the larger trade deal?

Does that sound Does it sound to you likely that he's got a tick tock feel?

To me, it feels like President Xi is is playing, you know, Lucy with the football.

I feel like she's setting him up.

I don't think there's going to be a deal.

I don't think there's going to be a deal.

And I think it will just embarrass Trump because he'll get a little over his skis and he'll brag that he got a deal.

And then something will come up as in China will say, "Well, we did think we had a deal, but then then you did that thing we didn't like and well, I guess the deal's off." So, I feel like it's a trick.

I don't trust it at all.

I would love to be wrong, but I I'm going to I'm going to put a stake in the ground that says I don't believe that China would give that up unless they had already gotten everything they wanted in a trade deal and the trade deal's not done.

So, I don't know.

But, uh, Trump must think that he's pretty close on the larger trade deal issues or he probably wouldn't be planning a phone call.

I don't know.

We'll see.

Well, the White House has asked for $58 million more for security that I think would include for Congress.

And I think we'd all agree that we're in a world where we need more security, but um it's terrible that we need a tragedy to get funding for things that we need, but that's not our world.

Um, apparently the FBI is investigating uh some far-left groups in Utah that might have been involved, they think, might have been, don't know, with the planning or at least knowledge of the Charlie Kirk um assassination.

And apparently there's a Utah based transmission group called Armed Queers of Salt Lake City.

And they trained people to use weapons to defend trans rights.

But apparently they deleted their account the day Charlie Kirk was killed.

The day he was killed.

So do I have this wrong?

That the day that Charlie was killed, we had no idea that trans was involved in any way.

Right?

On day one, we didn't know anything about trans.

So, if the Utah based group thought they needed to get rid of their account because they didn't want maybe to be dragged into it, why would they think they would be dragged into it?

Or why why would they think that that was a good day to delete it?

Unless they thought the trans thing would come out and they already knew more than the FBI knew.

So, I would say that's pretty suspicious.

So, we'll find out.

Uh, like most of you, I think it's nearly impossible to imagine that at least the the what do you call it?

The romantic partner trans uh of the shooter.

At least the romantic partner knew the plan.

Don't you think?

It's hard for me to imagine that they operated alone and you know nobody knew.

So I guess we'll find out.

So the UK and the US are going to do some big nuclear energy deal with each other and BBC is reporting on this and it's uh supposed to generate thousands of jobs in Britain and um I I guess we would be providing some expertise.

I don't know what else we provide some technology and expertise.

Um, but my question is how does the United States have extra anything for the the nuclear world?

Now, if we did have extras anything, then probably makes perfect sense that Great Britain gets the benefit of some of that good ally.

But my understanding of the the nuclear energy expertise in the United States is that it's way way uh underp populated because there have been so many years where we're sort of out of that business or if you're talking about you know maybe startups or new ways of doing things maybe it doesn't matter how many there used to be because they wouldn't have the right training anyway.

So, are we are we training these great engineers and stuff from scratch and getting enough for our internal use?

So many we have so many now that it makes sense for us to share those people.

I have questions.

I'm not sure this is a good idea for the United States, but might be.

Well, also in Utah, a man named Adib Nasir has been arrested and charged with uh weapons of mass destruction.

So, apparently he was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Now, since I assume he did not build a nuclear bomb, what would be the weapon of mass destruction?

Poison, right?

Some kind of chemical.

So, there's some bastard in Utah that had probably the chemicals to take out a city.

Well, they got him.

And my question is when I see a story like this, how many things does the FBI stop?

You know, there the only thing I can understand why there there haven't been, you know, gigantic wave of terrorist attacks like once a week in the United States.

The only thing I can figure, the only way that makes sense given that we know how many people have the capability and the desire to blow things up in the US, the fact that it doesn't happen almost every day suggests that the FBI or some intelligence agency has so much control over communication in this country that they catch every one of them.

Is that possible?

Are we catching every one of them?

Because if they talk about these things, we've got some kind of program that sniffs every single communication and says, "Well, that's a little sketchy.

Let me tell the FBI about that." I I can't think of any other reason that we would have relatively so little terrorism on the homeland because we're stopping it before it happens.

How are we doing that?

Like, how do you get them all?

There's no other crime in which we catch everybody, you know.

So, it it's got to be some kind of, you know, massive surveillance that catches every mention of uh explosives or weapons of mass destruction.

So the other possibility, the only other way I can explain it is that it's fake to imagine that there's a terrorist risk and that they're so rare that if you did absolutely nothing to try to stop them, you'd have about the same number.

Is that possible?

You know, you'd only have a big one every 24 years or something.

Maybe that's just the rate that would be the most and the least.

It just it could be that there's nothing that really changes that.

I don't know.

Well, here's some uh math to blow your mind.

Uh Owen Gregorian did a little math and uh did you know that Turning Point USA so that was Charlie Kirk's organization had around 21 chapters 2100 chapters and uh that represented about a quarter million students that were associated with Turning Point USA.

That's a lot.

Quarter million 2100 chapters.

Does that seem like a lot?

2100 chapters.

Well, it's not a lot because apparently since the assassination there have been 32,000 requests for new chapters from 2100 to 32,000 requests for information about becoming a chapter.

2100 to 32,000.

Now, that's the kirking that we're all feeling.

There is an amount of energy being released that we don't fully appreciate yet.

Um, and uh, so Owen does some math and he says based on the previous numbers, if 2100 gets you quarter million students, uh, then if you went to 32,000, you'd end up with something like 4 million members.

Well, what if that happens?

What What if Turning Point USA ends up with 4 million young people?

That changes just about everything.

So again, if you if you think you understand the impact of uh Charlie Kirk, you you have to give him some amount of credit for Make America Healthy Again, right?

And uh you'd have to give him credit for the Turning Point organization both before and after his his death.

These are enormous just enormous contributions to the the body politic.

Um Trump is according to Newsmax is uh adjusting his stance on what kind of workers to let in the country.

And uh you remember the story about the South Korean battery factory in Georgia that uh it was discovered that most of the employees were from South Korea.

So the whole reason that we as ask uh other countries to build things in our country is so that the jobs go to Americans.

But they beat the system by building in the US to get all the benefits of doing that.

And then they shipped in employees from South Korea because there really weren't that many people who would know how to work in a battery factory in the US.

So that they probably didn't have the option of hiring locally anyway.

So they just had to do what they had to do.

But uh so I believe that they decided to pack up their factory and go back to South Korea.

I I heard that.

I'm not positive.

But uh Trump is now saying that well maybe we should let skilled people come in for a situation like this.

But they would have to do it temporarily until they had trained up enough Americans to do the jobs that you know maybe the trained people from another country started out in to which I don't know how practical that is.

would if you were a trained person from another country and they said, "Hey, we want you to relocate to the United States but only for three years because your job is to train Americans to take your job." I don't know.

Is anybody going to take that job?

Maybe if you pay him enough.

Um there's a post by Joel Pollock that uh Netanyahu did a joint presser with uh Rubio and this is an interesting quote from Netanyahu.

He said weak governments are putting pressure on us Israel because they are collapsing under the pressure of Islamist minorities.

that European countries are collapsing under the pressure of Islamist minorities.

Well, it sounds like we're naming the problem now.

Um, but on the plus side, if you want to, you know, I like to look on the the positive side.

On the positive side, there's no real risk that Russia will want to conquer Europe if Europe becomes Islamic because there's no way that Putin wants more of that business.

