Episode 2961 CWSA 09/17/25

Hey everybody, come on in and grab a seat.

You know you need a beverage.

You'll need it.

Come on in.

I'll get your uh comments on point here.

Comments.

Come on, comments.

There's way too much of a delay.

All right, there we go.

30 seconds is too much of a delay.

Are you ready?

Are you ready for this?

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 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 mug or a glass attacker, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip and it's going to happen right now.

Go.

Oh, so good.

Well, there's a lot happening.

You want to hear about it?

Number one, uh Elon Musk posted on X that he believes that uh Grock AI will be reaching AGI soon.

I don't know what soon means, but apparently the latest version of Grock is so far beyond the other AIS that uh the unimaginable might be in within reach.

Now, remember, I've been a skeptic about this thing called AGI, and I don't believe that the technology that we're using for AI collectively.

I don't believe it's going to get us to artificial general intelligence because it doesn't seem logical that it could.

That's a longer discussion.

But if Elon Musk says it's close, who am I to disagree with the person who knows a thousand times more than I do about this domain?

So, we'll see.

So, my my challenge still is if it's AGI, it should be perfectly suited for putting in a robot.

So, if you don't hear that they have an AI that can put it in a robot, it's not probably not there yet.

Not AGI.

Um, but even Elon said he never thought that before.

He never thought that we might be close to AGI.

So, he might have been thinking along the lines I'm thinking, which is maybe you can't get there from here.

Don't know.

Anyway, there's a wonder if there's a scientific What is that?

some some something non-standard and not good is happening right out my window.

All right.

Well, if it makes another noise, I might have to look.

But, uh, the UG, whoever they are, or University of Georgia, they did a study and they found that buying flowers is associated with better mental health.

Now, I don't think that they concluded that it's causation because they never do.

Uh, let me ask you this.

If you were to compare the people who have bought flowers in the last year and then you compared them to the people who bought no flowers in the past year, what could you say about the person who bought the flowers that probably is true?

Number one, they're probably in a relationship.

That's why you bought the flowers.

So, that would be better than not being in a relationship, probably.

Uh, number two, the people who bought flowers had enough money to pay their bills and still some leftover for the most ridiculous purchase you could ever make, flowers.

So, if you had extra money and you were probably in a relationship, how hard would it be to predict that that group would be have less mental problems?

I feel like they just had to ask me about this one.

I'm pretty sure I would have the right answer.

Well, there's some Tik Tok news that is so fog of war I almost wasn't going to talk about it because I don't think I don't think anything's happening.

You know, I believe uh Trump announced that they had, you know, something like a verbal agreement or something for Tik Tok, meaning that uh some US billionaire would buy it and uh you know, take it away from China.

But the things I'm hearing, and I would say you should believe none of these things yet.

So, one of the things we're hearing is that Andre Horowitz, that would be Mark Andre and Ben Horowitz, they uh they own a venture capital firm.

So, they have a lot of resources and it was rumored that they would be the ones who would take at least partial ownership of Tik Tok so that Americans would own maybe a controlling interest.

But I also heard and again remember this is fog of war.

So, I don't know that you can believe any of the Tik Tok reporting, but there was also a report that the way the agreement was reached is that China would still control the algorithm.

Do do you believe that?

Would we agree to use Tik Tok and let China completely control the algorithm of who sees what and how much?

Wouldn't that be wouldn't that be the opposite of the whole point of it all?

So that's why I don't I don't necessarily believe that is true.

So but it's possible because here I'm using my knowledge of Mark Andre.

There's zero chance that he would be involved in a deal that would be that stupid.

So either either uh that's not the deal uh or he's found some way with his partners to uh work around that in a way that he would be happy.

I don't know what that would be.

So I would say don't believe anything about Tik Tok yet.

Um, speaking of Elon Musk, he also noted on X that uh he was boosting somebody else's post who said that uh the left, the political left has no debate person like Charlie Kirk.

So there's nobody on the left doing what Charlie did, which is go to lots of places and say, "All right, ask me anything.

You know, debate me.

I'll do it right in public." But I'm not sure that's a criticism of the left.

That's more of a compliment to Charlie because it's not like there was some other there were no other Republicans doing it, were there?

Um, so I would say he was he was kind of a oneoff.

I wouldn't go I wouldn't go team play on this one, you know.

We'll watch.

Do you think that the uh the political right will find a way to replace that function?

Maybe, but I don't think it'll be as good.

So, we'll see.

Maybe a few people will try it just to see how it goes.

Well, would you like a little more shot in Freud?

That feeling you get when bad things happen to people you want them to happen to.

All right.

All right.

I got one.

According to Newsmax, a drag queen teacher.

Now, I assume that that means that the person is both a teacher and sometimes a drag queen.

I don't believe that it's a drag queen teacher, even though that's what it says.

Um, uh, ended up resigning because of some, uh, Charlie Kirk comments.

So, a Velv school district teacher in Idaho and uh what did that teacher say?

Posted about Charlie um Kirk who said quote another Nazi dead rotten piss Charlie Kirk.

Yeah, that should probably cost you your job.

You know, the the hate speech stuff.

Um, I think people are all all wound up and confused and pretzel logic and all that stuff, but uh there's no such thing as free speech that embarrasses your employer and and the employer can't do anything about it.

You know, the employer can fire you.

That's not that's not a violation of free speech.

That's a consequence.

Um, so how many of you saw my appearance on Tucker's live show yesterday, last night?

So Megan Kelly and Jake Uru is on and a uh religious person I'm not familiar with.

So let me tell you the uh the first thing that shocked me.

Tucker did not remember that he had interviewed me once.

Now, it was, you know, it was a digital interview, so it was uh over a video and he's done 10 million interviews, so there's no reason he would have remembered it.

But um would you like to hear what I said on that show that people respond responded to?

Say yes.

Anyway, here are some of the points I made.

So you all know what TDS is, Trump derangement syndrome.

But typically the best way to ref to use that word is referring to one person.

Oh, that person has TDS.

Now obviously more than one person could have TDS at the same time.

But if you get enough of them, uh, I call that a mass hysteria.

So individually it looks like they have TDS and that's probably a fair characterization but collectively it becomes much more powerful than the individuals because the individuals in a mass hysteria are reinforcing each other and coming up with new BS that the other the others believe and it just gets worse and worse.

So, I was pointing out that when I first started talking about politics um in the early well 2016ish 2015 that it was always true that dem that Republicans had been accused of being Hitler.

So, both of the Bushes, President Bush's uh Reagan was called Hitler.

However, it was very different back then, I believe, because I don't think that anybody meant that seriously or literally.

I believe that everybody on both sides understood it as political exaggeration.

Would you agree with that?

That it was never a good idea to call somebody Hiller, but nobody really took it to mean you should murder this person because they're like Hiller.

We took it as, you know, we want to vote for the other guy.

That that's all.

So, the thing that changed is that the media went from reporting the news to full-time propaganda 24 hours a day.

So that every time you turned on CNN or MSNBC, you saw one of their people well-dressed, a professional, somebody that normally you'd be able to trust, telling you that Trump was literally Hitler and literally a Nazi, and all this other stuff.

Now, the difference between um some protesters calling somebody Hiller, which nobody takes seriously, versus the well-dressed people in the media, saying it not just a few times, but over and over again.

All you need for brainwashing is credible people, you know, the well-dressed people on TV, and repetition.

There's nothing else you need.

That is 100% of brainwashing.

repetition and coming from people that you would mistake for credible because they look like they should be.

So we now have a mass hysteria which I think we all observe.

Um and I also pointed out that although uh I believe the violence comes from both directions, I don't think you know arguing about that doesn't make any sense.

But there but there is something that's unique about the Democrat side that they've created what I call a machine the you know the 24-hour news that's connected to the Democrats.

They act as one machine with one set of messaging.

The machine um largely guarantees violence.

That's different on the Republican side.

I don't think anybody's doing anything that you could say guarantees violence.

I mean, I haven't seen an example of it, but if you just keep it in that Hiller button over and over and over again, and you and you treat it like it's a literal, there's a 100% chance, 100% that there will be violence.

You know, maybe not right away, but if you keep doing it, in this case, you know, eight years or so, 10 years.

Wait, what did the rock say?

Uh, Scott is Oh, again.

Scott Presler.

Oh my god.

I saw The Rock insulting Scott.

I thought, "Oh, damn." I had recently tagged him in a post, but he was just saying something about Scott Presler.

So, I don't know what that's about.

Anyway, so what else I said?

Uh, so the Democrats have a machine that guarantees violence over time.

I don't think conservatives have that.

Uh, in other news, um, Dick Durban, Republican, he said, uh, this notion we're going to characterize MAGA as Nazis, for example, on the other side, uh, that the Republicans would characterize the Democrats as a party of murder or evil.

I think the only one who said that was Elon Musk, right?

The party of murder evil.

Now, do you believe those are equivalents?

One side is calling the other Nazis, but the real kind, you know, not not just the exaggeration kind, the real kind.

