Episode 2960 CWSA 09/16/25

and grab a beverage.

Get a nice comfortable chair.

Yeah.

Let me check your stocks for you.

They are really They're up.

H Why does this look like these numbers are old?

Well, maybe they're up.

They look like they're up.

So, let's uh get my comments going and then we've got a show for you.

Oh yeah, we got cats, we got news.

It's just it's really everything.

Robert Redford has passed away.

He was 1,000 years old.

89 actually.

All right, there we go.

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 of elevating your experience to levels that no one can even understand with her tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker gels, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.

And it happens now.

Go.

So, so good.

All right.

First, an announcement.

Um, I will be on Tucker Carlson's live live stream tonight at uh the the show starts at 8:00 p.m.

um Eastern time, 5:00 p.m.

my time in California and I'll just be there for 20 minutes.

I'm one of one of a few guests.

Megan Kelly's on before I am.

And uh probably 40 minutes or so into the show is when I will appear.

I think we're going to be talking mostly about the assassination and uh I'll just be there 20 minutes.

I'll do my thing.

So look for that.

Hey, I wonder if uh there's any scientific studies that didn't need to happen because they could have just asked Scott.

Oh, here's one.

Um, turns out that the experiment of removing cell phones from school classrooms uh substantially improves grades.

Now, did any of you not know that would be the case?

Is there somebody here who thought that letting kids play in their phone instead of paying attention in class was going to be real good for their grades?

No.

Every one of us knew in advance that that would be the case.

Well, Stephen King's new movie, The The Long Walk, apparently it flopped at the box office and it was like the lowest opening for a Stephen King adaptation in 33 years.

Some say it's because he said bad things about Charlie Kirk.

Ah, that might be part of it.

might be part of it.

But the funny thing is um I I don't believe now I don't know this for sure so don't don't sue me Stephen King but I don't believe that a 77year-old Stephen King is writing the books himself and I don't believe he's doing much work on the movie.

So that means he had exactly one job.

What what was his one job regarding the movie?

All he had to do was not not it up.

He didn't He probably didn't have to write the book.

He probably didn't have to do anything with the movie except take, you know, cash the check.

The only thing he had to do is not destroy the entire franchise by saying something so stupid you can't believe it.

Well, it turns out the bar was too high.

and he couldn't figure out how to go a few weeks without saying something so sensationally stupid that people would say, "I can't even watch your dumbass movie.

You had one job, Stephen King." But it gets better.

He decided to do a little sort of impromptu, I guess you call it a commercial for the movie in which he's walking down a long road.

you know, it's just him and uh that's the name of the movie.

It's The Long Walk.

So, that probably made sense to him.

Uh I would like to do my impression.

If you haven't seen it, it's pretty funny.

I'd like to do my impression of Stephen King doing the one thing he needed to do, which is try not to look pathetic.

This is him walking He couldn't even pull up the he couldn't pull off the walking now.

I don't know why.

Um he he is famously an alcoholic, but I don't know.

He's al also 77.

He doesn't look like he's in very good shape.

So, I don't know why he couldn't pull off walking in a straight line, but you can imagine.

Anyway, so I think there's a theme for today's show.

The theme is Sh and Freud.

There's going to be more of it coming.

That's That's when you feel good that something bad happened to somebody else because I'm a terrible person.

Um, but I try to limit it to people who were themselves bad so that I I don't feel so bad that way.

Anyway, got some other news.

US retail sales are a lot stronger than people thought.

They're 6% on the month and people thought it would only be 2.

Probably they assumed the tariffs would knock it down, but looks like it didn't.

So that's good.

The economy is definitely showing signs of strength.

The stock market is at um crazy levels.

I I don't know if you can stay there, but it's pretty high.

All right.

Uh Axios has an exclusive survey they did and they found that half of young people are plagued by loneliness and family problems.

Loneliness and family problems.

So we got two big problems in the country.

Uh well the the family problems I'm going to put to the side at the moment.

But separately besides massive loneliness problems, we have a cost of housing is too high, rents too high, mortgage too high, houses cost too much.

So don't you think those two problems are screaming for a mutual solution?

How could you solve loneliness at the same time as the cost of housing is too high?

You put multiple people in the same house.

You know, people tend to not be lonely in let's say a college dormatory.

Even though it's not great living conditions, it feels great because you're not lonely.

There's there's always somebody there.

So I like the idea of sometimes senior citizens will have a big house they don't want to leave they can afford to stay.

So you get a young person and maybe two of them you know so there there's probably some way to design housing so that multiple people can be there so nobody is lonely or maybe houses next to other houses so they can you know get together easily.

Um, but yeah, loneliness and housing being too expensive, that's almost the same problem.

If you design your housing situation right, same solution.

As I often say, it's a design problem.

It's not a resource shortage.

It feels like it.

It feels like, hey, we don't have enough money to buy these nice homes.

But, uh, if you design it properly, you probably can afford it.

Well, you'll be amazed and shocked to find out that a appeals court blocked something that Trump wants to do.

That would be the what hundth time in the last few months.

Um, in this case is blocking the firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook.

She's the one accused of uh cheating on her mortgages by claiming that both of her houses are her primary residence.

But um I guess the court has blocked that.

So that's not going to happen.

Um however, there's something new.

Her new defense is that uh she had a a loan estimate that was part of her paperwork.

And on the loan estimate, she declared that her uh her house that was in question was a vacation home.

So, she's claiming, "No, I my paperwork does show it's a vacation home, and that that's the issue.

Uh, that it doesn't show that it's a primary residence." Well, apparently the document that has that is not a binding document.

It's a loan estimate, not not binding.

And um, she also had said it was an investment property at one point, not a second home.

So, some say that she even lied on the loan estimate because on the loan estimate where she said it was a vacation home, it really wasn't.

It apparently allegedly it was always meant to be a rental.

So, she may have lied a second time because her defense sounds like another lie.

Bill PE who's been on the case here um pushing this uh this issue.

He points out the pattern of a liar on X started out with saying that the claims against her were unsubstantiated.

That's what Lisa Cook said.

Uh then she said it's baseless.

Then she said it's unproven.

And then she said it happened before her nomination, so it doesn't count.

Then she said it was a clerical error.

Then she said uh that there's not cause to fire her.

Then she said Biden knew.

Then she said uh oh then she had some facial contradictions and she had a lone estimate that may have also been a secondary lie.

And now she says something of a Michigan tax official.

I don't even know what that is, but apparently she's been uh squirming quite a bit.

That is your shot in Freud number two.

Well, Pam Bondi is getting a lot of heat from the right because she said something at an event in which she said uh there's no place in our society for hate speech.

We will target you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.

Um, a number of people pointed out that hate speech is specifically allowed under freedom of speech.

So even though people are not terribly happy about the hate speech, mostly the anti- Charlie Kirk stuff, they they understand if they're conservatives, they understand that unfortunately that's part of the price of free speech.

However, there is a nuance here that I think people missed.

When Pam Bondi talked about it, she said there's no place for hate speech, which is not a statement of it being illegal.

She just says there's no place for it.

Then she follows up in the same paragraph with we will target you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, which I interpreted to mean if you're using the hate speech to incite violence against somebody, then you're in trouble because that would be illegal.

the inciting violence would.

So it's not the speech per se, it's the speech in the service of inciting violence.

So it does not look like Pam Body believes that hate speech is illegal.

It doesn't look like she ever thought that.

But a lot of people interpreted it that way, which I feel like is jumping the gun a little bit.

I mean, do you really think that Pam Bondi didn't understand that?

Do you really think she needed a lesson on freedom of speech?

Really?

So, this is where really comes in.

She's the attorney general and you think she didn't understand that saying bad things is legal in free speech?

You think she didn't know that?

Really?

Really?

Really?

You believe she didn't know that?

Or is it more likely that when she said targeting somebody with hate speech, what she meant was inciting violence, which she did later clarify to say that's exactly what she meant.

So I think that whole Pam Bodney thing may maybe just people have a general problem with her because they don't like I don't know, not enough Epsteine disclosure or not enough people getting arrested or something.

But I think that one's BS.

Well, there are quite a people losing jobs over their free speech and people are saying things online that are um sort of celebrating Charlie Cook's assassination.

Um and Axio is reporting that uh there's quite a bit of the people getting fired and a lot of people are uh being activists and contacting companies where they have employees who said bad things and it looks like most of those employers are choosing to fire the person involved rather than continue to deal with it and get boycotted and whatever else might happen.

So people are in fact getting fired.

And you know what I say about that with all these people being cancelled because of their speech.

I say may you live in the world you created.

May you live in the world you created.

And that is what's happening.

The conservatives are saying, "How about you live in the world that you created where if you say stuff that we don't like, we complain to your boss and you get cancelled." Right?

Turned about as fair play.

Now, I don't love when when uh the left cancels somebody on the right.

I got cancelled.

I got good and canceled.

I got as canled as you can get.

And was it because I said something illegal?