So, um, at some point there's going to have to be some reckoning with the fact that we can't combine Oh, we'll see if I get cancelled forever for saying this.

Um, I like Islamic people.

I like Muslims as long as they're, you know, peaceful and they're part of the program.

Um, but there's no way that the system that comes necessarily with large Islamic populations, there's no way that the system and the beliefs and the preferences can be assimilated into the United States kind of a, you know, constitutional free everything.

You can't really combine them.

And we're not taking that seriously because we're locked into the model that hey people are people.

Yeah, people are people but systems are not systems.

So if the only thing that was happening is hey just some different people.

You know why would you discriminate against Muslims when you know everybody else is coming in?

You got your Hispanics, you got your Africans, you got your Asians coming in.

You know, why would you discriminate against one group?

The answer is you're not discriminating against the people that would be not really the American way.

But we could absolutely discriminate against the system if the system would destroy our system and our system we like.

So, um yeah, maybe maybe that's the reframe.

The reframe is we can't bring in anybody who's part of a system.

Now, would that be wild?

Well, we're already denying people entry into the country because of their opinion about Charlie Kirk.

That's happening, right?

We're looking for people who wanted to be in this country, have visas, but may have said something in social media celebrating the demise of Charlie Kirk.

Those people are going to be shipped home, and nobody's going to miss them.

But that's even individuals.

Well, I'm not even talking about individuals.

I'm just saying, are you part of this system?

You know, do you prefer that we would be Sharia law instead of our regular constitution?

That's got to be a hard no for immigration.

If if somebody says, you know, all things being equal, if I can get it, I'd rather Sharia law.

If you say those words, and I believe, weirdly, I believe most people would answer honestly and they say, "Yeah, I prefer Sharia." Um, there's no way you should be allowed in the country.

That that would be ridiculous because that would just be asking for our own doom.

I think I think Europe is stupid enough to not recognize the danger until it's too late.

I think we still have time.

Well, if you're on social media at all, you know that there's a subconspiracy theory that Israel is somehow part of the Charlie Kirk assassination.

Now, I won't name names, but there are some prominent podcasters who are kind of putting that out there, not as a conclusion, but as a well, you know, it really looks like it, kind of feels like it.

Here's my take.

There's no way in the world that Netanyahu is seems to be a master of risk management.

Whatever else you want to say about him, you know, you you could be all mad at him for any number of things, but you can't deny that Netanyahu is brilliant and specifically brilliant in knowing when to take a risk and and when to set it out for a while.

That's his seemingly his special skill.

And you know, it's impressive.

The more you watch it, the more the more you think, wow, he took some risks and somehow he's making that work.

Uh, that's amazing.

Do you believe that Netanyahu would take the risk of being caught because we're good at catching murders?

You know, we're pretty good at catching stuff.

You know, if we put all of our resources into it, we're pretty good at it.

Do you think he would take a chance no matter what he thought was the benefit of taking Charlie off the field?

Because there, you know, some cases I think I think Charlie Kirk was not so much in favor of attacking Iran, but I don't know what else they might have some disagreement with.

And Israel did say recently that they're probably not done with Iran, so I don't know what that means.

But I see no way.

No way.

No way.

No way, no way that somebody as smart as Netanyahu would take a 0.00001% chance of getting caught assassinating a beloved character in the United States.

So even if you say to yourself, "Oh, I think they're evil enough." Or even if you say, "Oh, I think there's an upside for them to do it." It doesn't make sense on a riskreward basis.

the right amount of risk to risk losing the United States forever because that's what would happen.

They would lose the United States forever.

Do you think he's going to take that chance?

Well, the only way it would make sense is if is if he No.

Even Even Msad wouldn't take that chance.

There's nobody who would take that chance.

So, I'm going to say hard no on the possibility that Israel was in any way involved.

And on top of that, the worst plan I could ever imagine is to try to control some crazy trans guy and or transloving guy in Utah.

It you wouldn't have you just wouldn't have the control over the situation that you needed, you know, and yeah, there there's none of that sounds convincing to me.

Um, all right.

Conor Mc.

Gregor announced he's going to withdraw from his plans to run for Irish president.

Um I think that has more to do with the fact that he can't get through the nomination process.

Uh Ireland has some kind of nomination process that does not involve voters.

So I guess it's the I don't know the details, but it doesn't involve voting.

So he would have to get other people who were already in the government to nominate him.

It looks like that's not going to happen.

So, he's out.

It's too bad.

That would have been fun to watch to see if he could make it all the way.

Um, I I think this is new news, but the AP is saying that Ukraine drones, they created fire at one of Russia's top refineries.

They've attacked that one before, but did minor damage before.

They might have did more now.

Now, part of the story um by the AP is that there are in fact gas shortage in Russia and that Russia has paused gasoline exports.

I don't know how much gas they exported versus, you know, oil, but uh but they've paused gasoline exports um with officials declaring a full ban until September 30th.

Uh huh.

Now, do you think that Ukraine has a workable strategy?

At least, you know, not to win the war and conquer Russia, but do they have a workable strategy to Russia to the point where Russia will make a peace deal that could last?

I would I wouldn't bet on it.

So, if you said, you know, guntohead, would you bet that the Ukrainian strategy will work?

I wouldn't.

I'd probably bet against it, but it's not impossible.

Um, I feel like if they're already experiencing gas shortages, it feels like they may getting be getting very close to turning Russia into not the economy that they thought they used to be.

And and I don't think you have to destroy the whole economy to get them to talk peace.

If you took 20% I'll just pick a number.

If you could knock down their uh their energy production by 20%.

And it looks like you could keep doing it like like you could never go above that.

You just keep bombing stuff.

You wouldn't have to get 80%.

20% would probably get you a peace deal.

Can they get there?

Do you think they can degrade?

And again, I'm just picking a number that feels about right.

Do you think that Ukraine could take out 20% of uh Russia's because they can reach anything now?

They're they're going a,000 miles into uh into Russia.

I feel like that's doable 20%.

And that would be enough to get them to the table.

Now, would Russia ramp up the uh destruction that they're giving Ukraine?

Probably.

But I also wonder if maybe Ukraine, having been battered so badly and having so many friends around them, I wonder if Ukraine would be in a better position to weather the destruction of their energy platforms.

You know, would would Europe and the US just step up and say, "All right, well, you you took out all of their domestic oil, but we got oil, so make sure they have oil." I don't know.

But if it's true that Ukraine could handle destruction of their energy resources better or or maybe they're willing to just take a bigger hit, you know, may maybe Ukraine could handle losing half of their energy.

I'm just picking numbers for argument here.

Maybe they could handle half, which would be really, really hard, but they have lots of friends, you know, maybe the friends could make up the difference.

Would Russia have enough friends, China, North Korea, Iran?

Would they have enough friends that if they lost 20% of their energy, they could find a way to make it up?

I don't know.

So, I think there's some chance, obviously, I'm no military or energy expert, but just watching from the sidelines, I would say there's some chance that this will get Russia to the table.

We'll see.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is my prepared show for today.

Uh I'm going to talk to the local subscribers, the beloved, beloved, beloved local subscribers.

And uh that'll be private.

So in 30 seconds, I'll disappear.

But for the rest of you, thanks for coming.

I hope you come again tomorrow.

You learn so much, don't you?

Yeah.

Bye for now.

Stock market is a little flat, but Tesla

is up over 7%. We'll talk about that a

little bit today.

Let's get your comments going. Hey

everybody, come on in. Grab a seat. Make

sure you've got a delicious beverage.