And the other side is saying that the Democrats are the party of murder and evil.

Which one of those two presentations and uh communication strategies would guarantee violence?

And which one probably wouldn't?

Well, I don't know anybody who would be motivated to kill somebody because anybody characterized their party as the party of murder and evil because you obviously understand that to be political exaggeration, right?

It's not like every Democrat is evil murderer.

Not Not everyone.

Um, just kidding.

the the Nazi thing is incitement.

Now, somebody tried to get technical with me and said, "Scott, it's technically not incitement.

If it's unless it's inciting somebody to do something right away, so you stupid idiot, you don't understand what even incitement means.

How can you be so dumb?" to which I say in a legal sense inciting violence usually means immediately you know like right now I'm inciting you to cross the street and do something violent I get that I understand that I'm using the word like a word is used if you're inciting somebody over eight years but the cumulative effect there's a 100% chance you've incited violence you're inciting violence I I don't want to listen to oh we're Technically, technically that's not what the law says.

Okay, maybe you wouldn't get arrested.

I'm not even arguing that.

I'm just saying that's what's happening.

All right.

Uh Trump did a true social saying uh, you know, he'd been threatening this, but looks like he's really going to do it.

He's going to do an executive orders banning mail-in ballots and voting machines.

And as his justification, besides the fact that he thinks they're easy to game, uh he says the reason that he can do an executive order and make the states change how they're doing it when the states are in charge of how they do the elections.

Um apparently there's something in is it the constitution or is it the law?

But whatever it is, the current situation is that the states are called agents for the federal government when it comes to the election.

So, um I believe he's going to do the technique that I suggested.

Uh not because I suggested it, but you know, it was more like the obvious place to go.

So the states can in fact do the election any way they want because they have that right.

But they're also uh agents for the federal government who needs to take all the numbers and count them up.

And I suggested that the federal government could say we won't accept your votes um California because you did not follow the executive order.

We told you what would be acceptable and you used your rights to do something else.

So that's fine that you counted up all the votes the way you wanted to, but we're not going to accept them and they won't be they won't be part of the total.

I feel like that would pass uh the Supreme Court.

Now, keep in mind I don't know anything about the laws, the Supreme Court or the Constitution, but but I do have a podcast and I did drink coffee.

So, I feel like if you have a podcast and you had some coffee that uh that qualifies you to talk about the Constitution anyway, it's worth a shot.

Um, you remember uh Fonnie Willis, the the prosecutor who was law prosecutor or state attorney general, prosecutor, I think the prosecutor who was going after Trump uh and she had that boyfriend and whatnot.

So, she had been taken off the case so that she could be the one to follow up on that.

Uh but she took it to the Georgia Supreme Court to get her back on the case so she could go chasing after Trump again.

And the Georgia Supreme Court said, "Nope, you are done.

There there's nowhere else to appeal and you're off the case." So, according to Jeff Clark, who seemed more than a little bit happy about it, and he should be, um, that bit of lawfare will be pushed back.

All right.

Um, I don't, maybe it happened already.

You can tell me.

But, uh, these smart people think the Fed is going to lower interest rates today.

Quarter of a point.

Oh, big deal.

Quarter of a point.

Um, the stock market is totally unimpressed and looks like it's going sideways or down a little bit.

So, that's happening.

Meanwhile, let's talk about uh Tyler Robinson and the whole Charlie Cork situation.

I'll give you some updates.

So, apparently the father who, as far as we know, has acted um more honorable in this situation than anybody has a right to expect.

Um, and I got to say, uh, my respect for the father is through the roof.

Um, because he put, oh, he put the country first.

He put the country ahead of, uh, even his own family.

That's hard to do.

Now, a reasonable person could say, you know, maybe his biggest priority should have been his kid.

Maybe.

but he was a he was a you know law enforcement guy for 27 years or something.

So that would be a hard impulse to turn off.

So one of the things he did reportedly is he turned down 1.5 million in reward money which apparently he would have been you know he would have been able to collect and he thinks that money should instead go to Charlie Kirk's family.

So again, that's about as honorable as you could possibly be.

Now, it probably I'll bet he doesn't even care about the the money because just his concerns and feelings would be so much bigger.

But uh yeah, that was that was the way to play it.

Exactly.

Good job.

According to Zero Hedge, the US is looking into a $5 billion rare earth investment in the US that would increase our ability to make our own rare earth.

Well, not make them, but mine.

Um there's not much to say about that except it feels good to know that the government is doing big stuff uh to address big problems and the rare earth supply is a big problem.

That's a big one because we don't want to be beholden to China longer than we have to.

And uh so good that that feels like the right direction.

All right.

How many of you saw the video clip of Cash Patel um talking over Adam Schiff?

So there was a uh I don't know what they call a hearing.

Was that it?

So he was appearing in front of uh Congress and Adam Schiff was questioning him.

Cash Patel and Cash Patel uh pulled out the best strategy I've ever seen for somebody who was getting uh pubbled by the questions.

Normally what the question people like to do is they assume that the guest, you know, the person who's been asked and they assume that that person will play fair and, you know, be quiet until it was their time to talk.

Then they start to answer a question and then they would get cut off.

Uh, Mr.

Smith, did you go down to the corner that night?

Well, yes.

I was about Next question, you know.

So, so they basically just try to make the person they invited there look like a a turd.

So, all they do is yell at them and and accuse them of things and they don't give them any chance to explain.

Mr.

Smith, is it true that you murdered a baby?

Well, no.

I But next question.

I I recover my time.

So, it's a completely corrupt process.

And yet, you have to go.

You know, if you don't go, it's worse.

So, what do you do when the process is all bad?

nothing good can come from it, especially for you as the person invited.

And there's no way to fix it.

Well, here's what Cash Patel did.

He He started yelling at Chef.

I'll say yelling, but he just raised his voice and insulting him personally while he tried to talk until the time was off, until he used up all his time.

So, here's what Cash was saying.

you are the biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States.

Now remember that while Cash is saying this, Adam Schiff keeps talking because he's trying to tried to get his jabs in.

But Cash talked over him so aggressively.

I didn't hear a word that Schiff said.

I didn't hear a word because Cash was so interesting and his, you know, his voice was carrying better.

So Cash says, "You're the biggest fraud ever sent in the United States Senate.

You are a disgrace to this institution." an utter coward.

I'm not surprised that you continue to lie from your perch and put on a show so you can go raise money for your sher charade.

I guess you are the political buffoon at best.

We have countlessly proven you'd be a liar in Russia gate in January 6.

You are the biggest fraud to ever said in the United States Senate.

You are a disgrace to this institution and an utter coward.

Now I I have only one response.

slow clap standing ovation.

I would go so far as to say the the Republicans should adopt that.

And when they get the the people that are just purely illegitimate, you know, Schiff is not trying to get answers.

We we all know that, right?

He's just trying to make a point.

He's wasting the head of the FBI's time.

He's wasting the government's time.

He's wasting the TV news time.

He's wasting the Congress's time.

and none of us could.

So, yes, cash.

If they invite you back, do it again.

Do it as many times as you need to until they just stop acting that way, if they ever do.

And other people should adopt that if they can do it as well.

You the the trick is you have to not stop and everything you say should be a deep insult to the person talking.

If you get both of those things, don't stop.

get really loud and just do personal insults and nothing else the whole time.

Perfect.

Now, I would obviously not suggest any of that if the process was meant to even produce information that was useful.

It's not meant to do that.

You know, Sally Schiff had an intention to do it, you know, legitimately.

He had no intention, obviously.

So, jokes's on him.

Uh we have learned PJ Media's U Matt Margolus is reporting on this that uh Biden's FBI targeted Charlie Kirk's turning point.

So apparently there was this uh what was it?

Project Frost or something?

Arctic Frost.

So the FBI was looking into wait for it 92 Republican targets.

So, what we know now is that the FBI was fully weaponized and it wasn't to just go after individuals.

92 Republican targets, including other Republican groups and Republican linked individuals, were placed under investigative scope of Arctic frost.

So, in other words, the implication here is that the real purpose of the FBI's Arctic Frost was to destroy the Republican party, not just take down some candidates, to destroy the Republican party.

And so when I say the Democrat party is, you know, is at risk of going extinct, just keep in mind that they almost destroyed the entire Republican party illegitimately.

They they didn't have any reason to be looking into 92 of them, but they I guess they found a reason, you know, just made one up.

That's what I assume happened.

So, um, so Grassly was describing it this way.

In other words, Ernie Frost wasn't just a case to politically investigate Trump.

On the surface, it looked like that's what it was.

Uh, Grassly declared it was the vehicle by which partisan FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors could achieve their partisan ends and improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus.

Wow.

Holy cow.

The the level of lawfare involved is just crazy.

All right.

I saw a comic Dave Smith commenting on Trump recently and he had a criticism which you've heard quite a bit which is that Trump quote only cares about himself.

Have you heard that one?

