Episode 2972 CWSA 09/28/25

Oh, there you are.

Come on in.

It's almost time for the show.

I'm just getting ready.

Hey, there we are.

>> Good morning.

>> Oh, shut up, Scott.

>> Everybody ready for a ride?

Let's see.

>> That was the morning show.

The pre-show.

You don't get that.

H I've adjusted my camera warmth.

Should be perfect this morning.

Perfect.

Do you like it when I put my cartoon on the back?

All right, let me do that.

Makes it look more official.

There we go.

There we go.

Whoa, that didn't work.

Hold on.

Apparently, when you knock your papers, it knocks your camera right off of your computer.

So, now I know not to do that so vigorously.

Don't be so vigorous when you pound your papers.

You know, I I don't for the life of me, I don't understand why the the camera thing that's supposed to attach to your screen has the tiniest tiniest little edge to catch the edge.

Of course, it's going to Sorry.

Of course, it's going to fall off.

It's designed so it should fall off with the slightest movement.

God.

Let's try this again.

Ah, better.

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization and skull coffee with Scott Adams.

You've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker shells in a canteen jug flask vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

It's called Hold on, hold on.

I'm getting some kind of ASP message.

Something from I believe Canada.

Winnipeg.

Winnipeg.

Is there somebody in Winnipeg who has a birthday today?

Ellie.

Ellie, are you 12 years old today in Winnipeg?

I'm I'm getting some kind of weird ESP message.

Well, happy birthday, Ellie.

This one's to you.

That's just in case you were not aware that my show is mostly magic.

It's mostly magic.

Well, did you know there's a study according to Mass General Bighgam that cocoa cocoa supplements um have surprising anti-aging potential.

So, if you eat cocoa, your inflammation markers will drop and you'll be happy.

And if you're smart enough to combine your cocoa with your coffee, you can live forever.

I think that's what science says.

You will live forever.

All right.

Um, science.

Well, I wonder if there's any science that they didn't need to do.

They could have just asked me.

Oh, in Scypost, Eric Nolan.

You you must recognize his name by now.

I wonder if he knows that.

Um, I talk about him almost every other show.

Eric Nolan is writing, "The scientists have discovered what they call a surprising link between your gut and your brain." So, if your gut is right, it makes you less depressed and more happy and stuff.

Now, who could tell you that the state of your gut would influence how you feel mentally?

Well, they could have just asked Scott because I've been saying this.

Oh, twice a week in public for years.

Your body is your brain.

Your body is your brain.

They're not different.

To to imagine that, hey, the gut is influencing the brain.

No, it's not.

No, the gut is not influencing the brain.

The gut is part of your brain.

It just is distributed.

Right?

So once you realize that, everything makes sense.

Your body is your brain.

Well, the movie studio Lion's Gate, you know, one of the big ones, um, looks like they've decided that they can't use AI to make a featurelength movie after all, according to an article in Futurism.

So, I guess they've been trying for a year, and they were working with the AI startup Runway.

And you probably have seen all kinds of examples of a 10-second or a 30-se secondond clip where it looks like they made a movie like thing and you said to yourself, "Hey, if they can make a 30-second perfect movie, well, all they have to do is just keep doing that until you've added enough 30 seconds together to hey, got a 2-hour movie." But it turns out that nobody's been able to do that.

the technology just sort of doesn't look like it will.

Honestly, it doesn't look like it'll ever be there.

So, maybe it will, you know, you hate to uh bet against technology, but uh maybe.

So, but they have problems with copyrights and all kinds of things.

And then they're trying to they're trying to overlay the AI on top of the regular human jobs that they already are associated with.

Can you imagine all the people who knew that if the AI made a proper movie that they and all their friends that work with them would lose their jobs.

How hard are they going to work to make sure that the AI can make a good movie?

It seems to me that all the people who have a job that would lose their job if AI could make a movie are not the ones who should be implementing it.

But I'll bet they were because, you know, big organization, you know, you don't fire everybody to do the new thing.

You see, if you can get the people that you have working there to implement the new thing.

How excited do you think they were about doing that?

And how capable were they to implement AI?

Not excited, not capable.

So, not too surprised that after one year they might give up on that.

Well, do you know how I keep telling you that I don't really believe there's a tick tock deal?

Uh, even though it's announced, even though we've heard details, I'm not so sure there's really a tick tock deal because China, you've heard of China?