You're going to need it.

It's good for hydration, too.

So many benefits of a beverage.

[Music]

All right, we're almost there.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

your experience up to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains. All you need for

that is a copper micro glass. Attack

your shells inside a canteen jug or

flask vessel of any kind. Fill it with

your favorite liquid. I like coffee.

Enjoy me now for the unparallel pleasure

of the dopamine of the day. The thing

that makes everything better. It's

called the simultaneous sip. And it

happens. That's right. Now go.

So much better.

So, do you all remember how much I was

slurring my words for about the last

five months?

Mostly, I think that was painkillers. I

think um but I've been off the

painkillers now for number of weeks,

couple months actually. And for the

first time, I'm feeling that my voice

has returned.

Wow. Whatever those painkillers do,

they're they're pretty brutal. They

didn't help with pain at all, but they

made me stupid and slur.

I almost had to quit podcasting cuz I

just sounded like a drunk all the time.

Anyway, enough about that. Let's talk

about the news. So, you know, the AI

company Perplexity,

now they're being sued. They've been

sued about other stuff, copyright stuff,

but now Mariam Webster is suing them

because apparently they surface

definitions that look like they came

from Miam Webster's IP.

So, they're going to have to deal with

that. And apparently, the lawyers used

the word plagiarize to make their point.

So they showed the definition on Miriam

Webster of the word plagiarize and then

they showed how it's defined in

perplexity.

Same way

that's pretty that's pretty fun

lawyering using the word uh plagiarism

as your example.

Well, you've heard that uh one of the

best uses for AI is writing code. And

now I'm I'm getting different opinions.

I saw somebody say online today on X

that they used to have to supervise a

bunch of Indian programmers which is

kind of hard because of the time

difference and language and all that

sometimes language. Um,

but other uh coders say that there are

lot too many examples where somebody

relied on AI and it created garbage that

they didn't know was garbage and until

it was kind of too late. So apparently

if you're not an expert at writing the

super prompts and if you don't check

every line of code that AI writes, it

really doesn't work.

some say, but then others say, "Oh,

yeah, somebody this today said, oh, I I

did a 50hour project in 5 hours." So, I

don't know what's going on here, but

there must be certain kinds of, if I if

I had to guess, if it's a type of

program that has existed before, maybe

it does pretty well. But what if it's a

program that you've invented in your

mind or it's your assignment and

nobody's ever written it before? Can AI

do that?

I don't know. I don't know. So, you

know, I'm the uh resident AI skeptic

that I don't think it will change the

world as fast and in the way that people

assume. It's just not going to take that

many jobs. I just don't think it's going

to work that well. I don't know that the

robots will do the manual labor, you

know, unless they're dedicated robots.

They're, you know, just for industry.

That might that might happen. But no

generic robots. I just don't see it

happening. and coding. I had thought to

myself

um that if I were to stop doing this

podcasting, I might be tempted to spend

all my day learning to code because if

you add AI to your, you know, modest

skills, you could theoretically get a

lot done and then you maybe invent an

app or something. But I thought maybe I

can never get there because somebody

also who knew a lot today said that uh

you have to be really really

knowledgeable even to catch AI's

mistakes and to know how to give it a

prompt. So we don't seem really close to

getting rid of programmers.

We It looks like there'll be pockets

where AI makes a really big difference,

but in general, you're going to need

somebody who really knows what they're

doing or else it's useless.

Well, Elon Musk seems to be making all

the right moves with Tesla lately now

that he's out of politics. So, one of my

predictions that I kept in my head, I I

feel like I did not say this out loud,

but maybe you can remind me if I ever

said this out loud.

People have really short memories.

And I assumed that if uh Elon Musk ever

left politics and just said, "All right,

I'm going to work on my my companies

again." the people would get over it and

all of their hatred for Elon would get

go away and I thought in a matter of

months.

Well,

well, Tesla shares have reached uh all

the way back to I think above where they

were before they took a dump when uh

Elon got into politics. We've got the

the robotoax. The robo taxi is in

operation and expanding. We've got full

self-driving. Uh we've got apparently

the numbers are pretty good. Um I was

looking at a post by Nick Cruz Pantain

Patane. He has this um there are more

affordable models coming. He's got his

pay packages in place. But here's the

best part.

This this is pure Elon Musk. He just

bought it allegedly. Uh although Grock

says it's not true, but I think Grock

might be a little behind. So I'll I'll

take a fact check on this if this turns

out to be fake news. But um I did see

that Elon allegedly bought a billion

dollars of Tesla shares on Friday.

Now that would be sort of an unusual

thing to do. um you know it's not sort

of the the time when people would buy a

billion dollars of their stock. More

likely

this is the time when people would be

pruning their stock and using the money

for something else. But he put a billion

dollars into Tesla.

Now why would he do that? Well he said

he said repeatedly that the stock could

go up by 10x

10 times.

He obviously believes this is really

going to happen, you know, with robots

and self-driving cars and stuff. And so

his billion dollars probably will make

him $10 billion.

So he made one trade.

It's probably worth $10 billion in a few

years. So anyway, in case you don't

know, I do own some Tesla stock. So when

I talk about the stock price and the the

future of Tesla, you should know that I

have a monetary incentive. I don't think

it's affecting what I say, but you know,

people are biased people. So in all

likelihood, it's biasing what I say

about Tesla. Um, I saw a post

from an ex user, Ryan Lungquist,

who uh showed a picture where he turned

his his garage into a pub, kind of a pub

hangout place for the neighbors um with

a pool table in the middle and, you

know, all kinds of cool barlike

decorations in the wall and stuff. And

uh he said, "I had some people over last

night to play pool in my garage. One of

the best things I ever did was create a

space that's easy to invite people to.

Um, and it looks like it's working. And

I thought to myself,

that feels like the most comfortable way

you could ever get together. What What

would be more comfortable than being on

your own neighborhood and the the garage

is open so you don't have to wonder what

it looks like in there? You know, I'm

I'm always a little hesitant to go into

a house behind a closed door because you

can't see what's in there until you're

in there, and then you might be stuck.

You might be stuck with people you don't

want to be with or something. But if the

garage is open,

if the weather's good, uh, and you could

say your friends are in there, you would

you would just be drawn in. I mean, the

the door is open. Why wouldn't you? So,

I love that idea. I'd love to see that

become a thing. You know, it would ruin

your garage and then there would be cars

parked where you don't want them. But I

like the man cave idea that's open to

the the street. Kind of cool.

Well, the Wall Street Journal tells us

that the reason our government data is

so bad

uh is that people are not responding to

surveys as much as they did. So whenever

the government says did you get a job or

not get a job or whatever they're

surveying uh they get the wrong answer

because the people are they're just not

answering at least and the and so that

doesn't give you a representative sample

if people don't respond.

So that's why all your government data

looks a little extra hanky lately. It

might not be entirely because people

are, you know, lying weasels and and

they're trying to manipulate the

numbers. It might be that they're lying

weasels who don't know how to get the

right number. They just don't have a

mechanism and they don't want you to

think they're useless because they would

get fired.

If somebody said to their boss, "All

right, here's the deal. We can't get the

numbers you need and there's no way to

fix it because people don't respond to

surveys and there's not any other way to

do it. So what would your boss say? All

right, I think I'll keep paying you and

putting out these bad numbers.

Well, not in the long run. In the long

run, you don't pay somebody to produce

numbers you know are wildly wrong. So,

it's hard for the employee to ever say,

"Yeah, you know, maybe maybe you

shouldn't be using this sketchy these

sketchy numbers. They're always wrong."