You know, there there's usually like a list of half a dozen things people always say about Trump, but one of them is he only cares about himself.

Now, I had to respond to that on X and say that uh it's the weakest criticism you could ever have.

There's no weaker criticism than to say somebody only cares about themselves because unless they're a certified psychopath, it's not even a thing there.

There's no such thing as somebody who doesn't care about other people unless they're like, you know, seriously, you know, mentally defective.

Um, but Trump is in his situation being so watched, you know, there's just total uh total visibility to what he does that if he doesn't do a good job for the public, there's no way that he can be happy and have the reputation he wants.

So, how in the world would Trump get away with only caring about himself and then presumably acting on that?

Like, we wouldn't notice, would we not notice if he stopped doing the work of the people when when Trump signs the executive order to uh change voting, get rid of the uh voting machines he wants and uh mail in ballots?

Is that because Trump is going to run for office again?

No.

almost nothing that Trump does affects him directly except to the degree that doing a good job as president, you know, improves his reputation and, you know, gives him more options and stuff, but I I feel like we should drop the mind readading.

Uh I'm looking in his mind and it look Oh, yep.

I can see that there's one and only one purpose and it has to do with just himself.

Well, what about all the other things he did today?

He had a packed schedule.

Do do you think that he went to the UK because because that was good for him personally?

Probably not.

And probably, you know, you might think it's just a pain in the ass.

So, no.

Um, the weakest the weakest attack on somebody is they only care about themselves.

It's just never it's it's not even a thing.

It's just not even a thing.

It's not even, you know.

Anyway, so by now most of you have seen the text of the text messages that Tyler Robinson, the shooter of Charlie Kirk, sent to his romantic partner who is trans.

And some people say, um, those messages look a little suspicious.

specifically.

They look like they were made in advance perhaps to uh to make it look like only the shooter knew that it was going to happen.

And let me let me read it to you and you tell me if this sounds like two young lovers, albeit trans and whatever whatever he was.

Um does this sound real?

Um, so he said to look under his keyboard and there was a note there that said he was guilty of the of the shooting.

And I guess he put that there in advance.

And the partner looks at the note and it says that he was a shooter.

And the partner writes, "What?" with lots of question marks.

You're joking, right?

And Robinson said, "I'm still okay, my love." Uh, no.

I am still okay, my love, but am stuck in Orum for a little while longer yet.

Shouldn't be long until I can come home.

But I got to grab my rifle still.

To be honest, I'd hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age.

I'm sorry to involve you.

Oh, so the first parts of the message are very clear indications that the partner didn't know about it.

Does that sound a little sus to you?

Do you believe there's any chance that the partner didn't know about it?

Cash Patel is looking into over 20 people who are suspiciously seemingly not confirmed but seemingly knew about the plot before it happened.

You know, probably people who were on message boards and stuff like that.

Now, the things they said were things like, "Oh, something big's happened September 10th." That sort of thing.

uh in regards to Charlie Kirk, you know, they they would uh use his name and then say, "Oh, something big's happened." So, if it's true that over 20 people who were not his lover knew about it, do you really think that the lover didn't know about it?

I don't know.

Here's another uh here's another tell.

He said, "I am still okay, my love." Don't teenagers say I'm I apostrophe am.

How many people would write I am still okay my love?

That that feels like a artificially constructed, you know, not normal wording.

And then the partner says, "You weren't the one who did it, right?" I am.

I'm sorry.

Uh the partner says, "I thought they caught the person." No.

And then he explains that that that was just some crazy old guy.

Uh you go and then the partner says why and Robin says why did I do it?

Yeah.

And Robinson said I had enough of his hatred.

Some hate can't be negotiated out.

And it goes on.

But his hatred can somebody explain to me any time that he hated something in a way that the public saw?

Have you noticed that uh the shooter and all of the Trump haters have one thing in common?

They can't name a particular problem.

Well, the the Charlie Kirk um haters, they can't name anything that he did that was objectionable.

They all think somebody else knows it and somebody else has the receipts.

They just don't.

So, I'm going to say um the messages between them look really suspect to me, but it's possible they're organic, but to me it looks like he's covering for his his lover.

As you'd expect, he would.

Uh let's see.

So, Trump is over in the UK today.

just just landed a little while ago and he's getting the second um like big fancy state visit and I guess that's rare or never happened before that the president would get two of those.

Um so they're treating him, you know, like a king, so to speak.

And uh I was wondering why do you go over there?

What are we supposed to know why he's over there?

Did he go for the sightseeing?

Like what what would be the point of hanging out with the royal family?

I don't know.

Why do you even do it?

And uh it looks like there might be some UK and US agreement, a $42 billion tech agreement, but we don't know the details or if that's even real.

But it would make sense that he was going to finalize some big deal.

Now, that would make sense.

So, we'll see if that's what's happening.

Uh, it makes me wonder if uh Trump could get arrested while he's there because my understanding is that they have sort of a somewhat restrictive free speech rules.

And I think it can include things you said before you were even in the country, right?

I don't know about that last part, but uh it would have been funny if Trump had asked them in writing to guarantee that he wouldn't be arrested for free speech.

What would they do?

Would they say, "Oh, no.

There's no risk.

You don't need that." And he could say, "Well, I'm not coming because it looks to me like I do need that based on the number of people you've arrested and the way I talk about stuff." Yeah.

I don't even think I can set foot in your country.

So, you're gonna have to give me a written pardon before I even go.

It's a bad idea, but it's funny to think about.

Well, uh Bam Bondi um Department of Justice.

So, uh so she's uh sort of stepped in it talking about hate speech.

So hate speech is just a subset of free speech and it's not illegal.

The the time it could border on illegal is if you use your hate speech to incite immediate violence.

So that you know it's always going to be a little gray area in that case.

But uh theoretically that would be bad.

So I don't know what's going on.

I don't know if Bondi is looking to change the law so there's some kind of hate speech that's more immediately punishable or did she misspeak?

I don't know what's going on.

A little bit confusing, but I'll I'll tell you that neither the conservatives nor the Democrats are going to still for an erosion of free speech.

So conservatives are pushing back.

A lot of people pushing back and that's okay.

According to Rasmusen Polling Company, uh 85% of the people they pled, Americans, expect more political violence after the Charlie Kirk assassination.

85% expect more violence.

Now, it doesn't seem to specify a time a time zone for that violence.

To which I say, isn't there always more violence in the future?

you know, maybe not as a rate comparing it to the past, but is there ever a future without violence?

So, I'm not sure how people, you know, what they were thinking when they answered that question.

What am I looking at?

Good data.

Oh, wow.

All right.

Um, and then there were a bunch of Brits who were protesting against Trump while he visits.

And one of those person on the street interviewers was asking the anti-Trumpers, um, you know, what is it that he said that would make him racist?

Now, the funniest one was there was a guy carrying a sign that said Trump is racist.

That's all it said, just Trump is racist or some version of that, but it was just racism.

And the interviewer says, "All right, can you give me an example of the racism?" Uh, well, uh, and then he actually said this, "Well, it's really more about sexism." And then the interviewer says, "Your sign literally says racism." Well, yeah, it was more about sexism.

So, that's cognitive dissonance.

That that is people realizing that they have no examples to back up their point.

Now, it's hard to come up with an example when you're, you know, protesting and come up with an exact quote or something.

But I would argue that if you can't do that, if you can't come up with an example anytime anybody asks, it's not real.

I mean, it's not real.

It's literally mass hysteria.

And to imagine that they have reasons and stuff like that.

No, they don't.

They don't have reasons.

They have been brainwashed by non-stop media brainwashing.

And they do not know how to support their own opinions.

That's how you know.

That's how you know it's brainwashing.

All right.

Um, so apparently the US sank uh three Venezuelan drug boats.

Um, I guess two were reported and had video, but Trump says there was a third one.

Um, so maybe there was a third one.

I don't know.

But three down.

Um, somebody said that if you keep taking out the boats, there's going to be a point where the let's say the harbor or wherever they're storing them is going to have an extra large amount of fentinel because they can't ship it.

So, they might just hold it in a holding place until they think that it's safer to ship it.

Which would mean if you knew where that holding place was and you dropped a bomb on it, you might get like, you know, 70% of the the fentinol because it's all just concentrated.

I saw somebody suggest that.

I don't know if that's a workable thing or not.

Well, two UK regions are going to try chemical castration for sex offenders according to the Express.

So that would be drugs that remove your sex drive.

Um now you might say to yourself that is so terrible that it would be cruel and unusual punishment.

However, I happen to be chemically castrated right now.

Most of you know that because I'm, you know, I'm treating a prostate cancer that metastasized.

Now, the good news is that the testosterone blockers that I'm taking really work well.

So, I've reversed all my symptoms and PSA dropped like a rock.

And at the moment, I'm feeling pretty good.

So, it works.

But the thing that you imagine when you think, "Oh my god, I I can't be castrated." And by they even call the drugs that, you know, castration drugs um because you think it would be so terrible.