Nope.

Did I Did I say anything hateful?

No.

In fact, I said I would like to stay away from hateful people.

Not every one of them, but there, you know, too many.

There might be too many of them.

More than more than you would want to be around hateful people, people who hate you.

So, you don't want to be around people who hate you.

Um, so I said that got cancelled.

So part of me says, uh, wouldn't it be a better world if they didn't cancel us and we didn't cancel them.

However, there's nothing that's going to stop them from trying to cancel the right.

And if that's the world they built, let them live in it.

So yes, I admit I'm enjoying some shoden fried.

Shoden Freud, the feeling you get when bad things happen to people you're not crazy about.

Um, but they're living in the world they created.

And here are some examples.

And by the way, if you're wondering what is the right number of people to get fired, I would recommend 1600.

There's no way to keep track, but you know what I mean.

There were 1,600 people on January 6 that went to jail.

most of them for free of speech.

Most of them.

The violent ones are a different story, of course.

But if you were just wandering around and you thought you were protesting, that's a lot closer to free speech than it is to a violent insurrection and 1,600 people went to jail.

So, if you ask me how many people on the left should lose their jobs, 1600.

That'd be a good start because I do think there needs to be some mutually assured destruction.

Even if it doesn't make anything better, do you all understand that point?

Even if it doesn't make anything better, might even make things worse, still have to do it.

Because if you're never willing to do the mutually assured destruction, then one side can just destroy you at their leisure.

So no, there there needs to be some very strong push back and we see it happening.

I don't know how many people are getting fired, but I suspect it's hundreds at this point.

Uh let's see.

Perkins Koi, the big law firm that I think was associated with the Democrats and Hillary Clinton, they fired an attorney um for something that the attorney said about Charlie Kirk.

They they rapidly fired him.

Good choice for a law firm.

Uh let's see, there was the Long Island newspaper News Day.

Uh they had uh somebody who made a offensive cartoon and they removed the syndicated editor uh editorial cartoon.

So they removed the cartoon.

Did they remove the person who made it?

Uh they apologize and remove the cartoon.

Well, I don't know.

Maybe that's enough.

Uh the Washington Post fired a columnist for saying bad stuff.

Karen Atia.

Uh, she was accused of gross misconduct.

The Washington Post.

I I didn't know anybody was left at the Washington Post.

I thought everybody quit or got fired already, but apparently they still have employees.

But one last uh UCLA um put their their so-called race and equity director on leave because he made bad comments about Charlie Kirk.

That's UCLA.

Um, there's a Texas Tech student who was arrested for mocking Charlie Kirk at a Charlie Kirk vigil and said some bad things running around causing trouble and they slapped the cuffs on her and took her away.

And other uh I I don't know.

I I hate to call this good news, but it's better than than if it didn't happen.

I guess Charlie Kirk's podcasts, the ones that have been recorded up to this point, have gone to number one on the podcast list.

No surprise.

I don't know if that will um be a continuing thing because he's not making new content, obviously.

um or if it's just people checking in to see what he said lately and reacquainting themselves with his content.

But it's better than not being the number one podcast.

Meanwhile, a so-called popular streamer, there's a character online, I don't know if you've seen him, his name is Destiny.

Now, Destiny appears to be in some kind of competition to become the worst personality in the in the entire world.

Just the worst person.

Oh my god.

And I don't know, maybe that's part of what makes him so well known or famous, at least online, not to the rest of the world.

But Destiny is his name.

He said he refused to condemn the assassination of Charles Charlie Kirk because quote, "You need conservatives to be afraid of getting killed." He said that on Pierce Morgan.

Um, and then Elon Musk commented to Destiny's comment that maybe some conservatives need to be afraid of be getting killed.

And Elon Musk said, "I don't think this jackass should be banned, but Amazon should stop paying him to incite murder." So, I didn't realize there's some kind of Amazon podcast thing.

I don't know.

Um, he says that's insane.

Separately, incitement to murder and domestic terrorism is a felony crime.

For that, he should go to prison.

He can resume streaming when he has served his term.

Do you think that was a crime?

Do you think it's a crime to say you need conservatives to be afraid of getting killed when they go to events so that they look to their leadership to turn down the temperature?

So, on one hand, he's asking both sides to turn down the temperature.

Well, he he's asking the conservatives to turn down the temperature.

Um, is asking to turn down the temperature the same as inciting violence?

Well, he kind of did both because he said that if they don't turn down the temperature, then maybe some of this uh fear that people are having uh should be maybe it should be maintained the fear.

So, he's talked about fear and he's talked about turning down the temperature.

He didn't directly say, "Wouldn't it be good if something bad happened to these people?" He's right on the line.

Um, I doubt that would be actionable.

I don't think he can be arrested for that.

Um, in my non- lawyer opinion, but uh, if you're Elon Musk and you've had probably countless murder attempts or uh, or at least threats, um, it would feel it would feel a lot more like inciting violence.

You know, if you're the one, if you're specifically the one who might get attacked by somebody who listened to this guy, Destiny, well, it would feel like inciting violence then.

So, I I certainly understand Elon Musk's point of view.

I don't know what the legal opinion would be there, but probably he just barely stayed in bounds is my guess.

Well, there's a big drama between Candace Owens and uh investor Bill Aman over something that may or may not have happened with Charlie Kirk.

So, here's the situation.

Um, Candace Owens has made the claim that uh, Charlie Kirk was threatened during some uh, meeting that involved Bill Aman and the Hamptons.

And I guess it was a larger event, but Bill Aman was there.

And the claim is that uh, Charlie Kirk was um, having some kind of change of heart about his opinions about Israel.

And I assume that would be opinions about, you know, the the military stuff, I assume.

And uh there's some thought that maybe Israel wasn't happy with his point of view.

So they have this event and then Candace has claimed that uh that Charlie was offered a ton of money.

not sure by who by by who?

Aman or Israel, I don't know.

Um and that they were trying to pressure him to not only agree with them on whatever they thought about Israel, but also to sort of avoid contact or inviting Tucker Carlson to things.

Um, Bill Aman has confirmed that he hosted the meeting, but uh that none of that happened.

He just says none of that.

Nothing like that happened.

And there are some other witnesses who were the people who worked with Charlie who were there for the entire time because he wasn't really alone without them the whole time.

And they said, "No, nothing like that happened.

It's completely made up." Now, here's the weird thing.

Do you believe that um Candace would just make something up?

Does that sound like her?

Certainly, everybody could be wrong.

Certainly, everybody could have a really strong suspicion about something, you know, like the the Mcronone stuff.

She might be wrong about that, but that would be based on sort of a statistical, you know, it's my assumption.

It's not a lie.

I don't believe she's lying about any of it.

She just might be wrong.

And on the other hand, Bill Aman's not a liar as far as I know.

I mean, and there were witnesses, so if he did lie, it'd be the dumbest thing in the world.

So, I don't think he did.

So, how do you explain this situation where there really aren't liars involved, but they have completely different impressions of what happened?

Well, I don't know.

Probably since Candace wasn't there, she was hearing reports from somebody who may have exaggerated something and turned something innocent into something it wasn't.

I don't know.

Um, but there are many suspicions and we don't know.

Um, and uh, as I said, I'll be on Tucker's show tonight sometime around sometime after 8:00 p.m., probably 8:40 or so Eastern time if you want to check me out.

All right.

Um, there are, according to the FBI, there are seven social media accounts that appeared to indicate advanced knowledge of the uh, Charlie Kirk assassination.

In other words, uh, they they joked about something like, well, wouldn't it be interesting if somebody took him out on that date?

So they it did seem like there were too many people who knew about the upcoming attempt.

It didn't look like it.

It didn't look like coincidence to me.

And if you're ever planning to assassinate somebody, my advice is don't tell your trans friends because it looks like the trans community might not be the best at keeping secrets.

I'm just saying they might not be the best secret keepers.

So anyway, so I don't know.

We'll find out what that's about.

CNN and as you know also MSNBC, there seems to be a push to blame Trump for not uniting the country enough and that that's what happened to Charlie Kirk.

If Trump had taken down the temperature and united the country better, uh then then we wouldn't have this problem.

Okay.

All right.

That's that's what you think.

Uh his extreme rhetoric.

Now, here's my question.

Wouldn't you expect Trump's extreme rhetoric to influence conservatives to attack liberals?

How in the world does his extreme rhetoric have only one directional cause, which is people attacking conservatives?

That that's not very good extreme rhetoric if if the only thing it does is get you attacked.

So, um, and how do you ex how do you unite people if you're Trump?

How do you unite people who are being absolutely brainwashed by their media?

Is it really his fault?

If if the entire media is brainwashing people to to say that he's some Hitler character, is it really his fault that he can't get past that?

I don't know how you would get past it.

All right, I'm going to give you the the frame and the filter that I'm seeing this uh situation.

Um, the way I see it is through my lens as a trained hypnotist.

Most of you know that cuz I say it too often.