But remember what I say, all data is

fake.

Now, is that literally true? No. Not

for, let's say, some engineer is

measuring something before making a

decision. That's probably true. You

know, they probably got the right data.

if it's, you know, just some engineer

measuring something. But for anything

that's big and complicated and national

and important in scope, that's all fake.

It's all fake all the time. Every time.

And that's that's probably the single

hardest thing that I could ever convince

somebody is reality. That all data that

matters. You know, the big stuff is all

fake. And there are reasons for that. I

mean, you could go through the reasons.

There's always somebody who can make

money from it. In this case, the data

wasn't even available. There's always a

reason, but all all data of anything

important is fake.

Did you know RFK Jr., I guess, said at

uh I believe he was at Charlie Kirk's uh

vigil. There were lots of them around

the country, and he was at the one at

the Kennedy Center. and uh he revealed

that Charlie Kirk was what he called the

primary architect of putting RFK Jr.

together with President Trump.

Are you having the same reaction that

I'm having when you hear that? Wait a

minute. If Charlie Kirk had never done

anything else in his life, if he'd never

done a single thing in his life but that

one thing, he he was the architect and I

think that's the right the right word,

an architect to put RFK Jr. into a

productive super important role

and have President Trump be comfortable

with it

if that's the only thing he ever did.

Now, of course, it's early or if Gay

Junior soft has to come through and, you

know, produce the goods, but I think he

will. I think he will. Um, that's one of

the biggest

accomplishments

in the world.

Let me say that again. Putting RFK Jr.

and Trump together and making it work.

If Charlie did that, that's one of the

biggest accomplishments

in the world. And he got there honestly

by being the person who would talk to

everybody. So everybody would talk to

Charlie. Didn't matter what side you

were on because he was friendly and

great networker, etc. It wasn't an

accident that he was in a position to

make that happen. That was all just a

accumulation of skill until he was in a

position to do that. Now we're I think

we're finding out all kinds of things

that he advised behind the scenes that

were really really really

important to the country.

So I think we're all just being wowed by

his legacy as it emerges and we're we're

learning new stuff about it. Wow.

That I mean all you can say about that

is wow. That's all from one person.

Uh I don't I don't know if this is new,

but I saw a clip of uh Bill Maher

praising the rights willingness to

engage in dialogue. Uh actually, it is

new. It's after Charlie Kirk's

assassination. Um I should tell you that

there are two accounts that I enjoy

especially following because they

summarize the news and that's really

useful. So Jason Cohen um is a great

follow on X if you want to get summaries

of all the good news stuff makes it easy

and Mario and Noel I've mentioned before

but Jason Cohen you probably want to

follow him if you if you want to know

the latest anyway so he write so he had

that clip Jason did so Bill Maher was

right and here's what he said so Bill

Maher said Charlie Kirk was a guy who

was always talking and I talked to him

here the right-wingers say what you want

about them, but they talk to you.

Now, this is one of Bill Maher's best

contributions

to political discourse. He has gone into

the belly of the beast, so to speak,

because he talked to Trump. And although

they don't agree on everything, of

course, he just found out, oh, wait,

he's not Hillary. He's he's actually

really really just fun to be with. And

then he then he hangs out with Charlie

Kirk on his on his other show and he

comes away saying, "Huh, he's totally

open to talking about anything." And so

the fact that he's had that experience

and he's willing to take some chance

with his audience to just say that

that's that's his observed truth, really

useful. Really useful. It's one of the

best things he's ever done. Um, but he

says the left really has much more of a

I don't talk to you, I don't want to

deal with you. You're deplorable, I

can't break bread with you attitude. All

the right-wingers, they don't have that

attitude.

Can you believe that? He said all the

right-wingers,

he said, all the right-wingers

will talk to you. As far as I can tell,

that's true. Can you think of any

exception? Can you think of anybody who

would say, "I won't talk to you." I've

never seen that. Never seen it. My

experience with the left is the same as

yours. They don't want to talk to you.

They want to talk over you and they want

to make sure you don't talk. Why do they

do that?

I believe and and this this might sound

like I'm, you know, hyperbole or, you

know, I'm exaggerating to make a point

or something like that. I'm not. So, the

following is dead serious.

I believe that they know that their

opinions can't be supported.

I believe they know their arguments

don't hold together. I believe they know

that. And probably the reason they know

that is most people rehearse their

arguments in their head, you know, so at

least you know what you would have said

if somebody asked you. And I think that

they know on some level they can't

support their views and so they um they

go the other way. They make sure that

you can't talk and that you're you're

cancelled if you do. And uh once once I

think uh people understand that the

Democrats are an anti-talking

um it's easier to kill you than it is to

change your mind kind of a group. That

will be probably about the time that the

entire uh Democrat party dissolves. Now,

it'll come back. It I'm sure it'll come

back. We need two parties, but the

Democrat party is teetering on the edge

of something like a total collapse

because the moral bankrupt uh element of

it is kind of hard for anybody to ignore

at this point.

Yeah. The left doesn't talk, it talks

over. Now, by the way, that's a really

good frame to put out there. The left

doesn't talk, they talk over you. The

reason is that if you say that and then

you get into a debate with a leftist and

they start talking over you, which they

will u with the exception, by the way,

of Jenk,

but one of the reasons I like Jenk, uh,

Wager, I think it's pronounced. I never

know how to pronounce his last name, but

Jenk um is fabulous

in letting you talk and doesn't like to

be interrupted if if you interrupt him.

And I appreciate that as well. But um

even though I quite often disagree with

Jenk, um I've had two, you know, online

conversations with him. He does not

interrupt. He does not. And when you see

that, it automatically infers some

credibility to his point of view. Um,

and I think he's just sensational in the

showing you how to do this. Uh, all

right. I know you have your problems

with Jenk, but uh,

he's he's good on free speech. Really

good.

Well, you're not surprised that 23 and

me, the company that was taking your DNA

and telling you all about yourself,

they're going out of business, but they

sold your DNA.

Oh my god. They sold it or gave it to a

nonprofit that the founder of the

company apparently is involved with. So,

how many of you use 23 and me with the

assumption that, well,

there's no way they're going to sell my

DNA to somebody without permission?

Well, whatever was your worstc case

assumption about your privacy of your

DNA? Well, here it is. Your worst case

scenario. It's apparently just available

for anybody who wants it. Um, now that's

too far. is not available for anybody

who wants it, but it's definitely not

protected. Definitely not protected.

Now, I will confess that I used 23 and

me and like anybody who's paying

attention, I was completely aware that

my DNA would not be private ever again.

I didn't care. I I suspect it's unlikely

that that will ever matter to me. I

don't prefer it. It's not my first

choice. I'd rather that they that nobody

had access to my DNA unless I let them.

But I don't really expect a problem. I

mean, what would it be? Somebody makes a

special poison that only works on me or

something like that. I mean, what are

the odds? So,

um, we can agree that if we had a

choice, we would not have this happen.

but probably not the biggest problem in

in the world. Um,

all right. I continue to be amazed and

baffled by the following.

How many of you say that since the

pandemic there's an obvious uptick in

turbo cancers? How many think that's a

true statement? Since the pandemic,

there is a uh obvious confirmed

uh major uptick in cancers.

True. True or false? What do you say?

The answer is

trueish.

So, here's how you get two movies on one

screen. How can it be both true and

false? It is. It's both true and false.