Well, it would be terrible if you had not started a family and you know you wanted to or you wanted a girlfriend and you didn't have one or you had one.

It would be bad for a lot of reasons.

But if you were a sex offender, there would be part of you that would say, "God, what can I do to never have this problem again?" And I would tell you from my own experience, it's not as bad as you think.

Because once you don't have desires for sex, you don't miss it.

You just think of other things.

And it really, you know, it clears my mind quite a bit.

So, you imagine it would be the worst thing in the world for a man.

Probably not.

Probably not.

Um, Denmark is going to put a large investment in Greenland's infrastructure.

250 million.

Now, 250 million is a pretty big deal in Greenland because it's such a small population, but do you think that would have happened?

Excuse me.

Do you think uh Greenland would have invested all that money in uh or do you think Denmark would have invested that money if uh Trump had not been making noise about taking over Denmark?

Not a chance.

I don't think so.

So, I think that Trump gets a win on that.

Uh Ben and Jerry's co-founder, one of them, Jerry Greenfield, um he quit.

I didn't even know he was still working there, but he quit because the new corporate owners or the more recent corporate owners, Unilever, um disagreed with him about his messaging about Gaza.

So, even the Ben & Jerry guy got sort of semi self-cancled.

He wanted his freedom back and he didn't want to be limited to say what he wanted to say about Gaza.

So, that happened.

Here's a cool new technology um that Japan's working on.

Osmotic power plants.

You know, once you think you've heard every way to generate electricity.

Here's one.

Apparently, this has been known for a long time.

It's just hard to hard to make it practical.

Uh but they seem to be getting close.

Apparently, if you mix fresh water and salt water on uh opposite sides of some kind of barrier that something happens that as the waters try to I don't know equalize or something and it can turn a it can turn a turbine turbine and create electricity.

So, but it gets cooler than that.

Um if you had a salt um deselinization plant, so if you had a deselinization plant that was taking the salt out of the seawater, you would end up with tremendous amount of salt brine, which you wouldn't know what to do with it.

But apparently you can use the salt brine to really goose how much energy you get when you've got clean water on one side and salt brine on the other.

So, it might be that um desalinization plants might create their own energy.

How cool is that?

That you wouldn't need any extra energy because the the big problem with desalinization is that it takes too much energy.

So, it's not economical.

But what if the salt is the very thing that's powering it?

Boom.

Maybe.

Well, you remember uh Putin critic Nalli who uh dropped dead in jail and Putin said, "Yeah, he just he fell sick.

He just sort of fell over that day." Well, somehow some samples of his body were smuggled out and uh tested to see if it had any poison in it and surprise, it was full of poison.

So yeah, he just got poisoned and killed in jail.

It was exactly what it looked like.

Anyway, you're probably aware that some number of people are calling the Gaza situation a genocide.

Um I don't believe I've ever used that word for Gaza.

Have I?

Um if I did, it was in a very limited sense or talking about it or something because But let me give you my full opinion so you don't have to wonder.

Um, I don't like using the word genocide in that context because it's trying to win the debate by making somebody agree to your definition.

So, if you can browbe somebody into saying, "Okay, well, yeah, it's it's it's a genocide." You then you have taken away from them their ability to defend it.

Cuz who who defends a genocide, right?

That'd be crazy.

No, nobody wants to go on record.

Nobody wants to be quoted saying, "Well, it's a genocide, but I I kind of like it anyway." Right?

There's no quote you can put around genocide that makes you not look like the worst person in the world.

So, challenge accepted.

Here's my take.

And now you know why I've never said it out loud.

It's definitely a genocide, but it's one that they don't have a choice.

Because if they don't do a genocide, in this case, it doesn't mean killing every person.

It means putting pressure on the population, hard pressure, um to get them to move.

That's clearly what's happening.

They're they're clearly pressuring people to get them to leave.

So, I believe that that would hit the technical definition of a genocide.

But what is unique about this situation that unlike Germany being in a war, unlike Japan being in a war, unlike Vietnam being in a war, almost any other situation, if you stopped fighting, you might have a good chance for a real lasting peace.

But there's no chance of that in Gaza.

there there's 100% chance that if they don't totally depopulate Gaza and you know completely eliminate Hamas, there's a 100% chance that they will reconstitute and do another October 7th or better you know completely destroy Israel with whatever tools they have to do that.

So if you're Israel and you know that your only chance if if you can speak honestly, your only chance for the long run to have any kind of a stable situation is to do something that other people will call a genocide.

But uh I'm going to call it a genocide with a asterisk.

Meaning that there's not another choice.

meaning that if it were us, you would probably be um promoting the genocide because the alternative is a genocide against your side.

It's it's either genocide or genocide.

So that's the way I see it.

If the Hamas uh leaders reconstitute and got enough they got enough uh power, you don't think they would genocide Israel?

Of course they would.

It's their entire mission in life.

So, uh, I I'm going to try to avoid the word because I think it ruins the conversation.

The real conversation is what would happen if you didn't do what you're doing for Israel.

And the answer is they would have to take the risk, which would be, it's not even a risk, it's 100% that they'd come back someday.

So they really just have to remove them from, you know, any any possibility of threat.

Now, I will remind anybody who's new to my discussion of Israel, I do not support Israel.

Let me let me say as clearly as possible.

I don't support Israel.

It's not my country.

Not my country.

Um I support America.

Um I wish them well, but I wish everybody over there well.

I don't know how everybody's going to be well, but I wish.

And the the best I can do because I I feel like people make the mistake of entering a moral or ethical um frame when they talk about it.

So people will act like, "Oh, it's so terrible." Of course, it's terrible.

It's like beyond almost beyond imagination terrible.

Um, but there's nothing I'm going to do about it.

You know, Israel is pursuing its own self-interest, their national interest, and that's what everybody should be doing.

Every country does that.

It's not up to the other countries.

It's up to the country doing it.

So, the way to think of my approach to Israel is observation and prediction.

That's it.

Yeah.

I'm not I I don't approve of other people's actions and I don't disapprove of them.

But I might say, is that going to help you or hurt you in the long run?

And I'm not sure, but I know that they've tried living in peace somewhat.

Doesn't look like it's going to work.

So now they're trying something extreme.

Could I possibly give it a a moral approval?

Not my job.

I I don't make moral pronouncements about Israel.

Nope.

Or other countries in general.

But if they're pursuing their own best interest and they're doing a good job of it, what what am I supposed to do?

Tell them to ch to stop doing a good job of it?

As they see it.

Not as I see it, but as they see it.

Um, either you support it or you support Hamas.

No, that's stupid.

No, that that's just a dumb thing to say.

It's not It's very much not If you don't support Israel, you support Hamas.

You don't have to support anything.

You You cannot care.

That's a perfectly acceptable opinion.

Um, I wouldn't say that I don't care.

It's just that I don't want to have anything to do with a moral or ethical pronouncement.

That won't help anybody.

Nobody's going to be helped by that.

I will just observe and predict.

That's all that's all I'm going to do.

And of course, I love the Jewish people, so it's it's with love, but not my job to go deeper.

Um, no, Scott, about this.

you happen to be wrong.

Okay.

So, you know that your um cognitive dissonance just kicked in, right?

When you say, "Scott, you know you're wrong." You could have put the reason in there.

You might have said, "You're wrong because uh I think they can all live in peace." Now, I would disagree with that, but that would at least be a reason.

So, when you say, "Scott, in this I disagree." You don't have an opinion.

your your disagreement has no effect at all because you don't even have an opinion.

That's not an opinion.

If you ever if you ever stumble on an actual opinion, I'd be happy to react to it, right?

But you know the old, "Oh, I I love one side or I hate one side." No.

And by the way, in case in case this is your issue, if your issue is who pays for it, I'm with you on that.

I don't think we should pay for it.

Just in general.

All right, that's all I got.

You're due for a good take down, Beverly.

All right, everybody.

I'm going to speak privately to the people in locals, my beloved subscribers and locals, and the rest of you.

I hope you come back tomorrow.

Um, whoops.

So, uh, that's all for now.

I'll see you tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

Hey everybody, come on in and grab a

seat. You know you need a beverage.

You'll need it.

Come on in. I'll get your uh comments on

point here.

Comments. Come on, comments.

There's way too much of a delay.

All right, there we go.

30 seconds is too much of a delay.

[Music]

Are you ready? Are you ready for this?

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 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 mug or a glass

attacker, a canteen, jug or flask, a

vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee. and join

me now for the unparalleled pleasure of

the dopamine hit of the day. The thing

that makes everything better. It's

called the simultaneous sip and it's

going to happen right now.

Go.

Oh, so good. Well, there's a lot

happening. You want to hear about it?