So, I'm a trained hypnotist literally.

And so, when I look at things, I see it through a persuasion slash, you know, mental phenomena kind of a filter.

Here's what I see.

There was a whole bunch of Hitler messaging.

Ever since 2015, there's been all this Trump is Hitler stuff.

And that that caused a mass hysteria because enough people took that to be literal that they actually believed they were living in a country in which a Hitlerian character was taking over.

And what that did was it formed a a bubble.

And there were all these people, it wasn't every Democrat, of course, it never works that way, but there was a lot of them, probably tens of millions of people, who got locked in a propaganda created Hitlerian bubble where they thought they were in this just the worst situation ever and the country's going down the drain and uh it's all going to be prison camps and all that.

Now, that would be a classic mass hysteria.

If you haven't studied mass hysteras, you really should because one of the features of it is that when people see other people acting the same way, it reinforces that they must be right.

Wait a minute, I think there's a monster under my bed and you think there's a monster under my bed.

And wait a minute, somebody else thinks there's a monster under my bed.

My god, there's a monster under my bed.

There's no monster under the bed.

That's a mass hysteria.

Now, the word we use for it is TDS.

But I would argue that TDS would be the right word for one person.

You know, if you if you're dealing with one person, they have Trump derangement syndrome.

If you're talking about a body of people who have all been propagandized and hypnotized, that's closer to a mass hysteria if the false thing they've been they've come to believe is uh also dangerous.

So that's what the hysteria part is.

You don't you don't get a hysteria unless the false belief is also scary.

So their false belief is very scary.

Hitler's coming and the people living in that Hitlerian fantasy.

Um there's not really any quick way to fix that.

That's not really fixable in the short run.

And because if he were to point out that they were wrong, they would be triggered into cognitive dissonance.

Now, cognitive dissonance is where your brain basically misfires because you saw something that was incompatible with who you believe you are.

For example, if you believe you're smart, but there's strong evidence that you did something really stupid, will you say, "Oh, I guess I'm actually stupid." Almost never.

If you believe you're smart, you'll say, "Huh, well, it didn't work out, but it was really smart anyway." And for these reasons, and and people listening to your reasons will say, "Are you are you drunk?" I mean those don't even sound like reasons but like the things you say are just word salad and that's the tell for cognitive distance that that that when they explain their position people who are not in cognitive distance listen to it and go uh I don't think that made sense that didn't even make logical sense so that's how you tell.

So let's take the uh Charlie Kirk situation.

So Charlie Kirk, because he was associated with Trump, was demonized as stupid because that's what the left thinks of the right, right?

They think they're stupid, uninformed, ignorant, and that they're they're just plain evil.

Just evil.

Like they're killers.

Now, what would happen if that was your belief about Trump and therefore by definition about Charlie?

Um, and then you see a clip in which he is being friendly and open and listening to other people's opinions and then giving very well-informed answers.

And you realize he's not dumb.

You thought he was.

He's actually like really smart.

Like really smart.

And then you realize that he's not evil.

He's actually a really nice person.

And 100% of the people who know him knew him.

um all say the same thing.

It's It's not like there's somebody who came out and said, "You know, I keep hearing these good things about Charlie, but it wasn't my experience.

I had a bad experience." Nobody, none, not a single person.

Every single person who knew him, left and right, left and right, say he was a nice guy.

Now, he was a genuinely generous.

He's generous, smart, and nice to a fault.

Now, what what happens to you if you think he was a stupid Hitler, but then you observe through all the clips of him interacting with the other side in his debates on campus, you observe that he's very clearly the opposite of everything you held to be true.

What would be your mental experience?

Would you say, "Oh, I changed my mind.

It looks like the evidence is opposite of what I've been told, so I'm going to go with the evidence." Some people will, but not many.

Far more people will be triggered into cognitive dissonance, and they'll have to find something terrible about him, and they will simply imagine things that didn't happen.

That's what happened.

If you ask people, well, what is it you didn't like about Charlie Kirk?

They will tell you that they know somebody who knows something that was really terrible and they're just sort of going after what their friends say.

Or they'll say, "Well, he said," and then what follows is something he didn't say ever anywhere.

Or they'll say, "He said X." And maybe the quote is correct, but the context is completely incorrect and it changes the meaning of what he said.

You know, sometimes he's talking about what other people said, not even agreeing with him, and it gets quoted as what he said, the thing he's disagreeed with.

So that that's how I understand this.

It's a mass hysteria because it's a collection of people.

each of them individually has TDS because that's the one person having a problem but collectively um it's a mass hysteria and then on top of that there was so much counter evidence that it absolutely triggered people into cognitive dissonance not everybody right remember none of this is ever every everybody it's always just too many people all right so that's my take Melania Trump uh just lawyer whipped the uh Daily Beast.

Apparently, they'd said some things that she made them retract.

Uh they tried to link her to Jeffrey Epstein.

What?

What The Daily Beast.

And none of it was true.

And so her lawyers made them delete those lies.

um they would have had to dish out millions if they had kept with their story, but they immediately said, "No, no, we made that up.

I guess I don't know what they said, but in effect, they admitted it wasn't true." And at the same time, Trump is suing the New York Times for $15 billion, calling it a virtual mouthpiece for the Democrats and said, uh, it's defaming him over and over over the Epstein coverage.

Do you think you'll win that?

>> I doubt it.

But you might make the New York Times uh you might make the New York Times change how they treat him because they don't want another one, you another lawsuit.

Um here's the potential bad news.

So Harry Anton of CNN points out that there's a very strong correlation uh for midterm elections where the the the team that has the uh fewest number of retirements within their ranks usually wins the midterm.

So, in other words, there are planned 17 Republican retirements in Congress, uh, but only 10 Democrats are planning to retire.

If things are razor close, you know, razor thin, razor close, um, the difference in just people who retired probably would put Democrats in charge of the House.

That's not cool.

So there's something like a seven out of nine chance that uh Democrats will will win back the House and not because they did anything right and not because that's the way votes work, not because of any of that, not because they ran good races, not because their policies were popular, none of that.

It might be only the luck of the draw that there were 17 Republicans looking to retire and that might be the only thing that matters to the outcome of the midterms.

You know, even even the redistricting, you know, might not is that even going to be in time?

I know, but it probably won't be enough to change the result.

But this these retirements might.

So, why am I only hearing about that now?

I think I had heard about it, but I didn't know the numbers.

Well, Tim Urban is reporting on X that there was a Harvard survey that 32% of students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases.

Well, I'm glad they had the rare part that using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable.

32%.

Oh, but only in rare cases.

Do you do you know what would qualify as a rare case?

Whatever you didn't like.

Well, I don't like that.

Well, looks like we got a rare case.

I guess we can go attack them.

32%.

Really?

Do do you know how unlikely it is that I would ever speak at a college ever again?

No way.

There is no way I would ever speak at a college.

Oh my god.

You know, this is just Harvard, of course, but do you think that this is so different from other colleges if you did the same survey?

I don't know.

I mean, I'd love to think it's it's a real outlier, and if you looked at any other college, they' be like, "Oh, no." You know, violence is never called for.

But Harvard, uh, I don't know.

What would you do if you knew a body of people, 32% of them thought that maybe violence was appropriate because of something you could say?

Well, that's right.

You get the f away from them.

Exactly.

See, you're learning.

I'm here to teach.

Uh a reporter asked uh Trump uh was he planning to make Antifa a domestic terror organization?

And he said, "It's something I would do." Yeah.

If I have support from the people back here, I mean, there's an administration uh specifically Department of Justice probably and the FBI.

Uh whoever was standing behind him, it was the right people.

Uh he said I I would do that 100% and others also by the way but uh Antifa is terrible.

Is Antifa a terror organization?

I don't know.

It would depend uh the depend exactly what they're saying and what they've done so far.

I guess um that would would be sort of an edge case, but I'm in favor of trying.

So Antifa has by its nature, by its design and by its uh you know by its very charter is to destroy the United States.

So why would we put up with that?

If Antifa destroyed let let's say they succeeded in what we know they want to do, which is essentially destroy all civilization or some version of that.

Wouldn't that look like terrorism?

because people would be dying in the streets and cannibals would be running wild if the economy just got destroyed or the government got destroyed.

So, it's not terrorism like uh making a lot of things blow up.

Although, I'll bet they've done that.

I'll bet they've blown up some things.

I just don't know my Antifa history.

Um but they don't need to.

If what they're going to do is dismantle the system, which we know would result in starvation and conquest and uh massive death feels a little bit terrorist to me.

Even if that's not what they intend to do, the effect of it would be that.

Well, I guess the US military blew up another Venezuelan drug boat.

We've got more exciting video if you like to watch people blowing up.

Uh I remind you that as much as I like the cancelling of the people on the left, um you know, there are a lot of people who may have showed some joy over the bombing and death of in this case three male terrorists.

Um, I don't think any of us are beyond the temptation to act happy when somebody who's genuinely terrible um meets a bad end.