I remember the way I worded the question

was is there a major uptick in cancer

since the pandemic? That is confirmed

mostly in the young apparently. So the

young are having an especially tough

time and oncologists are seeing lots of

the young come in with cancers that

sometimes they've never seen. So the

young have a big uptick in cancer. So

therefore, it's true that there's a big

uptick in cancer since the pandemic and

therefore logically it's either from the

vaccinations

or it's from the co itself

but you believe it's from the

vaccinations.

All right. How how can it be true that

there's a big uptick in children getting

rare cancers? That part is true. but

also not true that it had anything to do

with the pandemic. How could both of

those be true? There's a big uptick

since the pandemic,

but the pandemic is not blamed for the

uptick. Do you believe that?

Here's how you could believe it. I don't

know what's true here. I really don't

know what's true, but the claim is that

the uptick is a continuing trend from

well before the pandemic. So in other

words, if you graphed it, you would

indeed see an a super alarming increase

in young people with cancer, but it

started so far before the pandemic, like

years before that it's just a

continuation of a straight line. So

given that the trend was already well

established and all we're seeing is that

the continuation of the trend, it does

not

um give you any confirmation that the

pandemic itself was much of a cause of

it. Now there was a decrease because

there was fewer people going to the

doctor. So decrease in just spotting the

cancer and then there was increase in

cancer because the people had not been

treated because of the pandemic. But

that was a brief effect. If you look at

the long-term trend, uh apparently

there's a lot more of it cancer, but it

doesn't seem to have a,

you know, confirmed

um confirmed uh, you know, connection to

the pandemic. Now, I'm not going to ask

you to believe me. You know why? All

data is fake.

All data is fake. Do you think you can

rely on that data to know what's going

on? I don't I don't I don't. But there

are some things that um there at one

point you may have thought was true and

I wonder if you still do. How many of

you believe that during the pandemic

healthy young athletes were dropping

dead on the field? How many how many of

you thought that was true? I'm pretty

sure that's debunked. There's no

evidence that anything like that ever

happened. But for a while,

I think almost everybody I knew thought

it was happening. I I doubted it from

the beginning. Um

under the theory that if that were

happening, these sports teams would not

be able to stop talking about it. I

mean, they would know, but they weren't.

They were acting like nothing was

happening. So I thought, hm, how could

all these healthy athletes be dropping

dead and yet the the people who own the

sports teams,

they they're acting like nothing's

happening. So that's when I suspected

that that was maybe not true. And so

far, no evidence that that was ever

true.

What about the stories about the um the

autopsies

that showed that people had all this

coagulated blood that's totally

unnatural? How many of you thought that

was true? Probably still do, right? How

many think that the the um the I'm

sorry, the morticians when they're

preparing the body, how many of you

think they're seeing uh unnatural

blood?

That's not true. That's not happening.

Yeah. Apparently the reality beyond that

is that it's normal and well understood

that sometimes dead people have that

coagulated blood and there's nothing

really that changed. Now that's what I

believe to be true. So it's always

useful to look at how many things you

once thought were true that now there's

no evidence they were ever true.

Now could I be wrong about one of those

things? Absolutely. Could I be wrong

about everything

um in terms of the risks? Absolutely.

Because there's no data that I would

trust to set me straight or to confirm

that I was right. There's no data I

trust about the pandemic.

But it is fascinating that such obvious

questions we don't really know. Don't

really know even now.

All right.

Um,

let's see.

So, there was a New Jersey nurse that

got suspended for calling out a doctor

who had been cheering after Charlie

Kirk's death. Fox News was reporting on

that. So instead of the doctor being

released for bad behavior of cheering

the death of a human being, seems very

undoly.

Seems like the worst thing a doctor

could do in his spare time. Um

they're apparently going to suspend the

nurse without pay. Terrific. Terrific

there. Great job, guys.

Well,

I I think somebody besides me has

probably mentioned this. Maybe you

haven't heard it yet, but do you really

believe that only the left cheers about

bad things happening to people?

Cuz I don't live in that world. Do you

remember Paul Pelosi and the hammer

attack?

Did anybody on the right make fun of

that? what was really

a terrible thing. I mean, just terrible.

Imagine Paul Pelosi now he's got to live

with probably some permanent parts of

the injury. I believe he had to he has

to think about that. He has to be in a

house where that happened. So, he'll

think about it every day. He I mean,

that was terrible.

But did any people on the right laugh

about it? Yeah, even Trump did. Trump

did a joke about uh Pelosi is what she

call him a she called that guy the

homeless hammer guy. Homeless hammer

guy. Yeah, even Trump did. So,

um I'm going to say two things that

sound like they're contradictory, but

I'll tell you they're not. One is I

don't think either side has the monopoly

on, you know, cheering for people that

they think are monsters having a bad

day, even if they're not a monster. I

mean, I don't have a particular problem

with Paul Pelosi. Um,

so I don't I don't think there's any

moral superiority going on, but what

there is is a lot of payback and a lot

of what I call mutually assured

destruction. So, the right is having a

good old time cancelling as many of the

Charlie Kirk haters who who made the

mistake of going public with their

cheering. And I'm all for that. I'm all

for it. Not because the right is morally

superior,

but because,

you know, once cancelling becomes a

thing, you got to you got to cancel

back. Uh I just don't think there's

anything else you could do. Could it

make things worse? Might it escalate the

cancelling? Maybe. But I'll tell you

what you can't do is nothing. What you

can't do is nothing. And

um if it uh you know, if it changes the

balance of power, um I'd like to see

people getting cancelled for calling the

right Nazis or fascists.

You know, if we could take it to the

next level, that'd really be fun.

really be fun. So, I'm 100% in favor of

the cancelling

as cruel and you know tough as they are

because it needs to work both ways. You

you can't have the cancelling work in

one direction. Absolutely not.

Bad analogy.

Well, let me explain analogies since 75%

of the public doesn't know how an

analogy works. An analogy

does not try to make every element of

the analogy the same as the subject

you're talking about. Because if it were

the same in all the ways, it wouldn't be

an analogy. It would just be the same

thing.

And that wouldn't tell you anything.

So if you can find the part about the

Paul Pelosi that's the same, then you'll

know what I'm saying. But if you say,

"But Scott, you fool. There was no

hammer involved in the Charlie Kirk

thing, so your stupid analogy is

terrible."

No, an analogy is only focusing on one

part. In both cases, something had

happened to somebody on one side of the

political aisle and other people had fun

with it.

That is a valid point.

Don't don't give me but he was married

to a politician that's different. No no

you don't understand how analogies work.

Stop focusing on the part that are not

the point.

All right enough of that.

Um so Washington DC the mayor says that

the police will no longer cooperate with

ICE to get rid of illegal people in the

city. illegal migrants.

Um, and I believe I saw the the mayor of

Memphis

uh acting a little bit like he wasn't so

into having help. He he seems like he's

playing it both ways. It's like he's

against it because he's on the left, but

he's sort of in favor of it a little

bit. He's a little bit confusing. I

can't I can't get a read on the Memphis.

Um, but Trump says that he'll uh he'll

maybe declare a national

the hell was that cat? Uh, we'll declare

a national emergency and federalize DC

if he has to. Um, and I believe he

would. I believe he would actually carry

through with that.

All right. Um,

and now Trump is threatening on a true

social. He threatened uh the governor of

New York State who has now endorsed the

communist Zoran Mandami for New York

City mayor. And uh so Trump says um that

he doesn't like that she uh is endorsing

the communist as he would say. And then

he says no reason um we'll be wa we'll

be watching the situation closely. No

reason to be sending good money after

bad.