Number one, uh Elon Musk posted on X

that he believes that uh Grock AI will

be reaching AGI soon. I don't know what

soon means, but apparently the latest

version of Grock is so far beyond the

other AIS that uh the unimaginable might

be in within reach. Now, remember, I've

been a skeptic about this thing called

AGI, and I don't believe that the

technology that we're using for AI

collectively. I don't believe it's going

to get us to artificial general

intelligence because it doesn't seem

logical that it could. That's a longer

discussion. But if Elon Musk says it's

close, who am I to disagree with the

person who knows a thousand times more

than I do about this domain?

So, we'll see. So, my my challenge still

is if it's AGI, it should be perfectly

suited for putting in a robot.

So, if you don't hear that they have an

AI that can put it in a robot, it's not

probably not there yet. Not AGI.

Um, but even Elon said he never thought

that before. He never thought that we

might be close to AGI. So, he might have

been thinking along the lines I'm

thinking, which is

maybe you can't get there from here.

Don't know. Anyway, there's a wonder if

there's a scientific

What is that?

some some something non-standard and not

good is happening right out my window.

All right. Well, if it makes another

noise, I might have to look.

But, uh, the UG, whoever they are, or

University of Georgia, they did a study

and they found that buying flowers is

associated with better mental health.

Now, I don't think that they concluded

that it's causation

because they never do. Uh, let me ask

you this. If you were to compare the

people who have bought flowers in the

last year and then you compared them to

the people who bought no flowers in the

past year, what could you say about the

person who bought the flowers that

probably is true? Number one, they're

probably in a relationship. That's why

you bought the flowers. So, that would

be better than not being in a

relationship, probably. Uh, number two,

the people who bought flowers had enough

money to pay their bills and still some

leftover for the most ridiculous

purchase you could ever make, flowers.

So, if you had extra money and you were

probably in a relationship,

how hard would it be to predict that

that group would be have less mental

problems?

I feel like they just had to ask me

about this one. I'm pretty sure I would

have the right answer.

Well, there's some Tik Tok news

that is so fog of war I almost wasn't

going to talk about it because I don't

think I don't think anything's

happening.

You know, I believe uh Trump announced

that they had, you know, something like

a verbal agreement or something for Tik

Tok, meaning that uh some US billionaire

would buy it and uh you know, take it

away from China. But the things I'm

hearing, and I would say you should

believe none of these things yet. So,

one of the things we're hearing is that

Andre Horowitz, that would be Mark Andre

and Ben Horowitz, they uh they own a

venture capital firm. So, they have a

lot of resources and it was rumored that

they would be the ones who would take at

least partial ownership of Tik Tok so

that Americans would own maybe a

controlling interest. But I also heard

and again remember this is fog of war.

So, I don't know that you can believe

any of the Tik Tok reporting, but there

was also a report that the way the

agreement was reached is that China

would still control the algorithm.

Do do you believe that? Would we agree

to use Tik Tok and let China completely

control the algorithm of who sees what

and how much?

Wouldn't that be wouldn't that be the

opposite of the whole point of it all?

So that's why I don't I don't

necessarily believe that is true. So but

it's possible

because here I'm using my knowledge of

Mark Andre.

There's zero chance that he would be

involved in a deal that would be that

stupid.

So either either uh that's not the deal

uh or he's found some way with his

partners to uh work around that in a way

that he would be happy. I don't know

what that would be. So I would say don't

believe anything about Tik Tok yet.

Um,

speaking of Elon Musk, he also noted on

X that uh he was boosting somebody

else's post who said that uh the left,

the political left has no debate person

like Charlie Kirk. So there's nobody on

the left doing what Charlie did, which

is go to lots of places and say, "All

right, ask me anything. You know, debate

me. I'll do it right in public." But I'm

not sure that's a criticism of the left.

That's more of a compliment to Charlie

because it's not like there was some

other there were no other Republicans

doing it, were there?

Um, so I would say he was he was kind of

a oneoff. I wouldn't go I wouldn't go

team play on this one, you know. We'll

watch. Do you think that the uh the

political right will find a way to

replace that function?

Maybe, but I don't think it'll be as

good. So, we'll see. Maybe a few people

will try it just to see how it goes.

Well, would you like a little more shot

in Freud? That feeling you get when bad

things happen to people you want them to

happen to. All right. All right. I got

one. According to Newsmax, a drag queen

teacher. Now, I assume that that means

that the person is both a teacher and

sometimes a drag queen. I don't believe

that it's a drag queen teacher, even

though that's what it says. Um,

uh, ended up resigning because of some,

uh, Charlie Kirk comments. So, a Velv

school district teacher in Idaho and uh

what did that teacher say? Posted about

Charlie um Kirk who said quote another

Nazi dead rotten piss Charlie Kirk.

Yeah, that should probably cost you your

job.

You know, the the hate speech stuff. Um,

I think people are all all wound up and

confused and pretzel logic and all that

stuff, but uh there's no such thing as

free speech

that embarrasses your employer and and

the employer can't do anything about it.

You know, the employer can fire you.

That's not that's not a violation of

free speech. That's a consequence.

Um,

so how many of you saw my appearance on

Tucker's live show yesterday, last

night? So Megan Kelly and Jake Uru is on

and a uh religious person I'm not

familiar with. So let me tell you the uh

the first thing that shocked me. Tucker

did not remember that he had interviewed

me once.

Now, it was, you know, it was a digital

interview, so it was uh over a video and

he's done 10 million interviews, so

there's no reason he would have

remembered it. But um would you like to

hear what I said on that show that

people respond responded to? Say yes.

Anyway, here are some of the points I

made.

So you all know what TDS is, Trump

derangement syndrome. But typically the

best way to ref to use that word is

referring to one person. Oh, that person

has TDS. Now obviously more than one

person could have TDS at the same time.

But if you get enough of them, uh, I

call that a mass hysteria.

So individually it looks like they have

TDS and that's probably a fair

characterization but collectively it

becomes much more powerful than the

individuals because the individuals in a

mass hysteria are reinforcing each other

and coming up with new BS that the other

the others believe and it just gets

worse and worse. So, I was pointing out

that when I first started talking about

politics

um in the early well 2016ish 2015

that it was always true that dem that

Republicans had been accused of being

Hitler. So, both of the Bushes,

President Bush's uh Reagan was called

Hitler. However, it was very different

back then, I believe, because I don't

think that anybody meant that seriously

or literally. I believe that everybody

on both sides understood it as political

exaggeration.

Would you agree with that? That it was

never a good idea to call somebody

Hiller, but nobody really took it to

mean you should murder this person

because they're like Hiller. We took it

as, you know, we want to vote for the

other guy. That that's all. So, the

thing that changed is that the media

went from reporting the news to

full-time propaganda 24 hours a day. So

that every time you turned on CNN or

MSNBC, you saw one of their people

well-dressed, a professional, somebody

that normally you'd be able to trust,

telling you that Trump was literally

Hitler

and literally a Nazi, and all this other

stuff. Now, the difference between

um some protesters calling somebody

Hiller, which nobody takes seriously,

versus the well-dressed people in the

media, saying it not just a few times,

but over and over again. All you need

for brainwashing is credible people, you

know, the well-dressed people on TV, and

repetition. There's nothing else you

need. That is 100% of brainwashing.

repetition

and coming from people that you would

mistake for credible because they look

like they should be.

So we now have a mass hysteria which I

think we all observe. Um and I also

pointed out that although uh I believe

the violence comes from both directions,

I don't think you know arguing about

that doesn't make any sense. But there

but there is something that's unique

about the Democrat side that they've

created what I call a machine the you

know the 24-hour news that's connected

to the Democrats. They act as one

machine with one set of messaging. The

machine

um largely guarantees violence.

That's different on the Republican side.

I don't think anybody's doing anything

that you could say guarantees violence.

I mean, I haven't seen an example of it,

but if you just keep it in that Hiller

button over and over and over again, and

you and you treat it like it's a

literal,

there's a 100% chance, 100%

that there will be violence. You know,

maybe not right away, but if you keep

doing it,

in this case, you know, eight years or

so, 10 years. Wait, what did the rock

say?

Uh,

Scott is Oh, again. Scott Presler. Oh my

god. I saw The Rock insulting Scott.

I thought, "Oh, damn."

I had recently tagged him in a post, but

he was just saying something about Scott

Presler. So, I don't know what that's

about. Anyway, so what else I said? Uh,

so the Democrats have a machine that

guarantees violence over time. I don't

think conservatives have that.

Uh, in other news,

um, Dick Durban, Republican, he said,

uh, this notion we're going to

characterize MAGA as Nazis, for example,

on the other side, uh, that the

Republicans would characterize the

Democrats as a party of murder or evil.

I think the only one who said that was

Elon Musk, right? The party of murder

evil. Now, do you believe those are

equivalents?

One side is calling the other Nazis, but

the real kind, you know, not not just

the exaggeration kind, the real kind.

And the other side is saying that the

Democrats are the party of murder and

evil. Which one of those two

presentations

and uh communication strategies would

guarantee violence? And which one

probably wouldn't?

Well,

I don't know anybody who would be

motivated to kill somebody because

anybody characterized their party as the

party of murder and evil because you

obviously understand that to be

political exaggeration, right? It's not

like every Democrat is evil murderer.