The problem with the Charlie uh Kirk stuff is that by no measure by no measure was he a terrible person.

There's nobody who knew him who thought that.

Nobody on the left, nobody on the right, nobody who knew him thought he was a terrible person.

only the people who were in the Hitlerian bubble who had been convinced that he said all the things that he did not say.

All right.

In other news, Israel uh um launched a ground offensive to take over Gaza City.

So, uh they seem to be very done with negotiating for the return of hostages.

And it seems like I mean I'm sure that if a reasonable offer were made they'd take it.

But at the moment it looks like they're not waiting.

They're just going to take over Gaza City and it's going to get probably bloodier than it ever has.

Unless what Israel does is warn people to leave and then if they don't blow up the buildings anyway.

I mean it's war.

And I'm not saying they should.

I'm not approving of it.

Um I'm just observing.

I don't know what options they have.

What option do they have if people don't want to leave the the buildings?

They can't really do it doortodoor because it'd be insanely dangerous for them.

And they don't really have to take that.

They don't have to take that risk if they don't want to.

There's no there's no requirement for that them to take a high level of risk when they can say here's the deal.

There's zero chance that we will bomb you if you leave.

You know, here's the area.

There's no chance that you'll get bombed.

Now, you have to deal with the fact that you've been displaced, but you're going to get displaced either way.

If you stay, we're going to bomb the house you're in.

I'm just making this up so to make a point.

That's not what Israel said.

if you leave, we're going to bomb the house because it might be booby trapped and it's too hard to figure it out.

So, under all scenarios, the house is going to disappear or the building.

So, the the residents have a 100% chance of avoiding blowing up simply by not being in the house and not being in that neighborhood that they very clearly specified you don't want to be in this neighborhood.

But only 40% of the people who lived in that neighborhood have left.

What is up with that?

Is that because they believe that they have a better chance staying in their building than they would if they went on foot and tried to find food wherever they could get fed?

I don't know.

It's pretty hard to get people to leave their home.

There there are still people in the Ukraine front line who are like old guys who still live in the house.

They just don't want to leave.

Like, well, you know, I lived a good life.

I'm just going to stay here.

See what happens.

So, there's always somebody who wants to stay, but 60% it doesn't sound like they understand that the the play is to flatten everything.

I don't think you wouldn't say if you understood that, would you?

I don't know.

So over in Ukraine overnight, I guess there was one one of the biggest or described as massive uh a uh attack from the sky, a relentless aerial terror, some say.

And uh you know, Zalinski is looking for you know, more resources to to fight him.

But here's my question.

What would a massive overnight aerial assault look like?

It would be a lot of drones, right?

There would be missiles, maybe other stuff, but a lot of drones.

And here's what I'm wondering.

What is the upside limit of how many drones each side is going to field before this is over?

Is there a theoretical number of drones that one side could have that would end the war?

You know, if if tomorrow Ukraine had 10 million drones and they all worked together and they they they attacked Russia, would 10 million drones be enough to change the fate of the war?

And who could get to 10 million drones, just picking a number, faster?

Um, Ukraine or Russia?

Because they both seem to be able to get a lot of drones.

I mean, that's a lot of drones.

So, I don't know.

But, uh, my guess is that the number of drones in each swarm attack will continue to increase, and it might continue to increase for a long time.

So, I wouldn't be surprised to see drone attacks with 100,000 drones.

I I feel like that's coming, not too long.

Well, a bunch of uh Canadian supermarkets got busted for covering up the made in America, made in USA labels.

Daily Mail is reporting.

So, Canada, they they want their food, but they don't want to they don't want to act like it came from the US.

They're still mad at us.

So, they've been covering up.

But the phenomenon of covering up uh the US label with a Canadian label is called maple washing.

which is a pretty good name.

We maplewashed it.

There's a according to Newsmax, David Kaplan's writing that there's a watchdog, so-called watchdog, nonprofit watchdog that's uh going after the Soros Foundation.

Um, so the chair of the National Legal and Policy Center, it's a nonprofit Washington, sent a uh strongly worded letter to the Open Society, that's Soros's organization, asking them to cease and desist their funding of various organizations that the Watchdog thinks are dangerous.

um and stopped funding events that quote have been marked by persistent and dominant messaging that uh Trump and his supporters are Nazis, fascists, authoritarians, white supremacists and worse.

So the idea is if you know the gathering is going to say that kind of stuff which is seems like inciting violence to me uh then he wants Soros to stop funding them.

Well, as you know, uh, the Trump administration plans to look into RICO of the Soros organization.

So, finally, after years of people like me complaining, why don't you go after the money and at least understand where it's going and how it's being used?

And it looks like that might be happening.

All right.

You want a little bit a little bit extra uh shodden.

Did you Did you get a good dose yet?

That that uh creepy feeling of feeling good because somebody else is having a bad time.

Ideally, somebody that's, you know, evil.

That would be better.

Well, here's another one.

You ready?

This is my favorite one of the day.

uh you know Zoran Mdani he's running for mayor of New York and he's the communistsocialist and he was endorsed by the governor of New York Hokll Kathy Hokll so that's a pretty good endorsement right you get you got the governor in the state that you're the biggest state that is one heck of a good endorsement so uh what do you think did Zoro Mom DM me return the favor and endorse Kathy Hokll?

Nope.

So Kathy Hokll goes out on a limb which is probably expensive in terms of her her credibility, endorses this guy Saurin, and he does not endorse her back.

Ouch.

All right, admit it.

How much do you love that?

You love it.

You love it a little bit.

That was my best laugh of the day.

So, here's what I think about how Republicans and Democrats see each other.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

This is my take.

That Democrats look at Republicans and they believe they're looking at monsters.

you know, the Hitlers and fascists and but but they think they're looking at monsters, right?

Would you agree?

So far, that's what the Hitlerian bubble is.

They believe they're looking at monsters.

They're just ordinary conservatives.

But Republicans, when Republicans look at Democrats, correct me if I'm wrong, we look at them like clowns and we look for what's funny about it.

Because, you know, I just covered all the news today and did you notice that how many of the things were funny about Democrats?

Do I think that Stephen King is a Hitler monster?

No.

No.

But he's a clown.

Do I think that um Zoran is a monster?

Well, no.

I you know, I think his policies would be unproductive.

But when I see him not endorse the governor that endorsed him, it feels like a clown show, doesn't it?

And it's pretty funny.

Well, I don't hate the governor.

I don't hate the governor.

I don't want anything bad to happen to her.

I don't want anything bad to happen to Zoran mommy.

I just like the clown show.

All right.

So, that's one of the uh most powerful reframes you'll hear because once the the Democrats realize that they see us as monsters because they're in the bubble and we say them as clowns because we can see them in the bubble and it all looks weird and and uh and crazy and funny.

Well, how many times have I told you that there's a new breakthrough coming out of uh China or North Korea or not North but or South Korea about batteries.

There's literally one of these stories every day.

Well, here's another one.

Um there's a big breakthrough in sodium batteries where you can get a full charge in just six minutes.

Now, I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that if the only change you're making is sodium and some component of the battery, otherwise I think it's the same battery.

I think um that looks like something you might be able to implement, you know, once they've tested it and stuff.

But if you can get down to a six minute charge, well, I don't know.

How long does it take to put gas in your gas tank?

About the same, right?

So, that would be pretty awesome.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I had for you today.

I'll remind you that I'll be on Tucker Carlson's show tonight.

Um, he's got a rare rare as in he's never done it before.

Um, a rare internet only live show.

So, he'll have a monologue and he'll have a couple guests.

Megan Kelly will be on before I'm on.

So, if you turn it on and you see Megan, stay tuned because I'll be after that.

All right.

And uh locals, I'll be talking to you privately in a moment.

The rest of you, thanks for joining.

Um I always appreciate it even if I forget to say it.

And I hope you come back tomorrow.

Let's do this again.

Locals, I'll come at you privately in 30 seconds.

and grab a beverage. Get a nice

comfortable chair. Yeah. Let me check

your stocks for you.

They are

really They're up.

H Why does this look like these numbers

are old? Well, maybe they're up. They

look like they're up.

So, let's uh get my comments going and

then we've got a show for you. Oh yeah,

we got cats, we got news. It's just it's

really everything.

Robert Redford has passed away.

He was 1,000 years old. 89 actually.

All right, there we go.

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 of

elevating your experience to levels that

no one can even understand with her tiny

shiny human brains, all you need for

that is a copper mug or a glass of

tanker gels, a canteen jugger flask, a

vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join

me now for the unparalleled pleasure,

the dopamine of the day. The thing that

makes everything better is called the

simultaneous sip. And it happens now.

Go.

So, so good.

All right.

First, an announcement.

Um, I will be on Tucker Carlson's live

live stream tonight at uh the the show

starts at 8:00 p.m. um Eastern time,

5:00 p.m. my time in California and I'll

just be there for 20 minutes. I'm one of

one of a few guests. Megan Kelly's on

before I am. And uh probably

40 minutes or so into the show is when I

will appear. I think we're going to be

talking mostly about

the assassination and uh I'll just be

there 20 minutes. I'll do my thing. So

look for that.