So, he's actually threatening that he

would withhold federal money from New

York State because the governor is

backing a communist for mayor. To which

I ask,

is that legal?

Can the federal government withhold

federal money that's been approved uh

because he doesn't like the politics of

one of the politicians or one or more of

them? That doesn't seem like something

that would pass through the courts, but

I don't know.

We'll see if it makes any difference.

So, the updates on the Tyler Robinson,

the

uh the shooter. You all know who that

is. Guy who assassinated Charlie Kirk.

He has not confessed and he's not

cooperating.

All right. Well, that's weird. Um, I

guess it doesn't matter if he confesses

or not. I mean, he might have a slightly

nonzero chance of, I don't know, saying

he was innocent and maybe somehow

getting off. I don't know. It seems

unlikely. But anyway, um,

one of the sub stories that is coming

out of this is that the governor of

Utah, that's Governor Cox, uh, is

becoming very high-profile. It's getting

a lot of attention. people having

positive and negative thoughts about

him. But uh so it's a story about a guy

who may or may not have been a little

bit trans sometime who was dating a

trans

um and uh it's being handled by Governor

Cox.

So all I notice is there are a lot of

in that one story.

Okay. Um,

I saw a post by coddled affluent

professional who noted, as I have noted

as well, that it seems like the climate

change hysteria has sort of magically

gone away. Have you all noticed that?

Remember, we used to be just inundated

with, oh, the climate's going to kill

you. You don't have much time left. You

better spend all your billions of

dollars.

um blah blah blah and uh cuddled

affluent professional said he had two

theories for why we're not hearing so

much about climate change hysteria.

Um one is that the climate hysteria was

astroturfed. In other words, maybe

billionaires were funding it and uh they

had some they had their own reasons, but

it wasn't because it was real. and

funding got pulled with Biden out. So,

it could be that the people who were

looking to make gigantic amounts of

money by convincing you that the green

stuff, well, not the green stuff, but

more the climate hysteria was real. Um,

they don't have any money to make

because the the money's been getting

dried up. So instead of saying, "Oh,

it's worse than it was before," because

now we still have the climate emergency,

but can you believe it? The money to

address it has been taken away. So now

it's way worse, right? So if the funding

had been taken away, shouldn't there be

more complaining about the emergency?

Not less.

Unless

the degree of complaining was directly

related to how much important people

thought they could make in terms of

getting funding from the government.

That's a pretty good theory. I don't

know if it's true, but

another one is there's so much money to

be made in AI that no one wants to

criticize the energy industry anymore

because if you go hard on climate change

and clamp down on, let's say, fossil

fuels, we would kill our AI industry.

But is the AI industry the same as

whoever might be funding and talking

about and worrying about and

astroturfing the climate change? I feel

like those worlds

overlap but not in an important enough

way. So I don't know about that. The

other possibility, I think Mike Servich

mentioned this, is that now that Greta

Tunberg is a uh I guess she's a

Palestinian supporter, Hamas supporter,

whichever way you want to go on that.

Um, so she's off the board as if it

never mattered. You have to wonder why

would Greta

go from this is the biggest problem in

the world to another problem that of

course you know is is dire and and

drastic and uh it's a huge tragedy but

it's also just a tiny little part of the

world. How do you go from climate change

will kill us all, billions of people, to

well, now I'm only going to pay

attention to this little tiny little

tiny piece of the world. So, it kind of

makes it look like she's just sort of

into causes and not so much into

worrying about climate change. It makes

it look like she didn't mean it. I can't

can't read her mind. But when you change

from the biggest problem in the whole

globe to a little tiny problem in one

part of the world, it's hard to take you

seriously what you said about the big

problem. You'd still be working on it.

Somebody else said in the comments that

climate change was always a luxury

belief in Europe, but Europe is having

financial problems.

So, is it really the biggest problem in

the world if the first thing you do when

you have financial problems is you stop

paying paying for it?

That doesn't really match the biggest

problem in the world, does it? It kind

of puts a lie to it. It's like, wait a

minute. As soon as money gets tight,

that's the first thing that gets

unfunded. The biggest problem in the

world. Now, I realize there's a timing

difference, but even so, it feels like

not being taken seriously.

And then

um

uh I'm going to give you the Scott take

on this. My take is that the reason it's

no longer a hysteria, climate change, is

that the data has been so not

cooperating now for several years.

And we don't have we just don't have the

signs that they promised us. Has it not

been

how many years have we been told that

the water level is going up and it

didn't? This year again the number of

name storms is down instead of up. Um

the number of uh you know lives lost to

uh climate disasters down.

So, pretty much everything from the

coral has recovered. Uh, the ice, it's a

little it's a little unknown, but it

doesn't look like it's melting as fast

as they said. Um, and

let me let me summarize that for you.

All data is fake.

The entire climate change thing was

based on data, right? Do you think any

of that data was real?

I didn't. I never believed that they

could measure the temperature of the

Earth

well enough to know how it's changing

from year to year. No. No. In the real

world, that's not something humans can

do. It's just too hard. No, we don't

have like a new technology. We've got a

bunch of thermometers that we put in

different places around the Earth. Yeah,

they're in structures, but of course

there are heat islands and you know they

replace them and sometimes they guess

what it would have been if it used to be

there but it isn't. I mean it's just a

mess.

So

climate change I'm not expecting to make

a big comeback but I could be wrong.

According to Bank of America, 26% of US

workers sought financial help in 2025,

which would be up from 13% in 2023.

Uh, I don't know what that means exactly

to seek financial help. Does that mean

they couldn't pay their bills?

Does that mean that they applied for a

credit card? Would that be seeking

financial help? So, I don't know what

that means, but if it were true that 25%

of workers didn't have a way to meet

their bills,

which I hate to say it, but that feels

like that might be about right, you

know, based on my lived experience. I

don't see many people who can pay their

bills. Do you?

By that I mean, you know, obviously I

know some rich people who can pay their

bills, but the people who are not, you

know, legitimately rich,

they don't really have any plan to ever

be able to pay their bills, you know, in

the long run, their expenses are way

more than their earning potential. It

seems like there's a lot of them. And if

you told me that it's up to 25%, I would

say I'm not that surprised. But I would

uh tell you again, I don't know if I

mentioned this, but all data is fake.

And that might be fake data. Meaning

that whatever they mean by seeking

financial help, who knows what that

means.

Well, there have been a bunch of China

negotiations. I think Rubio is doing it.

And Trump is happy about the outcome. So

I guess those talks are over. Trump is

planning to speak to President Xi of

China on Friday

and uh

there Trump is uh teasing that they have

a tick tock deal. Now, do you believe

that China agreed to a tick- tock deal

that that Trump would be happy with uh

without agreeing to the overall trade

deal?

Why would they do that?

Why would they give that up unless they

had gotten everything they could get

from the larger trade deal?

Does that sound Does it sound to you

likely that he's got a tick tock feel?

To me, it feels like President Xi is is

playing, you know, Lucy with the

football. I feel like she's setting him

up. I don't think there's going to be a

deal. I don't think there's going to be

a deal. And I think it will just

embarrass Trump because he'll get a

little over his skis and he'll brag that

he got a deal. And then

something will come up as in China will

say, "Well, we did think we had a deal,

but then then you did that thing we

didn't like and well, I guess the deal's

off." So, I feel like it's a trick. I

don't trust it at all. I would love to

be wrong, but I I'm going to I'm going

to put a stake in the ground that says I

don't believe that China would give that

up unless they had already gotten

everything they wanted in a trade deal

and the trade deal's not done. So, I

don't know. But, uh, Trump must think

that he's pretty close on the larger

trade deal issues or he probably

wouldn't be planning a phone call. I

don't know. We'll see.