Not Not everyone. Um, just kidding.

the the Nazi thing is incitement. Now,

somebody tried to get technical with me

and said, "Scott, it's technically not

incitement. If it's unless it's inciting

somebody to do something right away, so

you stupid idiot, you don't understand

what even incitement means. How can you

be so dumb?" to which I say in a legal

sense

inciting violence usually means

immediately you know like right now I'm

inciting you to cross the street and do

something violent I get that I

understand that I'm using the word like

a word is used if you're inciting

somebody over eight years but the

cumulative effect there's a 100% chance

you've incited violence you're inciting

violence I I don't want to listen to oh

we're Technically, technically that's

not what the law says. Okay, maybe you

wouldn't get arrested. I'm not even

arguing that. I'm just saying that's

what's happening.

All right.

Uh Trump did a true social saying uh,

you know, he'd been threatening this,

but looks like he's really going to do

it. He's going to do an executive orders

banning mail-in ballots and voting

machines. And as his justification,

besides the fact that he thinks they're

easy to game, uh he says the reason that

he can do an executive order and make

the states change how they're doing it

when the states are in charge of how

they do the elections. Um apparently

there's something in is it the

constitution or is it the law? But

whatever it is, the current situation is

that the states are called agents for

the federal government when it comes to

the election. So, um I believe he's

going to do the technique that I

suggested. Uh not because I suggested

it, but you know, it was more like the

obvious place to go. So the states can

in fact do the election any way they

want because they have that right. But

they're also uh agents for the federal

government who needs to take all the

numbers and count them up. And I

suggested that the federal government

could say we won't accept your votes um

California because you did not follow

the executive order. We told you what

would be acceptable

and you used your rights to do something

else. So that's fine that you counted up

all the votes the way you wanted to, but

we're not going to accept them and they

won't be they won't be part of the

total.

I feel like that would pass uh the

Supreme Court. Now, keep in mind I don't

know anything about the laws, the

Supreme Court or the Constitution,

but but I do have a podcast and I did

drink coffee. So, I feel like if you

have a podcast and you had some coffee

that uh that qualifies you to talk about

the Constitution

anyway, it's worth a shot. Um, you

remember uh Fonnie Willis, the the

prosecutor who was law prosecutor or

state attorney general, prosecutor, I

think the prosecutor who was going after

Trump uh and she had that boyfriend and

whatnot. So, she had been taken off the

case so that she could be the one to

follow up on that. Uh but she took it to

the Georgia Supreme Court to get her

back on the case so she could go chasing

after Trump again. And the Georgia

Supreme Court said, "Nope, you are done.

There there's nowhere else to appeal and

you're off the case." So, according to

Jeff Clark, who seemed more than a

little bit happy about it, and he should

be, um, that bit of lawfare will be

pushed back.

All right. Um, I don't, maybe it

happened already. You can tell me. But,

uh, these smart people think the Fed is

going to lower interest rates today.

Quarter of a point. Oh, big deal.

Quarter of a point. Um, the stock market

is totally unimpressed and looks like

it's going sideways or down a little

bit.

So, that's happening. Meanwhile, let's

talk about uh Tyler Robinson and the

whole Charlie Cork situation. I'll give

you some updates. So, apparently the

father who, as far as we know, has acted

um more honorable in this situation

than anybody has a right to expect. Um,

and I got to say, uh, my respect for the

father is through the roof. Um, because

he put, oh, he put the country first. He

put the country ahead of, uh, even his

own family. That's hard to do. Now, a

reasonable person could say, you know,

maybe his biggest priority should have

been his kid. Maybe. but he was a he was

a you know law enforcement guy for 27

years or something. So that would be a

hard impulse to turn off. So one of the

things he did reportedly is he turned

down 1.5 million in reward money which

apparently he would have been you know

he would have been able to collect and

he thinks that money should instead go

to Charlie Kirk's family.

So again, that's about as honorable as

you could possibly be. Now, it probably

I'll bet he doesn't even care about the

the money because just his concerns and

feelings would be so much bigger. But uh

yeah, that was that was the way to play

it. Exactly. Good job. According

to Zero Hedge, the US is looking into a

$5 billion rare earth investment in the

US that would increase our ability to

make our own rare earth. Well, not make

them, but mine. Um there's not much to

say about that except it feels good to

know that the government is doing big

stuff uh to address big problems and the

rare earth supply is a big problem.

That's a big one because we don't want

to be beholden to China longer than we

have to. And uh so good that that feels

like the right direction. All right. How

many of you saw the video clip of Cash

Patel

um talking over Adam Schiff? So there

was a uh I don't know what they call a

hearing. Was that it? So he was

appearing in front of uh Congress

and Adam Schiff was questioning him.

Cash Patel and Cash Patel uh pulled out

the best strategy I've ever seen for

somebody who was getting uh pubbled by

the questions. Normally what the

question people like to do is they

assume that the guest, you know, the

person who's been asked and they assume

that that person will play fair and, you

know, be quiet until it was their time

to talk.

Then they start to answer a question and

then they would get cut off. Uh, Mr.

Smith, did you go down to the corner

that night? Well, yes. I was about Next

question, you know. So, so they

basically just try to make the person

they invited there look like a a turd.

So, all they do is yell at them and and

accuse them of things and they don't

give them any chance to explain. Mr.

Smith, is it true that you murdered a

baby? Well, no. I But next question. I I

recover my time.

So, it's a completely corrupt process.

And yet, you have to go. You know, if

you don't go, it's worse. So, what do

you do when the process is all bad?

nothing good can come from it,

especially for you as the person

invited. And there's no way to fix it.

Well, here's what Cash Patel did. He He

started yelling at Chef. I'll say

yelling, but he just raised his voice

and insulting him personally while he

tried to talk until the time was off,

until he used up all his time. So,

here's what Cash was saying. you are the

biggest fraud to ever sit in the United

States. Now remember that while Cash is

saying this, Adam Schiff keeps talking

because he's trying to tried to get his

jabs in. But Cash talked over him so

aggressively. I didn't hear a word that

Schiff said. I didn't hear a word

because Cash was so interesting and his,

you know, his voice was carrying better.

So Cash says, "You're the biggest fraud

ever sent in the United States Senate.

You are a disgrace to this institution."

an utter coward. I'm not surprised that

you continue to lie from your perch and

put on a show so you can go raise money

for your sher charade. I guess you are

the political buffoon at best. We have

countlessly proven you'd be a liar in

Russia gate in January 6. You are the

biggest fraud to ever said in the United

States Senate. You are a disgrace to

this institution and an utter coward.

Now

I I have only one response.

slow clap

standing ovation.

I would go so far

as to say the the Republicans should

adopt that. And when they get the the

people that are just purely

illegitimate, you know, Schiff is not

trying to get answers. We we all know

that, right? He's just trying to make a

point. He's wasting the head of the

FBI's time. He's wasting the

government's time. He's wasting the TV

news time. He's wasting the Congress's

time. and none of us could. So, yes,

cash. If they invite you back, do it

again. Do it as many times as you need

to until they just stop acting that way,

if they ever do. And other people should

adopt that if they can do it as well.

You the the trick is you have to not

stop and everything you say should be a

deep insult to the person talking.

If you get both of those things, don't

stop. get really loud and just do

personal insults and nothing else the

whole time. Perfect. Now, I would

obviously not suggest any of that if the

process was meant to even produce

information that was useful. It's not

meant to do that. You know, Sally Schiff

had an intention to do it, you know,

legitimately. He had no intention,

obviously.

So, jokes's on him.

Uh we have learned PJ Media's U Matt

Margolus is reporting on this that uh

Biden's

FBI targeted Charlie Kirk's turning

point. So apparently there was this uh

what was it? Project

Frost or something? Arctic Frost. So the

FBI was looking into wait for it 92

Republican targets.

So, what we know now is that the FBI was

fully weaponized and it wasn't to just

go after individuals.

92 Republican targets, including other

Republican groups and Republican linked

individuals, were placed under

investigative scope of Arctic frost. So,

in other words, the implication here is

that the real purpose of the FBI's

Arctic Frost was to destroy the

Republican party, not just take down

some candidates,

to destroy the Republican party.

And so when I say the Democrat party is,

you know, is at risk of going extinct,

just keep in mind

that they almost

destroyed the entire Republican party

illegitimately. They they didn't have

any reason to be looking into 92 of

them, but they I guess they found a

reason, you know, just made one up.

That's what I assume happened.

So, um, so Grassly

was describing it this way. In other

words, Ernie Frost wasn't just a case to

politically investigate Trump. On the

surface, it looked like that's what it

was. Uh, Grassly declared it was the

vehicle by which partisan FBI agents and

Department of Justice prosecutors could

achieve their partisan ends and

improperly investigate the entire

Republican political apparatus.

Wow.

Holy cow. The the level of lawfare

involved is just crazy.