Hey, I wonder if uh there's any

scientific studies that didn't need to

happen because they could have just

asked Scott. Oh, here's one. Um, turns

out that

the experiment of removing cell phones

from school classrooms

uh substantially improves grades.

Now, did any of you not know that would

be the case? Is there somebody here who

thought that letting kids play in their

phone instead of paying attention in

class was going to be real good for

their grades? No. Every one of us knew

in advance that that would be the case.

Well, Stephen King's new movie, The The

Long Walk,

apparently it flopped at the box office

and it was like the lowest opening for a

Stephen King adaptation in 33 years.

Some say it's because he said bad things

about Charlie Kirk. Ah, that might be

part of it. might be part of it. But the

funny thing is um I I don't believe now

I don't know this for sure so don't

don't sue me Stephen King but I don't

believe that a 77year-old Stephen King

is writing the books himself and I don't

believe he's doing much work on the

movie. So that means he had exactly one

job.

What what was his one job regarding the

movie?

All he had to do was not not it up.

He didn't He probably didn't have to

write the book. He probably didn't have

to do anything with the movie except

take, you know, cash the check.

The only thing he had to do is not

destroy the entire franchise

by saying something so stupid you can't

believe it. Well, it turns out the bar

was too high.

and he couldn't figure out how to go a

few weeks without saying something so

sensationally stupid that people would

say, "I can't even watch your dumbass

movie.

You had one job, Stephen King." But it

gets better.

He decided to do a little sort of

impromptu,

I guess you call it a commercial for the

movie in which he's walking down a long

road. you know, it's just him and uh

that's the name of the movie. It's The

Long Walk. So, that probably made sense

to him. Uh I would like to do my

impression.

If you haven't seen it, it's pretty

funny. I'd like to do my impression of

Stephen King doing the one thing he

needed to do, which is try not to look

pathetic. This is him walking

He couldn't even pull up the he couldn't

pull off the walking

now. I don't know why.

Um he he is famously an alcoholic,

but I don't know. He's al also 77. He

doesn't look like he's in very good

shape. So, I don't know why he couldn't

pull off walking in a straight line, but

you can imagine. Anyway, so I think

there's a theme for today's show. The

theme is Sh and Freud.

[Laughter]

There's going to be more of it coming.

That's That's when you feel good that

something bad happened to somebody else

because I'm a terrible person. Um, but I

try to limit it to people who were

themselves bad so that I I don't feel so

bad that way.

Anyway, got some other news.

US retail sales are a lot stronger than

people thought. They're 6% on the month

and people thought it would only be 2.

Probably they assumed the tariffs would

knock it down, but looks like it didn't.

So that's good. The economy is

definitely showing signs of strength.

The stock market is at um crazy levels.

I I don't know if you can stay there,

but it's pretty high. All right. Uh

Axios has an exclusive survey they did

and they found that half of young people

are plagued by loneliness

and family problems. Loneliness and

family problems. So we got two big

problems in the country. Uh well the the

family problems I'm going to put to the

side at the moment. But separately

besides massive loneliness problems, we

have a cost of housing is too high,

rents too high, mortgage too high,

houses cost too much. So don't you think

those two problems are screaming for a

mutual solution? How could you solve

loneliness

at the same time as the cost of housing

is too high?

You put multiple people in the same

house. You know, people tend to not be

lonely in let's say a college dormatory.

Even though it's not great living

conditions, it feels great because

you're not lonely. There's there's

always somebody there.

So I like the idea of sometimes senior

citizens will have a big house they

don't want to leave they can afford to

stay. So you get a young person and

maybe two of them you know so there

there's probably some way to design

housing so that multiple people can be

there so nobody is lonely or maybe

houses next to other houses so they can

you know get together easily. Um, but

yeah, loneliness and housing being too

expensive, that's almost the same

problem. If you design your housing

situation right, same solution.

As I often say, it's a design problem.

It's not a resource shortage. It feels

like it. It feels like, hey, we don't

have enough money to buy these nice

homes. But, uh, if you design it

properly, you probably can afford it.

Well, you'll be amazed and shocked to

find out that a appeals court blocked

something that Trump wants to do. That

would be the what hundth time in the

last few months. Um, in this case is

blocking the firing of Fed Governor Lisa

Cook. She's the one accused of uh

cheating on her mortgages by claiming

that both of her houses are her primary

residence.

But um I guess the court has blocked

that. So that's not going to happen. Um

however, there's something new. Her new

defense is that uh she had a a loan

estimate that was part of her paperwork.

And on the loan estimate,

she declared that her uh her house that

was in question was a vacation home.

So, she's claiming, "No, I my paperwork

does show it's a vacation home, and that

that's the issue. Uh, that it doesn't

show that it's a primary residence."

Well, apparently the document that has

that is not a binding document. It's a

loan estimate, not not binding. And

um,

she also had said it was an investment

property at one point, not a second

home. So, some say that she even lied on

the loan estimate because on the loan

estimate where she said it was a

vacation home, it really wasn't. It

apparently allegedly it was always meant

to be a rental. So, she may have lied a

second time because her defense sounds

like another lie. Bill PE who's been on

the case here um pushing this uh this

issue. He points out the pattern of a

liar on X started out with saying that

the claims against her were

unsubstantiated. That's what Lisa Cook

said. Uh then she said it's baseless.

Then she said it's unproven. And then

she said it happened before her

nomination, so it doesn't count. Then

she said it was a clerical error. Then

she said uh that there's not cause to

fire her. Then she said Biden knew. Then

she said uh oh then she had some facial

contradictions and she had a lone

estimate that may have also been a

secondary lie. And now she says

something of a Michigan tax official. I

don't even know what that is, but

apparently she's been uh squirming quite

a bit.

That is your shot in Freud number two.

Well, Pam Bondi is getting a lot of heat

from the right because she said

something at an event in which she said

uh there's no place in our society for

hate speech. We will target you if you

are targeting anyone with hate speech.

Um, a number of people pointed out that

hate speech is specifically allowed

under freedom of speech. So even though

people are not terribly happy about the

hate speech, mostly the anti- Charlie

Kirk stuff, they they understand if

they're conservatives, they understand

that unfortunately that's part of the

price of free speech. However, there is

a nuance here that I think people

missed. When Pam Bondi talked about it,

she said there's no place for hate

speech, which is not a statement of it

being illegal. She just says there's no

place for it. Then she follows up in the

same paragraph with we will target you

if you are targeting anyone with hate

speech, which I interpreted to mean if

you're using the hate speech to incite

violence against somebody, then you're

in trouble because that would be

illegal. the inciting violence would. So

it's not the speech per se, it's the

speech in the service of inciting

violence. So it does not look like Pam

Body believes that hate speech is

illegal. It doesn't look like she ever

thought that. But a lot of people

interpreted it that way, which I feel

like is jumping the gun a little bit. I

mean, do you really think that Pam Bondi

didn't understand that? Do you really

think she needed a lesson on freedom of

speech? Really? So, this is where really

comes in. She's the attorney general and

you think she didn't understand that

saying bad things is legal in free

speech? You think she didn't know that?

Really?

Really? Really? You believe she didn't

know that? Or is it more likely that

when she said targeting somebody with

hate speech, what she meant was inciting

violence, which she did later clarify to

say that's exactly what she meant. So I

think that whole Pam Bodney thing may

maybe just people have a general problem

with her because they don't like I don't

know, not enough Epsteine disclosure or

not enough people getting arrested or

something.

But I think that one's BS.

Well, there are quite a people losing

jobs over their free speech

and people are saying things online that

are um sort of celebrating Charlie

Cook's assassination.

Um and Axio is reporting that uh there's

quite a bit of the people getting fired

and a lot of people are uh being

activists and contacting companies where

they have employees who said bad things

and it looks like most of those

employers

are choosing to fire the person involved

rather than continue to deal with it and

get boycotted and whatever else might

happen. So people are in fact getting

fired. And you know what I say about

that with all these people being

cancelled because of their speech.

I say may you live in the world you

created.

May you live in the world you created.

And that is what's happening. The

conservatives are saying, "How about you

live in the world that you created where

if you say stuff that we don't like, we

complain to your boss and you get

cancelled."

Right? Turned about as fair play. Now, I

don't love

when when uh the left cancels somebody

on the right. I got cancelled. I got

good and canceled. I got as canled as

you can get.

And was it because I said something

illegal? Nope. Did I Did I say anything

hateful? No. In fact, I said I would

like to stay away from hateful people.

Not every one of them, but there, you

know, too many. There might be too many

of them. More than more than you would

want to be around hateful people, people

who hate you. So, you don't want to be

around people who hate you. Um, so I

said that got cancelled.