Well, now uh CNBC Dylan Buts uh is writing that uh Beijing has been what he says is conspicuously quiet about the Tik Tok deal.

In other words, we don't have confirmation from China really that there's a deal now.

Do you think that China would just decide to be quiet about it?

Does that make sense to you?

Or is it more likely that they're going to yank that football away from Trump yet again um when he after he's announced the deal so that he looks weak and pathetic and it looks like he doesn't know what he's doing.

I don't know.

Um maybe the deal will happen, but at the moment I'd say it's a coin and flip.

It's probably a 50/50.

So don't get too excited about a tick tock deal.

may or may not happen.

According to interesting engineering, uh, China has created quite a few robots in the last year.

Now, mostly these would be factory robots, you know, the big one arm robot, not not a humanoid robot, but guess how many robots China has built and implemented in one year.

Um, before you guess how many China has done, I'll tell you how many the United States has done.

So, these are just factory robots, again, just the the big one arm thing usually.

Um, so American factories have installed 34,000 of these robots in the past year.

Now, that's impressive.

34,000 robots implemented.

Yeah, they're actually in action right now.

Uh, let's see how China did.

300,000 Oh well, suddenly that 34,000 doesn't sound so big.

I feel like China has a bigger problem than we do because doesn't that mean that 300,000 people don't have a job?

That's kind of what that means, right?

you know, at least I it's not one to one, but I don't know how China survives because they have to go robotic to be competitive, but where does everybody going to work?

Well, well, they'll figure it out.

Well, Google's deep mind, the uh the meta chief Yan Lacon, he thinks that uh AGI, the the really super general uh intelligence version, which would be way different than the current AI, it would be the good one where it can actually think and it doesn't hallucinate and all that stuff, thinks that might be 5 to 10 years away.

Now, those of you who have spent even 1 minute in the real world, what does it really mean when somebody says something might be 5 to 10 years away, what what's what's the way to interpret that?

Well, let me tell you.

Let's take a page end of the uh fusion, nuclear fusion.

How long has nuclear fusion been 5 to 10 years away?

30 or 50 years, maybe 50 years.

It's been five years away now.

It might actually be five years away now because they've actually green lit some fusion plants.

But if you look at the total history of how long they've been saying it's 5 years away, it's about 50 years, right?

Some saying in the comments, some say 60 years, something like that.

So when when Meta says and this is somebody who is in the middle of it so he would know when they say 5 to 10 years I hear we don't know how to do it and nobody has any idea when we'll figure out how to do it.

It's one thing if it's just an engineering problem or or they just have to train it more.

But that's not anything that has to do with, you know, what's holding up AGI.

Um, they just don't know how to do it like at all.

Nobody knows how to do it.

So, why would you even be able to guess that you'd be able to do a thing that you don't know how to do and you don't even know the path to get there?

How could you predict it would be 5 to 10 years?

On what basis would you predict that?

Yeah.

It it'd be like saying we're gonna have an anti-gravity car in five to 10 years.

No, we don't have any idea how to do it.

No, nobody has any idea how to do it.

But 5 to 10 years cuz they're working on it really hard.

Yeah, that's what it sounds like.

Meanwhile, in other AI news, Elon Musk's uh AI, the X AI, is accusing Open AI, their big competitor, of stealing trade secrets by hiring away their staff.

Now, if you were one of these real high-end AI experts, wouldn't you take a job and then then make sure you got poached away for way more money?

It feels like nobody should take a job and then just keep it because they're all being poached, you know, all the good ones.

So, no matter what salary you negotiated or compensation, you should go there.

You should work one year until you know all their secrets and then you should let yourself get poached because you're probably talking about a hundred million dollars.

You know, who in the world is gonna say, "Oh, I think I'll use my corporate loyalty instead of taking a hundred million dollars." Well, let me give you some advice that I've given many people, young people usually, when they're trying to figure out, ah, I wonder if I should quit my current job.

I've got this great offer, but I feel like, you know, I told my current employer that I would stay here and not be a job hopper, so I don't know.

I think I can't take that promotion and raise it at that other company.

And then they said to me, "But that's the that's the right decision, right?

Because I want to be a good person, you know?

I want to be I want to be true to my word.

If I said I would stay here for a few years, I don't want to leave for money." And I look at them and say, "You don't owe them a thing.

Do you think they wouldn't fire you in a heartbeat if they had any good reason, as in it would make more money if they fire you?" Of course they would.

You owe them nothing.