Well, the White House has asked for $58

million more for security that I think

would include for Congress. And I think

we'd all agree that we're in a world

where we need more security, but um it's

terrible that we need a tragedy to get

funding for things that we need, but

that's not our world.

Um, apparently the FBI is investigating

uh some far-left groups in Utah that

might have been involved, they think,

might have been, don't know, with the

planning or at least knowledge of the

Charlie Kirk um assassination. And

apparently there's a Utah based

transmission group

called Armed Queers of Salt Lake City.

And they trained people to use weapons

to defend trans rights. But apparently

they deleted their account the day

Charlie Kirk was killed.

The day he was killed.

So do I have this wrong? That the day

that Charlie was killed, we had no idea

that trans was involved in any way.

Right? On day one, we didn't know

anything about trans.

So, if the Utah based group thought they

needed to get rid of their account

because they didn't want maybe to be

dragged into it, why would they think

they would be dragged into it? Or why

why would they think that that was a

good day to delete it? Unless

they thought the trans thing would come

out and they already knew more than the

FBI knew. So, I would say that's pretty

suspicious.

So, we'll find out. Uh, like most of

you, I think it's nearly impossible to

imagine that at least the the what do

you call it? The romantic partner trans

uh of the shooter. At least the romantic

partner knew the plan. Don't you think?

It's hard for me to imagine that they

operated alone and you know nobody knew.

So I guess we'll find out. So the UK and

the US are going to do some big nuclear

energy deal with each other and BBC is

reporting on this and it's uh supposed

to generate thousands of jobs in Britain

and um I I guess we would be providing

some expertise.

I don't know what else we provide some

technology and expertise. Um, but my

question is how does the United States

have extra anything for the the nuclear

world? Now, if we did have extras

anything, then probably makes perfect

sense that Great Britain gets the

benefit of some of that good ally. But

my understanding of the the nuclear

energy expertise in the United States is

that it's way way

uh underp populated because there have

been so many years where we're sort of

out of that business

or if you're talking about you know

maybe startups or new ways of doing

things maybe it doesn't matter how many

there used to be because they wouldn't

have the right training anyway. So, are

we are we training these great engineers

and stuff from scratch and getting

enough for our internal use? So many we

have so many now that it makes sense for

us to share

those people. I have questions. I'm not

sure this is a good idea for the United

States, but might be.

Well, also in Utah, a man named Adib

Nasir has been arrested and charged with

uh weapons of mass destruction. So,

apparently he was in possession of

weapons of mass destruction. Now, since

I assume he did not build a nuclear

bomb, what would be the weapon of mass

destruction?

Poison, right? Some kind of chemical.

So, there's some bastard in Utah that

had probably

the chemicals to take out a city.

Well, they got him. And my question is

when I see a story like this, how many

things does the FBI stop?

You know, there the only thing I can

understand why there there haven't been,

you know, gigantic wave of terrorist

attacks like once a week in the United

States. The only thing I can figure, the

only way that makes sense given that we

know how many people have the capability

and the desire to blow things up in the

US, the fact that it doesn't happen

almost every day

suggests that the FBI or some

intelligence agency has so much control

over communication in this country that

they catch every one of them. Is that

possible? Are we catching every one of

them? Because if they talk about these

things, we've got some kind of program

that sniffs every single communication

and says, "Well, that's a little

sketchy. Let me tell the FBI about

that." I I can't think of any other

reason

that we would have relatively so little

terrorism on the homeland because we're

stopping it before it happens. How are

we doing that? Like, how do you get them

all? There's no other crime in which we

catch everybody, you know. So, it it's

got to be some kind of, you know,

massive surveillance that catches every

mention of uh explosives or weapons of

mass destruction.

So the other possibility, the only other

way I can explain it is that it's fake

to imagine that there's a terrorist risk

and that they're so rare that if you did

absolutely nothing to try to stop them,

you'd have about the same number. Is

that possible? You know, you'd only have

a big one every 24 years or something.

Maybe that's just the rate

that would be the most and the least. It

just it could be that there's nothing

that really changes that. I don't know.

Well, here's some uh math to blow your

mind. Uh Owen Gregorian did a little

math and uh did you know that Turning

Point USA so that was Charlie Kirk's

organization had around 21 chapters 2100

chapters

and uh that represented about a quarter

million students that were associated

with Turning Point USA. That's a lot.

Quarter million 2100 chapters. Does that

seem like a lot? 2100 chapters.

Well, it's not a lot because apparently

since the assassination there have been

32,000 requests for new chapters

from 2100

to 32,000

requests for information about becoming

a chapter.

2100

to 32,000.

Now, that's the kirking that we're all

feeling. There is an amount of energy

being released that we don't fully

appreciate yet.

Um, and uh, so Owen does some math and

he says based on the previous numbers,

if 2100 gets you quarter million

students, uh, then if you went to

32,000, you'd end up with something like

4 million members.

Well, what if that happens? What What if

Turning Point USA ends up with 4 million

young people?

That changes

just about everything.

So again, if you if you think you

understand the impact of uh Charlie

Kirk,

you you have to give him some amount of

credit for Make America Healthy Again,

right? And uh you'd have to give him

credit for the Turning Point

organization both before and after his

his death.

These are enormous

just enormous contributions to the the

body politic.

Um

Trump is according to Newsmax is uh

adjusting his stance on what kind of

workers to let in the country. And uh

you remember the story about the South

Korean battery factory in Georgia that

uh it was discovered that most of the

employees were from South Korea. So the

whole reason that we as ask uh other

countries to build things in our country

is so that the jobs go to Americans. But

they beat the system by building in the

US to get all the benefits of doing

that. And then they shipped in employees

from South Korea because there really

weren't that many people who would know

how to work in a battery factory in the

US. So that they probably didn't have

the option of hiring locally anyway. So

they just had to do what they had to do.

But uh so I believe that they decided to

pack up their factory and go back to

South Korea. I I heard that. I'm not

positive. But uh Trump is now saying

that well maybe we should let skilled

people come in for a situation like

this. But they would have to do it

temporarily until they had trained up

enough Americans to do the jobs that you

know maybe the trained people from

another country started out in to which

I don't know how practical that is.

would if you were a trained person from

another country and they said, "Hey, we

want you to relocate to the United

States but only for three years because

your job is to train Americans to take

your job."

I don't know. Is anybody going to take

that job?

Maybe if you pay him enough.

Um

there's a post by Joel Pollock that uh

Netanyahu did a joint presser with uh

Rubio and this is an interesting quote

from Netanyahu. He said weak governments

are putting pressure on us Israel

because they are collapsing under the

pressure of Islamist minorities.

that European countries are collapsing

under the pressure of Islamist

minorities.

Well, it sounds like we're naming the

problem now. Um, but on the plus side,

if you want to, you know, I like to look

on the the positive side. On the

positive side, there's no real risk that

Russia will want to conquer Europe if

Europe becomes Islamic because there's

no way that Putin wants more of that

business.

So, um,

at some point there's going to have to

be some reckoning with the fact that we

can't combine Oh, we'll see if I get

cancelled forever for saying this. Um,

I like Islamic people.