So

part of me says, uh, wouldn't it be a

better world if they didn't cancel us

and we didn't cancel them. However,

there's nothing that's going to stop

them from trying to cancel the right.

And if that's the world they built, let

them live in it. So yes, I admit I'm

enjoying some shoden fried. Shoden

Freud, the feeling you get when bad

things happen to people you're not crazy

about. Um, but they're living in the

world they created. And here are some

examples.

And by the way, if you're wondering what

is the right number of people to get

fired, I would recommend 1600.

There's no way to keep track, but

you know what I mean. There were 1,600

people on January 6 that went to jail.

most of them for free of speech. Most of

them. The violent ones are a different

story, of course. But if you were just

wandering around and you thought you

were protesting, that's a lot closer to

free speech than it is to a violent

insurrection

and 1,600 people went to jail. So, if

you ask me how many people on the left

should lose their jobs,

1600. That'd be a good start because I

do think there needs to be some mutually

assured destruction.

Even if it doesn't make anything better,

do you all understand that point? Even

if it doesn't make anything better,

might even make things worse, still have

to do it. Because if you're never

willing to do the mutually assured

destruction,

then one side can just

destroy you at their leisure. So no,

there there needs to be some very strong

push back and we see it happening.

I don't know how many people are getting

fired, but I suspect it's hundreds at

this point. Uh let's see. Perkins Koi,

the big law firm that I think was

associated with the Democrats and

Hillary Clinton, they fired an attorney

um for something that the attorney said

about Charlie Kirk. They they rapidly

fired him. Good choice for a law firm.

Uh let's see, there was the Long Island

newspaper News Day. Uh they had uh

somebody who made a offensive cartoon

and they removed the syndicated editor

uh editorial cartoon. So they removed

the cartoon. Did they remove the person

who made it? Uh they apologize and

remove the cartoon. Well, I don't know.

Maybe that's enough. Uh the Washington

Post fired a columnist for saying bad

stuff. Karen Atia.

Uh, she was accused of gross misconduct.

The Washington Post.

I I didn't know anybody was left at the

Washington Post. I thought everybody

quit or got fired already, but

apparently they still have employees.

But one last

uh UCLA

um put their their so-called race and

equity director on leave because he made

bad comments about Charlie Kirk. That's

UCLA. Um,

there's a Texas Tech student who was

arrested

for mocking Charlie Kirk at a Charlie

Kirk vigil and said some bad things

running around causing trouble and they

slapped the cuffs on her and took her

away.

And other uh I I don't know. I I hate to

call this good news, but it's better

than than if it didn't happen. I guess

Charlie Kirk's podcasts, the ones that

have been recorded up to this point,

have gone to number one on the podcast

list. No surprise. I don't know if that

will um be a continuing thing because

he's not making new content, obviously.

um or if it's just people checking in to

see what he said lately and

reacquainting themselves with his

content. But it's better than not being

the number one podcast.

Meanwhile, a so-called popular streamer,

there's a character online, I don't know

if you've seen him, his name is Destiny.

Now, Destiny appears to be in some kind

of competition to become the worst

personality in the in the entire world.

Just the worst person. Oh my god. And I

don't know, maybe that's part of what

makes him so well known or famous, at

least online, not to the rest of the

world. But Destiny

is his name. He said he refused to

condemn the assassination of Charles

Charlie Kirk because quote, "You need

conservatives to be afraid of getting

killed." He said that on Pierce Morgan.

Um,

and then Elon Musk commented to

Destiny's comment that maybe some

conservatives need to be afraid of be

getting killed. And Elon Musk said, "I

don't think this jackass should be

banned, but Amazon should stop paying

him to incite murder." So, I didn't

realize there's some kind of Amazon

podcast thing. I don't know. Um, he says

that's insane. Separately, incitement to

murder and domestic terrorism is a

felony crime. For that, he should go to

prison. He can resume streaming when he

has served his term. Do you think that

was a crime?

Do you think it's a crime to say you

need conservatives to be afraid of

getting killed when they go to events so

that they look to their leadership to

turn down the temperature?

So, on one hand, he's asking both sides

to turn down the temperature. Well, he

he's asking the conservatives to turn

down the temperature.

Um, is asking to turn down the

temperature

the same as inciting violence? Well, he

kind of did both because he said that if

they don't turn down the temperature,

then maybe some of this

uh fear that people are having uh should

be maybe it should be maintained the

fear. So, he's talked about fear and

he's talked about turning down the

temperature. He didn't directly say,

"Wouldn't it be good if something bad

happened to these people?" He's right on

the line. Um, I doubt that would be

actionable. I don't think he can be

arrested for that. Um, in my non- lawyer

opinion, but uh, if you're Elon Musk and

you've had probably countless murder

attempts or uh, or at least threats,

um, it would feel it would feel a lot

more like inciting violence. You know,

if you're the one, if you're

specifically the one who might get

attacked by somebody who listened to

this guy, Destiny, well, it would feel

like inciting violence then. So, I I

certainly understand Elon Musk's point

of view. I don't know what the legal

opinion would be there, but probably he

just barely stayed in bounds is my

guess.

Well, there's a big drama between

Candace Owens and uh investor Bill Aman

over something that may or may not have

happened with Charlie Kirk. So, here's

the situation.

Um, Candace Owens has made the claim

that uh, Charlie Kirk was threatened

during some uh, meeting that involved

Bill Aman and the Hamptons. And I guess

it was a larger event, but Bill Aman was

there. And the claim is that uh, Charlie

Kirk was um, having some kind of change

of heart about his opinions about

Israel. And I assume that would be

opinions about,

you know, the the military stuff, I

assume. And uh there's some thought that

maybe Israel wasn't happy with his point

of view. So they have this event and

then Candace has claimed that uh

that Charlie was offered a ton of money.

not sure by who by

by who? Aman or Israel, I don't know. Um

and that they were trying to pressure

him to not only agree with them on

whatever they thought about Israel, but

also to sort of avoid contact or

inviting Tucker Carlson to things.

Um,

Bill Aman has confirmed that he hosted

the meeting, but uh that none of that

happened. He just says none of that.

Nothing like that happened. And there

are some other witnesses who were the

people who worked with Charlie who were

there for the entire time because he

wasn't really alone without them the

whole time. And they said, "No, nothing

like that happened. It's completely made

up."

Now, here's the weird thing.

Do you believe that um Candace would

just make something up?

Does that sound like her?

Certainly, everybody could be wrong.

Certainly, everybody could have a really

strong suspicion about something, you

know, like the the Mcronone stuff. She

might be wrong about that, but that

would be based on sort of a statistical,

you know, it's my assumption. It's not a

lie. I don't believe she's lying about

any of it. She just might be wrong. And

on the other hand, Bill Aman's not a

liar as far as I know. I mean, and there

were witnesses, so if he did lie, it'd

be the dumbest thing in the world. So, I

don't think he did. So, how do you

explain this situation where there

really aren't liars involved, but they

have completely different impressions of

what happened? Well, I don't know.

Probably since Candace wasn't there, she

was hearing reports from somebody who

may have

exaggerated something and turned

something innocent into something it

wasn't. I don't know.

Um, but there are many suspicions and we

don't know. Um,

and uh, as I said, I'll be on Tucker's

show tonight

sometime around sometime after 8:00

p.m., probably 8:40 or so Eastern time

if you want to check me out. All right.

Um, there are, according to the FBI,

there are seven social media accounts

that appeared to indicate advanced

knowledge of the uh, Charlie Kirk

assassination. In other words, uh,

they they joked about something like,

well, wouldn't it be interesting if

somebody took him out on that date? So

they it did seem like there were too

many people who knew about the upcoming

attempt. It didn't look like it. It

didn't look like coincidence to me. And

if you're ever planning to assassinate

somebody,

my advice is don't tell your trans

friends because it looks like the trans

community might not be the best at

keeping secrets.

I'm just saying they might not be the

best secret keepers.

So

anyway, so I don't know. We'll find out

what that's about.

CNN and as you know also MSNBC, there

seems to be a push to blame Trump for

not uniting the country enough and that

that's what happened to Charlie Kirk. If

Trump had taken down the temperature and

united the country better, uh

then then we wouldn't have this problem.

Okay. All right. That's that's what you

think. Uh his extreme rhetoric.

Now, here's my question. Wouldn't you

expect Trump's extreme rhetoric to

influence conservatives to attack

liberals?

How in the world does his extreme

rhetoric have only one directional

cause, which is people attacking

conservatives?

That that's not very good extreme

rhetoric if if the only thing it does is

get you attacked.

So,

um, and how do you ex how do you unite

people if you're Trump? How do you unite

people who are being absolutely

brainwashed by their media? Is it really

his fault? If if the entire media is

brainwashing people to to say that he's

some Hitler character, is it really his

fault that he can't get past that? I

don't know how you would get past it.

All right, I'm going to give you the the

frame and the filter that I'm seeing

this uh situation.