If it's good for you to quit that job and take another job, you should quit that job and take another job every time.

There there's no ambiguity there.

You are for you are working for you.

You're not working for your boss.

You're working for your next job.

You know, I I put that in one of my books that your job is not your job.

Your job is to get a better job.

The moment you think your job is your job, you're trapped.

As soon as you go, "Oh, this is a stepping stone, and I'm going to step as fast as I can step.

Just as fast as I can." So that's the advice I give to people.

It's good advice.

All right.

Um Sam Molman in an interview recently said he thinks that uh just because AI will become incredibly intelligent and have all these abilities.

Um he says it will not become the center of the human story.

Now what he means by that he said quote we're wired to care about people not machines.

Now, I saw a quote from Naval the other day.

This seemed to me, I think, I'm not sure.

I can't read either of their minds, but I think is in the same direction, which is to say that we will care about art that comes from people, but we won't really care about what AI does.

AI will just be a tool.

So people will always be the thing that absolutely lights us up, gives us our oxytocin, our dopamine, gives us all our meaning in life.

Uh it's the only thing we're interested in mostly because it's an extension of our mating impulse.

Um and I think the AI is exciting because it's new, but eventually will sink into the background of our experience as just a tool.

And it sounds like that's pretty close to what Sam Alman saying.

And I I would uh I mean it's just a prediction.

You don't know for sure, but I think that prediction is right on.

I think he's he's got that.

Well, a Danish airport, according to AFP, is uh closed again because they got a suspicious new drone sighting.

And apparently they're going to close their entire airspace from Monday to Friday next week because they they're hosting some European summits and they don't have control of their own airspace.

Do you know how embarrassing that would be as a nation?

It's as embarrassing as all those drones that were over New Jersey.

Um why don't you go up and take a look and see what they are?

What?

You can't do that.

We we don't have any way to just go look at them.

Well, how about shooting one down?

Shoot one down.

You know, they're drones.

There's nobody in it.

And you know, if they're not if they're somehow, I don't know, they don't have transponders or they're not acting totally legally and we don't know what they are, shoot one down.

We'll find out what it is.

Nope.

Can't do that.

Well, uh, is there anything we can do?

Nope.

we just wait and they just fly around our restricted airspace and that's where Denmark's at.

Nope.

They they apparently don't have anything like a air defense.

Now, what uh who do you think would do this?

On one hand, I feel like it could be, you know, just some private drone operators with unusually large drones because I doubt these are the small ones, right?

I assume that these are pretty sizable drones.

They're not, you know, not the ones you hold in your hand.

I'm guessing I haven't heard either way, but uh it could be something domestic where somebody's just playing with the government.

Could be Russian.

But do you think Russia has enough upside benefit for doing that?

What would exactly be the play?

What what would Putin be trying to do?

Just sewing I don't know, sewing doubt about their ability to defend themselves if World War II breaks out.

Would that be it?

No.

You think it's a false flag maybe to generate um an excuse for war?

That's not a bad idea.

That's not bad.

May maybe it's somebody who's, you know, at least on paper is on our side just trying to make sure that we really know we got to take care of this Putin problem.

Maybe it's not a terrible uh hypothesis, but it feels like all of the hypotheses are sort of in the category of well, maybe, but that doesn't feel like a good plot.

If if the most you can get out of it is well maybe it's something bad does that really affect the world too much?

I don't know.

It's a good mystery.

At the same time Poland shut some airports and NATO is on high alert because in this case they think that uh there's some Russian drone activity.

Now, if you knew that Russia was definitely behind the drones that are sort of plaguing the aerospace over Poland, a NATO country, would that would that tell you, well, if they're doing it to Poland, you know, probably they're doing it to Denmark, but why would they just pick Denmark of all places?

Like, why not?

Uh, Sergio, you're so right.

Um yeah, apparently somebody in the comments I saw somebody said that I don't understand the uh Islamic risk and uh somebody had to point out that I have a popular book that's very much I mean it's fiction but it certainly it certainly explains the risk.

So yeah, I'm quite tuned into that.

Uh, all right.

So, drones of plenty.

According to General Flynn, he says that a bunch of whistleblowers from the FBI are coming forward and that he says that we're being flooded with whistleblowers.

Now, I don't know what a flood would be.

A flood of FBI whistleblowers.

Would that be three?

I mean, three would be a lot.

Would it be five?