I like Muslims as long as they're, you

know, peaceful and they're part of the

program. Um,

but there's no way that the system that

comes necessarily with large Islamic

populations, there's no way that the

system and the beliefs and the

preferences can be assimilated into the

United States kind of a, you know,

constitutional

free everything. You can't really

combine them. And we're not taking that

seriously because we're locked into the

model that hey people are people. Yeah,

people are people but systems are not

systems.

So if the only thing that was happening

is hey just some different people. You

know why would you discriminate against

Muslims when you know everybody else is

coming in? You got your Hispanics, you

got your Africans, you got your Asians

coming in. You know, why would you

discriminate against one group? The

answer is you're not discriminating

against the people that would be

not really the American way. But we

could absolutely discriminate against

the system if the system would destroy

our system and our system we like. So,

um

yeah, maybe maybe that's the reframe.

The reframe is we can't bring in anybody

who's part of a system. Now, would that

be wild? Well, we're already denying

people entry into the country because of

their opinion about Charlie Kirk. That's

happening, right? We're looking for

people who wanted to be in this country,

have visas, but may have said something

in social media celebrating the demise

of Charlie Kirk. Those people are going

to be shipped home, and nobody's going

to miss them. But that's even

individuals.

Well, I'm not even talking about

individuals. I'm just saying, are you

part of this system? You know, do you

prefer that we would be Sharia law

instead of our regular constitution?

That's got to be a hard no for

immigration. If if somebody says, you

know, all things being equal,

if I can get it, I'd rather Sharia law.

If you say those words, and I believe,

weirdly, I believe most people would

answer honestly and they say, "Yeah, I

prefer Sharia." Um, there's no way you

should be allowed in the country. That

that would be ridiculous because that

would just be asking for our own doom. I

think I think Europe is stupid enough

to not recognize the danger until it's

too late. I think we still have time.

Well, if you're on social media at all,

you know that there's a subconspiracy

theory that Israel is somehow part of

the Charlie Kirk assassination. Now, I

won't name names, but there are some

prominent podcasters who are kind of

putting that out there, not as a

conclusion, but as a well, you know, it

really looks like it, kind of feels like

it. Here's my take. There's no way in

the world that Netanyahu is seems to be

a master of risk management. Whatever

else you want to say about him, you

know, you you could be all mad at him

for any number of things, but you can't

deny that Netanyahu is brilliant and

specifically brilliant in knowing when

to take a risk and and when to set it

out for a while. That's his seemingly

his special skill. And you know, it's

impressive. The more you watch it, the

more the more you think, wow, he took

some risks and somehow he's making that

work. Uh, that's amazing. Do you believe

that Netanyahu

would take the risk of being caught

because we're good at catching murders?

You know, we're pretty good at catching

stuff. You know, if we put all of our

resources into it, we're pretty good at

it. Do you think he would take a chance

no matter what he thought was the

benefit of taking Charlie off the field?

Because there, you know, some cases I

think I think Charlie Kirk was not so

much in favor of attacking Iran, but I

don't know what else they might have

some disagreement with.

And Israel did say recently that they're

probably not done with Iran, so I don't

know what that means. But I see no way.

No way. No way. No way, no way that

somebody as smart as Netanyahu would

take a 0.00001%

chance

of getting caught assassinating a

beloved character in the United States.

So even if you say to yourself, "Oh, I

think they're evil enough." Or even if

you say, "Oh, I think there's an upside

for them to do it." It doesn't make

sense on a riskreward basis. the right

amount of risk to risk losing the United

States forever because that's what would

happen. They would lose the United

States forever. Do you think he's going

to take that chance?

Well, the only way it would make sense

is if is if he No. Even Even Msad

wouldn't take that chance. There's

nobody who would take that chance. So,

I'm going to say hard no on the

possibility that Israel was in any way

involved.

And on top of that, the worst plan I

could ever imagine is to try to control

some crazy trans guy and or transloving

guy in Utah. It you wouldn't have you

just wouldn't have the control over the

situation that you needed, you know, and

yeah, there there's none of that sounds

convincing to me. Um, all right. Conor

McGregor announced he's going to

withdraw from his plans to run for Irish

president. Um I think that has more to

do with the fact that he can't get

through the nomination process. Uh

Ireland has some kind of nomination

process that does not involve voters. So

I guess it's the I don't know the

details, but it doesn't involve voting.

So he would have to get other people who

were already in the government to

nominate him. It looks like that's not

going to happen. So, he's out.

It's too bad. That would have been fun

to watch to see if he could make it all

the way. Um,

I I think this is new news, but the AP

is saying that Ukraine drones, they

created fire at one of Russia's top

refineries. They've attacked that one

before, but did minor damage before.

They might have did more now. Now, part

of the story

um by the AP is that there are in fact

gas shortage in Russia

and that Russia has paused gasoline

exports.

I don't know how much gas they exported

versus, you know, oil, but uh but

they've paused gasoline exports

um with officials declaring a full ban

until September 30th.

Uh huh. Now,

do you think that Ukraine has a workable

strategy? At least, you know, not to win

the war and conquer Russia, but do they

have a workable strategy to

Russia to the point where Russia will

make a peace deal that could last?

I would I wouldn't bet on it. So, if you

said, you know, guntohead, would you bet

that the Ukrainian strategy will work? I

wouldn't. I'd probably bet against it,

but it's not impossible.

Um, I feel like if they're already

experiencing gas shortages, it feels

like they may getting be getting very

close to turning Russia into not the

economy that they thought they used to

be. And and I don't think you have to

destroy the whole economy to get them to

talk peace. If you took 20%

I'll just pick a number. If you could

knock down their uh their energy

production by 20%.

And it looks like you could keep doing

it like like you could never go above

that. You just keep bombing stuff. You

wouldn't have to get 80%.

20% would probably get you a peace deal.

Can they get there? Do you think they

can degrade? And again, I'm just picking

a number that feels about right. Do you

think that Ukraine could take out 20%

of uh Russia's because they can reach

anything now? They're they're going

a,000 miles into uh into Russia. I feel

like that's doable 20%. And that would

be enough to get them to the table. Now,

would Russia ramp up the uh destruction

that they're giving Ukraine? Probably.

But I also wonder if maybe Ukraine,

having been battered so badly and having

so many friends around them, I wonder if

Ukraine would be in a better position to

weather the destruction of their energy

platforms.

You know, would would Europe and the US

just step up and say, "All right, well,

you you took out all of their domestic

oil, but we got oil, so make sure they

have oil."

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

Ukraine could handle destruction of

their energy resources better or or

maybe they're willing to just take a

bigger hit, you know, may maybe Ukraine

could handle losing half of their

energy. I'm just picking numbers for

argument here. Maybe they could handle

half, which would be really, really

hard, but they have lots of friends, you

know, maybe the friends could make up

the difference. Would Russia have enough

friends, China, North Korea, Iran? Would

they have enough friends that if they

lost 20% of their energy, they could

find a way to make it up? I don't know.

So,

I think there's some chance, obviously,

I'm no military or energy expert, but

just watching from the sidelines, I

would say there's some chance that this

will get Russia to the table.

We'll see.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is

my prepared show for today. Uh I'm going

to talk to the local subscribers,

the beloved, beloved, beloved local

subscribers. And uh that'll be private.

So in 30 seconds, I'll disappear. But

for the rest of you, thanks for coming.

I hope you come again tomorrow. You

learn so much, don't you?

Yeah.

Bye for now.