Um, the way I see it is through my lens

as a trained hypnotist. Most of you know

that cuz I say it too often. So, I'm a

trained hypnotist literally. And so,

when I look at things, I see it through

a persuasion slash, you know, mental

phenomena kind of a filter. Here's what

I see. There was a whole bunch of Hitler

messaging. Ever since 2015, there's been

all this Trump is Hitler stuff. And that

that caused a mass hysteria

because enough people took that to be

literal that they actually believed they

were living in a country in which a

Hitlerian character was taking over. And

what that did was it formed a a bubble.

And there were all these people, it

wasn't every Democrat, of course, it

never works that way, but there was a

lot of them, probably tens of millions

of people, who got locked in a

propaganda created Hitlerian bubble

where they thought they were in this

just the worst situation ever and the

country's going down the drain and uh

it's all going to be prison camps and

all that. Now, that would be a classic

mass hysteria. If you haven't studied

mass hysteras, you really should because

one of the features of it is that when

people see other people acting the same

way, it reinforces that they must be

right. Wait a minute, I think there's a

monster under my bed and you think

there's a monster under my bed. And wait

a minute, somebody else thinks there's a

monster under my bed. My god, there's a

monster under my bed. There's no monster

under the bed. That's a mass hysteria.

Now, the word we use for it is TDS. But

I would argue that TDS would be the

right word for one person. You know, if

you if you're dealing with one person,

they have Trump derangement syndrome. If

you're talking about a body of people

who have all been propagandized and

hypnotized, that's closer to a mass

hysteria if the false thing they've been

they've come to believe is uh also

dangerous. So that's what the hysteria

part is. You don't you don't get a

hysteria unless the false belief is also

scary. So their false belief is very

scary. Hitler's coming

and the people living in that Hitlerian

fantasy.

Um there's not really any quick way to

fix that. That's not really fixable in

the short run. And because if he were to

point out that they were wrong, they

would be triggered into cognitive

dissonance. Now, cognitive dissonance is

where your brain basically misfires

because you saw something that was

incompatible with who you believe you

are. For example, if you believe you're

smart, but there's strong evidence that

you did something really stupid, will

you say, "Oh, I guess I'm actually

stupid." Almost never. If you believe

you're smart, you'll say, "Huh, well, it

didn't work out, but it was really smart

anyway." And for these reasons, and and

people listening to your reasons will

say, "Are you are you drunk?" I mean

those don't even sound like reasons but

like the things you say are just word

salad and that's the tell for cognitive

distance that that that when they

explain their position people who are

not in cognitive distance listen to it

and go uh I don't think that made sense

that didn't even make logical sense so

that's how you tell. So

let's take the uh Charlie Kirk

situation.

So Charlie Kirk, because he was

associated with Trump, was demonized as

stupid because that's what the left

thinks of the right, right? They think

they're stupid, uninformed, ignorant,

and that they're they're just plain

evil.

Just evil. Like they're killers. Now,

what would happen if that was your

belief about Trump and therefore by

definition about Charlie?

Um, and then you see a clip in which he

is being friendly and open and listening

to other people's opinions and then

giving very well-informed answers. And

you realize he's not dumb. You thought

he was. He's actually like really smart.

Like really smart. And then you realize

that he's not evil. He's actually a

really nice person. And 100% of the

people who know him knew him.

um all say the same thing. It's It's not

like there's somebody who came out and

said, "You know, I keep hearing these

good things about Charlie, but it wasn't

my experience. I had a bad experience."

Nobody, none, not a single person. Every

single person who knew him, left and

right, left and right, say he was a nice

guy. Now, he was a genuinely generous.

He's generous, smart,

and nice to a fault.

Now, what what happens to you if you

think he was a stupid Hitler, but then

you observe through all the clips of him

interacting with the other side in his

debates on campus, you observe that he's

very clearly the opposite of everything

you held to be true.

What would be your mental experience?

Would you say, "Oh, I changed my mind.

It looks like the evidence is opposite

of what I've been told, so I'm going to

go with the evidence." Some people will,

but not many. Far more people will be

triggered into cognitive dissonance, and

they'll have to find something terrible

about him, and they will simply imagine

things that didn't happen. That's what

happened. If you ask people, well, what

is it you didn't like about Charlie

Kirk? They will tell you that they know

somebody who knows something that was

really terrible and they're just sort of

going after what their friends say. Or

they'll say, "Well, he said," and then

what follows is something he didn't say

ever anywhere. Or they'll say, "He said

X." And maybe the quote is correct, but

the context is completely incorrect and

it changes the meaning of what he said.

You know, sometimes he's talking about

what other people said, not even

agreeing with him, and it gets quoted as

what he said, the thing he's disagreeed

with. So

that that's how I understand this. It's

a mass hysteria because it's a

collection of people. each of them

individually has TDS because that's the

one person having a problem but

collectively um it's a mass hysteria and

then on top of that there was so much

counter evidence that it absolutely

triggered people into cognitive

dissonance not everybody right remember

none of this is ever every everybody

it's always just too many people

all right so that's my take

Melania Trump uh just lawyer whipped the

uh Daily Beast. Apparently, they'd said

some things that she made them retract.

Uh they tried to link her to Jeffrey

Epstein. What?

What The Daily Beast. And none

of it was true. And so her lawyers made

them delete those lies.

um they would have had to dish out

millions if they had kept with their

story, but they immediately said, "No,

no, we made that up. I guess I don't

know what they said, but in effect, they

admitted it wasn't true." And at the

same time, Trump is suing the New York

Times for $15 billion,

calling it a virtual mouthpiece for the

Democrats and said, uh, it's defaming

him over and over over the Epstein

coverage.

Do you think you'll win that?

>> I doubt it. But you might make the New

York Times uh you might make the New

York Times change how they treat him

because they don't want another one, you

another lawsuit.

Um here's the potential bad news. So

Harry Anton of CNN points out that

there's a very strong correlation uh for

midterm elections where the the the team

that has the uh fewest number of

retirements within their ranks usually

wins the midterm. So, in other words,

there are planned 17 Republican

retirements in Congress, uh, but only 10

Democrats are planning to retire.

If things are razor close, you know,

razor thin, razor close, um, the

difference in just people who retired

probably would put Democrats in charge

of the House.

That's not cool. So there's something

like a seven out of nine chance that uh

Democrats will will win back the House

and not because they did anything right

and not because that's the way votes

work, not because of any of that, not

because they ran good races, not because

their policies were popular, none of

that. It might be only the luck of the

draw that there were 17 Republicans

looking to retire and that might be the

only thing that matters to the outcome

of the midterms.

You know, even even the redistricting,

you know, might not is that even going

to be in time? I know, but it probably

won't be enough to change the result.

But this these retirements might.

So, why am I only hearing about that

now? I think I had heard about it, but I

didn't know the numbers.

Well, Tim Urban is reporting on X that

there was a Harvard survey that 32% of

students say using violence to stop

someone from speaking on campus is

acceptable, at least in rare cases.

Well, I'm glad they had the rare part

that using violence to stop someone from

speaking on campus is acceptable. 32%.

Oh, but only in rare cases. Do you do

you know what would qualify as a rare

case? Whatever you didn't like. Well, I

don't like that. Well, looks like we got

a rare case. I guess we can go attack

them. 32%.

Really?

Do do you know how unlikely it is that I

would ever speak at a college ever

again? No way.

There is no way I would ever speak at a

college. Oh my god. You know, this is

just Harvard, of course, but do you

think that this is so different from

other colleges if you did the same

survey?

I don't know.

I mean, I'd love to think it's it's a

real outlier, and if you looked at any

other college, they' be like, "Oh, no."

You know, violence is never called for.

But Harvard, uh,

I don't know. What would you do if you

knew a body of people, 32% of them

thought that maybe violence was

appropriate because of something you

could say?

Well, that's right. You get the f away

from them.

Exactly. See, you're learning. I'm here

to teach.

Uh a reporter asked uh Trump

uh was he planning to make Antifa a

domestic terror organization? And he

said, "It's something I would do." Yeah.

If I have support from the people back

here, I mean, there's an administration

uh specifically Department of Justice

probably and the FBI. Uh whoever was

standing behind him, it was the right

people. Uh he said I I would do that

100% and others also by the way but uh

Antifa is terrible. Is Antifa

a terror organization?

I don't know. It would depend uh the

depend exactly what they're saying and

what they've done so far. I guess um

that would would be sort of an edge

case,

but I'm in favor of trying.

So Antifa has by its nature, by its

design and by its uh you know by its

very charter is to destroy the United

States. So why would we put up with

that? If Antifa destroyed let let's say

they succeeded in what we know they want

to do, which is essentially destroy all

civilization or some version of that.

Wouldn't that look like terrorism?

because people would be dying in the

streets and cannibals would be running

wild if the economy just got destroyed

or the government got destroyed. So,

it's not terrorism like

uh making a lot of things blow up.

Although, I'll bet they've done that.