All right. I saw a comic Dave Smith

commenting on Trump recently and he had

a criticism which you've heard quite a

bit which is that Trump quote only cares

about himself. Have you heard that one?

You know, there there's usually like a

list of half a dozen things people

always say about Trump, but one of them

is he only cares about himself.

Now, I had to respond to that on X and

say that uh it's the weakest criticism

you could ever have. There's no weaker

criticism than to say somebody only

cares about themselves because unless

they're a certified psychopath, it's not

even a thing there. There's no such

thing as somebody who doesn't care about

other people unless they're like, you

know, seriously, you know, mentally

defective. Um,

but Trump is in his situation being so

watched, you know, there's just total uh

total visibility to what he does that if

he doesn't do a good job for the public,

there's no way that he can be happy and

have the reputation he wants. So, how in

the world would Trump get away with only

caring about himself and then presumably

acting on that? Like, we wouldn't

notice,

would we not notice if he stopped doing

the work of the people when when Trump

signs the executive order to uh change

voting, get rid of the uh voting

machines he wants and uh mail in

ballots? Is that because Trump is going

to run for office again? No.

almost nothing that Trump does affects

him directly except to the degree that

doing a good job as president, you know,

improves his reputation and, you know,

gives him more options and stuff, but I

I feel like we should drop the mind

readading. Uh I'm looking in his mind

and it look Oh, yep. I can see that

there's one and only one purpose and it

has to do with just himself. Well, what

about all the other things he did today?

He had a packed schedule.

Do do you think that he went to the UK

because because that was good for him

personally?

Probably not. And probably, you know,

you might think it's just a pain in the

ass. So, no. Um, the weakest the weakest

attack on somebody is they only care

about themselves. It's just never it's

it's not even a thing. It's just not

even a thing. It's not even, you know.

Anyway,

so by now most of you have seen the text

of the text messages that Tyler

Robinson, the shooter of Charlie Kirk,

sent to his romantic partner who is

trans. And some people say, um, those

messages look a little suspicious.

specifically. They look like they were

made in advance perhaps to uh to make it

look like only the shooter knew that it

was going to happen. And let me let me

read it to you and you tell me if this

sounds like two young lovers, albeit

trans and whatever whatever he was. Um

does this sound real? Um, so he said to

look under his keyboard and there was a

note there that said he was guilty of

the of the shooting. And I guess he put

that there in advance. And the partner

looks at the note and it says that he

was a shooter. And the partner writes,

"What?" with lots of question marks.

You're joking, right? And Robinson said,

"I'm still okay, my love."

Uh, no. I am still okay, my love, but am

stuck in Orum for a little while longer

yet. Shouldn't be long until I can come

home. But I got to grab my rifle still.

To be honest, I'd hoped to keep this

secret till I died of old age. I'm sorry

to involve you. Oh, so the first parts

of the message are very clear

indications that the partner didn't know

about it. Does that sound a little sus

to you?

Do you believe there's any chance that

the partner didn't know about it?

Cash Patel is looking into over 20

people who are suspiciously

seemingly not confirmed but seemingly

knew about the plot before it happened.

You know, probably people who were on

message boards and stuff like that. Now,

the things they said were things like,

"Oh, something big's happened September

10th." That sort of thing. uh in regards

to Charlie Kirk, you know, they they

would uh use his name and then say, "Oh,

something big's happened." So, if it's

true that over 20 people who were not

his lover knew about it, do you really

think that the lover didn't know about

it?

I don't know. Here's another uh

here's another tell. He said, "I am

still okay, my love."

Don't teenagers say I'm I apostrophe am.

How many people would write I am still

okay my love?

That that feels like a artificially

constructed,

you know, not normal wording.

And then the partner says, "You weren't

the one who did it, right?" I am. I'm

sorry. Uh the partner says, "I thought

they caught the person." No. And then he

explains that that that was just some

crazy old guy. Uh you go and then the

partner says why and Robin says why did

I do it? Yeah. And Robinson said I had

enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be

negotiated out.

And it goes on. But his hatred

can somebody explain to me any time that

he hated something in a way that

the public saw?

Have you noticed that uh the shooter and

all of the Trump haters have one thing

in common?

They can't name a particular problem.

Well, the the Charlie Kirk um haters,

they can't name anything that he did

that was objectionable. They all think

somebody else knows it and somebody else

has the receipts. They just don't.

So, I'm going to say

um the messages between them look really

suspect to me, but it's possible

they're organic, but to me it looks like

he's covering for his his lover. As

you'd expect, he would.

Uh let's see.

So, Trump is over in the UK today. just

just landed a little while ago and he's

getting the second um like big fancy

state visit and I guess that's rare or

never happened before that the president

would get two of those. Um so they're

treating him, you know, like a king, so

to speak. And uh I was wondering why do

you go over there? What are we supposed

to know why he's over there? Did he go

for the

sightseeing? Like what what would be the

point of hanging out with the royal

family? I don't know. Why do you even do

it? And uh it looks like there might be

some UK and US agreement, a $42 billion

tech agreement, but we don't know the

details or if that's even real.

But it would make sense

that he was going to finalize some big

deal. Now, that would make sense. So,

we'll see if that's what's happening.

Uh, it makes me wonder if uh Trump could

get arrested while he's there because my

understanding is that they have sort of

a somewhat restrictive free speech

rules. And I think it can include things

you said before you were even in the

country, right?

I don't know about that last part, but

uh it would have been funny if Trump had

asked them in writing to guarantee that

he wouldn't be arrested for free speech.

What would they do? Would they say, "Oh,

no. There's no risk. You don't need

that." And he could say, "Well, I'm not

coming because it looks to me like I do

need that based on the number of people

you've arrested and the way I talk about

stuff." Yeah. I don't even think I can

set foot in your country. So, you're

gonna have to give me a written pardon

before I even go.

It's a bad idea, but it's funny to think

about. Well, uh Bam Bondi um Department

of Justice.

So, uh

so she's uh sort of stepped in it

talking about hate speech. So hate

speech is just a subset of free speech

and it's not illegal. The the time it

could border on illegal is if you use

your hate speech to incite immediate

violence.

So that you know it's always going to be

a little gray area in that case. But uh

theoretically that would be bad. So I

don't know what's going on. I don't know

if Bondi is looking to change the law so

there's some kind of hate speech that's

more immediately punishable

or did she misspeak? I don't know what's

going on. A little bit confusing, but

I'll I'll tell you that neither the

conservatives nor the Democrats are

going to still for an erosion of free

speech. So conservatives are pushing

back. A lot of people pushing back and

that's okay. According to Rasmusen

Polling Company, uh 85%

of the people they pled, Americans,

expect more political violence after the

Charlie Kirk assassination.

85% expect more violence. Now, it

doesn't seem to specify a time a time

zone for that violence. To which I say,

isn't there always more violence in the

future? you know, maybe not as a rate

comparing it to the past, but

is there ever a future without violence?

So, I'm not sure how people, you know,

what they were thinking when they

answered that question.

What am I looking at?

Good data. Oh, wow.

All right.

Um, and then there were a bunch of Brits

who were protesting against Trump while

he visits. And one of those person on

the street interviewers was asking the

anti-Trumpers,

um, you know, what is it that he said

that would make him racist? Now, the

funniest one was there was a guy

carrying a sign that said Trump is

racist.

That's all it said, just Trump is racist

or some version of that, but it was just

racism. And the interviewer says, "All

right, can you give me an example of the

racism?" Uh, well, uh, and then he

actually said this, "Well, it's really

more about sexism."

And then the interviewer says, "Your

sign literally says racism."

Well, yeah, it was more about sexism.

So, that's cognitive dissonance. That

that is people realizing that they have

no examples to back up their point. Now,

it's hard to come up with an example

when you're, you know, protesting and

come up with an exact quote or

something. But I would argue that if you

can't do that, if you can't come up with

an example anytime anybody asks, it's

not real. I mean, it's not real.

It's literally mass hysteria. And to

imagine that they have reasons and stuff

like that. No, they don't. They don't

have reasons. They have been brainwashed

by non-stop media brainwashing.

And they do not know how to support

their own opinions. That's how you know.

That's how you know it's brainwashing.

All right. Um,

so apparently the US sank uh three

Venezuelan drug boats. Um, I guess two

were reported and had video, but Trump

says there was a third one.

Um,

so maybe there was a third one. I don't

know. But three down.

Um, somebody said that if you keep

taking out the boats, there's going to

be a point where the let's say the

harbor or wherever they're storing them

is going to have an extra large amount

of fentinel because they can't ship it.

So, they might just hold it in a holding

place until they think that it's safer

to ship it. Which would mean if you knew

where that holding place was and you

dropped a bomb on it, you might get

like, you know, 70% of the the fentinol

because it's all just concentrated. I

saw somebody suggest that. I don't know

if that's a workable thing or not.

Well, two UK regions are going to try

chemical castration for sex offenders

according to the Express. So that would

be drugs that remove your sex drive.