I'll bet they've blown up some things. I

just don't know my Antifa history. Um

but they don't need to. If what they're

going to do is dismantle the system,

which we know would result in starvation

and conquest and uh massive death

feels a little bit terrorist to me. Even

if that's not what they intend to do,

the effect of it would be that.

Well, I guess the US military blew up

another Venezuelan drug boat. We've got

more exciting video if you like to watch

people blowing up. Uh

I remind you that as much as I like the

cancelling of the people on the left, um

you know, there are a lot of people who

may have

showed some joy over the bombing and

death of in this case three male

terrorists.

Um,

I don't think any of us are beyond the

temptation to act happy when somebody

who's genuinely terrible

um meets a bad end. The problem with the

Charlie uh Kirk stuff is that by no

measure by no measure was he a terrible

person.

There's nobody who knew him who thought

that. Nobody on the left, nobody on the

right, nobody who knew him thought he

was a terrible person. only the people

who were in the Hitlerian bubble who had

been convinced that he said all the

things that he did not say.

All right. In other news, Israel uh

um launched a ground offensive to take

over Gaza City. So, uh they seem to be

very done with negotiating for the

return of hostages. And it seems like I

mean I'm sure that if a reasonable offer

were made they'd take it. But at the

moment it looks like they're not

waiting. They're just going to take over

Gaza City and it's going to get probably

bloodier than it ever has. Unless what

Israel does is warn people to leave and

then if they don't

blow up the buildings anyway. I mean

it's war. And I'm not saying they

should. I'm not approving of it. Um I'm

just observing.

I don't know what options they have.

What option do they have if people don't

want to leave the the buildings? They

can't really do it doortodoor

because it'd be insanely dangerous for

them. And they don't really have to take

that. They don't have to take that risk

if they don't want to. There's no

there's no requirement for that them to

take a high level of risk when they can

say here's the deal. There's zero chance

that we will bomb you if you leave. You

know, here's the area. There's no chance

that you'll get bombed. Now, you have to

deal with the fact that you've been

displaced, but you're going to get

displaced either way. If you stay, we're

going to bomb the house you're in. I'm

just making this up so to make a point.

That's not what Israel said. if you

leave, we're going to bomb the house

because it might be booby trapped and

it's too hard to figure it out. So,

under all scenarios,

the house is going to disappear or the

building. So,

the the residents have a 100% chance of

avoiding blowing up simply by not being

in the house and not being in that

neighborhood that they very clearly

specified you don't want to be in this

neighborhood. But only 40% of the people

who lived in that neighborhood have

left.

What is up with that? Is that because

they believe that they have a better

chance staying in their building than

they would if they went on foot and

tried to find food wherever they could

get fed? I don't know. It's pretty hard

to get people to leave their home. There

there are still people in the Ukraine

front line who are like old guys who

still live in the house. They just don't

want to leave. Like, well, you know, I

lived a good life. I'm just going to

stay here. See what happens. So, there's

always somebody who wants to stay, but

60%

it doesn't sound like they understand

that the the play is to flatten

everything. I don't think you wouldn't

say if you understood that, would you? I

don't know.

So over in Ukraine overnight, I guess

there was one one of the biggest or

described as massive uh a uh attack from

the sky, a relentless aerial terror,

some say. And uh

you know, Zalinski is looking for you

know, more resources to to fight him.

But here's my question. What would a

massive overnight aerial assault look

like? It would be a lot of drones,

right? There would be missiles, maybe

other stuff, but a lot of drones. And

here's what I'm wondering.

What is the upside limit of how many

drones each side is going to field

before this is over? Is there a

theoretical number of drones that one

side could have that would end the war?

You know, if if tomorrow Ukraine had 10

million drones

and they all worked together and they

they they attacked Russia, would 10

million drones be enough to change the

fate of the war? And who could get to 10

million drones, just picking a number,

faster?

Um, Ukraine or Russia?

Because they both seem to be able to get

a lot of drones. I mean, that's a lot of

drones. So, I don't know. But, uh, my

guess is that the number of drones in

each swarm attack will continue to

increase,

and it might continue to increase for a

long time. So, I wouldn't be surprised

to see drone attacks with

100,000 drones.

I I feel like that's coming, not too

long. Well, a bunch of uh Canadian

supermarkets got busted for covering up

the made in America, made in USA labels.

Daily Mail is reporting. So, Canada,

they they want their food,

but they don't want to they don't want

to act like it came from the US. They're

still mad at us. So, they've been

covering up. But the phenomenon of

covering up uh the US label with a

Canadian label is called maple washing.

which is a pretty good name. We

maplewashed it.

There's a according to Newsmax, David

Kaplan's writing that there's a

watchdog, so-called watchdog, nonprofit

watchdog that's uh going after the Soros

Foundation.

Um, so the chair of the National Legal

and Policy Center, it's a nonprofit

Washington, sent a uh strongly worded

letter

to the Open Society, that's Soros's

organization, asking them to cease and

desist their funding of various

organizations that the Watchdog thinks

are dangerous.

um and stopped funding events that quote

have been marked by persistent and

dominant messaging that uh Trump and his

supporters are Nazis, fascists,

authoritarians, white supremacists and

worse. So the idea is if you know the

gathering is going to say that kind of

stuff which is seems like inciting

violence to me uh then he wants Soros to

stop funding them. Well, as you know,

uh, the Trump administration plans to

look into RICO of the Soros

organization. So,

finally, after years of people like me

complaining, why don't you go after the

money and at least understand where it's

going and how it's being used? And it

looks like that might be happening.

All right. You want a little bit a

little bit extra

uh shodden. Did you Did you get a good

dose yet? That that uh creepy feeling of

feeling good because somebody else is

having a bad time. Ideally, somebody

that's, you know, evil. That would be

better. Well, here's another one. You

ready? This is my favorite one of the

day. uh you know Zoran Mdani he's

running for mayor of New York and he's

the communistsocialist

and he was endorsed by the governor of

New York Hokll Kathy Hokll so that's a

pretty good endorsement right you get

you got the governor in the state that

you're the biggest state that is one

heck of a good endorsement

so uh what do you think did Zoro Mom DM

me return the favor and endorse Kathy

Hokll?

Nope.

So Kathy Hokll goes out on a limb which

is probably expensive in terms of her

her credibility, endorses this guy

Saurin, and he does not endorse her

back.

Ouch.

All right, admit it. How much do you

love that? You love it.

You love it a little bit.

That was my best laugh of the day.

So,

here's what I think about how

Republicans and Democrats see each

other. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is

my take. That Democrats look at

Republicans and they believe they're

looking at monsters.

you know, the Hitlers and fascists and

but but they think they're looking at

monsters, right? Would you agree? So

far, that's what the Hitlerian bubble

is. They believe they're looking at

monsters. They're just ordinary

conservatives. But Republicans, when

Republicans look at Democrats, correct

me if I'm wrong, we look at them like

clowns

and we look for what's funny about it.

Because, you know, I just covered all

the news today and did you notice that

how many of the things were funny about

Democrats?

Do I think that Stephen King is a Hitler

monster? No. No. But he's a clown.

Do I think that um Zoran is a monster?

Well, no. I you know, I think his

policies would be unproductive.

But when I see him not endorse the

governor that endorsed him, it feels

like a clown show, doesn't it? And it's

pretty funny. Well, I don't hate the

governor. I don't hate the governor. I

don't want anything bad to happen to

her. I don't want anything bad to happen

to Zoran mommy. I just like the clown

show.

All right.

So, that's one of the uh most powerful

reframes you'll hear because once the

the Democrats realize that they see us

as monsters because they're in the

bubble and we say them as clowns because

we can see them in the bubble and it all

looks weird and and uh and crazy and

funny.

Well, how many times have I told you

that there's a new breakthrough coming

out of uh China or North Korea or not

North but or South Korea about

batteries.

There's literally one of these stories

every day. Well, here's another one. Um

there's a big breakthrough in sodium

batteries where you can get a full

charge in just six minutes. Now, I don't

know for sure, but it seems to me that

if the only change you're making is

sodium and some component of the

battery, otherwise I think it's the same

battery. I think um that looks like

something you might be able to

implement, you know, once they've tested

it and stuff. But if you can get down to

a six minute charge,

well, I don't know. How long does it

take to put gas in your gas tank? About

the same, right? So, that would be

pretty awesome. All right, ladies and

gentlemen,

that's all I had for you today. I'll

remind you that I'll be on Tucker

Carlson's show tonight. Um, he's got a

rare rare as in he's never done it

before. Um, a rare internet only live

show. So, he'll have a monologue and

he'll have a couple guests. Megan Kelly

will be on before I'm on. So, if you

turn it on and you see Megan, stay tuned

because I'll be after that. All right.

And uh

locals, I'll be talking to you privately

in a moment. The rest of you, thanks for

joining. Um I always appreciate it even

if I forget to say it. And I hope you

come back tomorrow. Let's do this again.

Locals, I'll come at you privately in 30

seconds.