Um now you might say to yourself that is

so terrible that it would be cruel and

unusual punishment.

However, I happen to be chemically

castrated right now.

Most of you know that because I'm, you

know, I'm treating a prostate cancer

that metastasized. Now, the good news is

that the testosterone blockers that I'm

taking really work well. So, I've

reversed all my symptoms and PSA dropped

like a rock. And at the moment, I'm

feeling pretty good. So, it works. But

the thing that you imagine when you

think, "Oh my god, I I can't be

castrated." And by they even call the

drugs that, you know, castration drugs

um

because you think it would be so

terrible. Well, it would be terrible if

you had not started a family and you

know you wanted to or you wanted a

girlfriend and you didn't have one or

you had one. It would be bad for a lot

of reasons. But if you were a sex

offender, there would be part of you

that would say, "God, what can I do to

never have this problem again?" And I

would tell you from my own experience,

it's not as bad as you think. Because

once you don't have desires for sex, you

don't miss it. You just think of other

things. And it really, you know, it

clears my mind quite a bit. So, you

imagine it would be the worst thing in

the world for a man.

Probably not. Probably not.

Um, Denmark is going to put a large

investment in Greenland's

infrastructure. 250 million. Now, 250

million is a pretty big deal in

Greenland because it's such a small

population, but do you think that would

have happened?

Excuse me. Do you think uh Greenland

would have invested all that money in uh

or do you think Denmark would have

invested that money if uh Trump had not

been making noise about taking over

Denmark? Not a chance. I don't think so.

So, I think that Trump gets a win on

that.

Uh Ben and Jerry's co-founder, one of

them, Jerry Greenfield,

um he quit. I didn't even know he was

still working there, but he quit because

the new corporate owners or the more

recent corporate owners, Unilever,

um disagreed with him about his

messaging about Gaza. So, even the Ben &

Jerry guy got sort of semi self-cancled.

He wanted his freedom back and he didn't

want to be limited to say what he wanted

to say about Gaza.

So,

that happened. Here's a cool new

technology um that Japan's working on.

Osmotic power plants. You know, once you

think you've heard every way to generate

electricity. Here's one. Apparently,

this has been known for a long time.

It's just hard to hard to make it

practical. Uh but they seem to be

getting close. Apparently, if you mix

fresh water and salt water on uh

opposite sides of some kind of barrier

that something happens that as the

waters try to I don't know equalize or

something

and it can turn a it can turn a turbine

turbine and create electricity.

So, but it gets cooler than that.

Um if you had a salt

um deselinization plant, so if you had a

deselinization plant that was taking the

salt out of the seawater, you would end

up with tremendous amount of salt brine,

which you wouldn't know what to do with

it. But apparently you can use the salt

brine to really goose how much energy

you get when you've got clean water on

one side and salt brine on the other.

So,

it might be that um desalinization

plants

might create their own energy.

How cool is that? That you wouldn't need

any extra energy because the the big

problem with desalinization is that it

takes too much energy. So, it's not

economical.

But what if the salt is the very thing

that's powering it? Boom.

Maybe. Well, you remember uh Putin

critic Nalli

who uh dropped dead in jail and Putin

said, "Yeah, he just he fell sick. He

just sort of fell over that day." Well,

somehow some samples of his body were

smuggled out and uh tested to see if it

had any poison in it and surprise, it

was full of poison. So yeah, he just got

poisoned and killed in jail. It was

exactly what it looked like.

Anyway,

you're probably aware that some number

of people are calling the Gaza situation

a genocide.

Um I don't believe I've ever used that

word for Gaza. Have I? Um if I did, it

was in a very limited sense or talking

about it or something because But let me

give you my full opinion so you don't

have to wonder.

Um,

I don't like using the word genocide in

that context because it's trying to win

the debate by making somebody agree to

your definition. So, if you can browbe

somebody into saying, "Okay, well, yeah,

it's it's it's a genocide."

You then you have taken away from them

their ability to defend it. Cuz who who

defends a genocide, right? That'd be

crazy. No, nobody wants to go on record.

Nobody wants to be quoted saying, "Well,

it's a genocide, but I I kind of like it

anyway." Right? There's no quote you can

put around genocide that makes you not

look like the worst person in the world.

So,

challenge accepted.

Here's my take. And now you know why

I've never said it out loud.

It's definitely a genocide,

but it's one that they don't have a

choice. Because if they don't do a

genocide, in this case, it doesn't mean

killing every person. It means putting

pressure on the population, hard

pressure, um to get them to move. That's

clearly what's happening. They're

they're clearly pressuring people to get

them to leave. So, I believe that that

would hit the technical definition of a

genocide. But what is unique about this

situation

that unlike Germany being in a war,

unlike Japan being in a war, unlike

Vietnam being in a war, almost any other

situation, if you stopped fighting, you

might have a good chance for a real

lasting peace. But there's no chance of

that in Gaza. there there's 100% chance

that if they don't totally depopulate

Gaza and you know completely eliminate

Hamas, there's a 100% chance that they

will reconstitute and do another October

7th or better you know completely

destroy Israel with whatever tools they

have to do that. So if you're Israel and

you know that your only chance if if you

can speak honestly, your only chance for

the long run to have any kind of a

stable situation is to do something that

other people will call a genocide. But

uh I'm going to call it a genocide with

a asterisk. Meaning that there's not

another choice.

meaning that if it were us, you would

probably be um promoting the genocide

because the alternative is a genocide

against your side. It's it's either

genocide or genocide. So that's the way

I see it. If the Hamas

uh leaders reconstitute and got enough

they got enough uh power, you don't

think they would genocide Israel? Of

course they would. It's their entire

mission in life. So,

uh, I I'm going to try to avoid the word

because I think it ruins the

conversation.

The real conversation is what would

happen if you didn't do what you're

doing for Israel.

And the answer is they would have to

take the risk, which would be, it's not

even a risk, it's 100% that they'd come

back someday.

So they really just have to remove them

from, you know, any any possibility of

threat. Now, I will remind anybody who's

new to my discussion of Israel, I do not

support Israel. Let me let me say as

clearly as possible. I don't support

Israel. It's not my country.

Not my country. Um I support America. Um

I wish them well, but I wish everybody

over there well. I don't know how

everybody's going to be well, but I

wish.

And

the the best I can do because I I feel

like people make the mistake of entering

a moral or ethical um frame when they

talk about it. So people will act like,

"Oh, it's so terrible." Of course, it's

terrible. It's like beyond almost beyond

imagination terrible.

Um,

but there's nothing I'm going to do

about it. You know, Israel is pursuing

its own self-interest, their national

interest, and that's what everybody

should be doing. Every country does

that. It's not up to the other

countries. It's up to the country doing

it. So,

the way to think of my approach to

Israel is observation and prediction.

That's it. Yeah. I'm not I I don't

approve of other people's actions and I

don't disapprove of them. But I might

say, is that going to help you or hurt

you in the long run?

And I'm not sure, but I know that

they've tried living in peace somewhat.

Doesn't look like it's going to work. So

now they're trying something extreme.

Could I possibly give it a a moral

approval? Not my job. I I don't make

moral pronouncements about Israel.

Nope. Or other countries in general. But

if they're pursuing their own best

interest and they're doing a good job of

it,

what what am I supposed to do? Tell them

to ch to stop doing a good job of it? As

they see it. Not as I see it, but as

they see it.

Um,

either you support it or you support

Hamas. No, that's stupid. No, that

that's just a dumb thing to say.

It's not It's very much not If you don't

support Israel, you support Hamas. You

don't have to support anything.

You You cannot care. That's a perfectly

acceptable opinion. Um, I wouldn't say

that I don't care. It's just that I

don't want to have anything to do with a

moral or ethical pronouncement. That

won't help anybody. Nobody's going to be

helped by that. I will just observe and

predict. That's all that's all I'm going

to do.

And of course, I love the Jewish people,

so it's it's with love, but not my job

to go deeper.

Um,

no, Scott, about this. you happen to be

wrong. Okay. So, you know that your um

cognitive dissonance just kicked in,

right? When you say, "Scott, you know

you're wrong."

You could have put the reason in there.

You might have said, "You're wrong

because

uh I think they can all live in peace."

Now, I would disagree with that, but

that would at least be a reason. So,

when you say, "Scott, in this I

disagree." You don't have an opinion.

your your disagreement has no effect at

all because you don't even have an

opinion. That's not an opinion.

If you ever if you ever stumble on an

actual opinion, I'd be happy to react to

it, right? But you know the old, "Oh, I

I love one side or I hate one side." No.

And by the way, in case in case this is

your issue, if your issue is who pays

for it,

I'm with you on that. I don't think we

should pay for it.

Just in general.

All right, that's all I got.

You're due for a good take down,

Beverly. All right, everybody. I'm going

to speak privately to the people in

locals, my beloved subscribers and

locals, and the rest of you. I hope you

come back tomorrow.

Um, whoops.

So, uh, that's all for now. I'll see you

tomorrow. Same time, same place.