So, it makes you wonder what what is this flood of whistleblowers and has something to do with, you know, Comey being indicted seems to have opened some kind of floodgate.

Speaking of floods, um, and Flynn says that, uh, Comey should probably hurry up and flip to get a lighter sentence because every every day that goes by, there's going to be a new whistleblower.

So, it could be that uh uh Comey's um future depends on how long he waits.

If he waits too long, maybe more whistleblowers will come in with uh information that would increase the charges.

But if he flipped today, could he make a deal that says um you hold me uh guiltless even from things you don't know about yet?

you know, as long as it was during my job as the FBI director.

So, that's an interesting prospect.

Do you think that Comey would flip um with or without the whistleblowers?

But the whistleblowers do add some pressure to the the potential flipping.

Um I'm going to say that it would be too dangerous to flip on these people.

The the people that he could flip on are the people that can kill you.

doesn't mean they've ever killed anybody, but definitely the people who have had the jobs where you decide who gets to live or die.

So, I don't know.

I'm not sure the whistleblowers are going to have any goods, but I don't think that Kobe is going to flip.

What do you think?

I I feel like he would go to jail before he would flip if he had anything to flip on.

We don't know that.

Well, Michael Cowan, you all know him, the disgraced ex lawyer, handler, fixer for Trump, who went to jail himself.

And so, because he was so anti-Trump um after his legal problem started, especially, uh he's been a regular guest on MSNBC.

But MSNBC may be having a little uh second thoughts about that because Cowen is not only somebody who knows everything about this situation, but a lawyer.

So, he's not, you know, just some guy.

He's a lawyer as well.

and he believes that uh James Comey did in fact weaponize the government against Trump and that the evidence will show it and uh President Trump will be proven right and that Comey will be uh will be convicted and that the evidence will quote validate the vendetta of Trump.

validate the vendetta cuz it's not really a vendetta.

If they they show that he was trying to overthrow the government Comey, it's not a vendetta then it's justice.

So I love the fact that Michael Cohen, you know, got all this credibility on MSNBC and then goes on and just he he just pisses in their punch bowl and they have to sit there and just take it.

It's like Yeah.

Yeah, this punch is delicious.

Now, all right, that was too visual.

Uh John Brennan uh has done a deep dive into his own the accusations against him and uh he's decided that uh I just don't see any case against me.

Now, I'd like to give you my impression of John Brennan saying that there's doesn't seem to be a case against him because I don't know what drugs he's on or cuz I've seen him talk a lot of times.

I've never seen him talk that way.

Here's him just talking about his own charges.

Well, I'll tell you the the things uh about me are uh well uh uh well, there doesn't seem to be any anything about me.

Uh looks like I'm completely I innocent and uh no evidence whatsoever that anything is is going to, you know, get me in trouble.

Did you see it?

Did you see the video live?

There's something going on with that man.

In the comments, somebody says cocaine.

Um, I'm not going to accuse him of that because I have no no reason to believe he's on cocaine.

But if you if you said, "Can you describe what it looked like?" Yeah, it looked like he was on cocaine.

He he had the uh the Gavin Newsome little bit too much jumpiness.

Now is it sticks out if you've watched this same person for years and he's not always like that.

If he was always like that, you would either say, "Well, that's just the way he is." Or maybe every single time he goes on TV does cocaine, but that seems unlikely.

Aderall.

I know a lot of people on aderall.

I've never seen them act like that.

They just have a lot of energy.

what he was doing was a different thing.

He He was like fidgeting uncontrollably.

Yeah.

All right.

Um Bernie Sanders saying in a speech, he says, "We got to figure out a way to stop ICE from what they are doing as soon as possible." Is it my imagination or is the entire Democrat party dedicated to find out what works and then stopping it?

Is that Am I just making that up?

You're seeing it too, right?

They figure out what works, such as um having a police force.

Hey, that look like that works.

Let's see if we can get rid of that.

Then there's capitalism.

They say, "Look, it looks like that capitalism made us the strongest country.

Let's get rid of that." And then they look at uh the border.

They say, "Hm, closed border seems to be keeping us very safe.

Let's get rid of that.

Let's get rid of that." Then they then they know that uh homeschooling would be very helpful.

Make a little more competitive situation, improve everything.

Let's get rid of that.

Yeah, let's get rid of that.

Um, how about um, is it high school sports?

H, high school sports seems to be working really well.

You got the boys playing with boys.

You got the the women playing with women.

Let's get rid of that.

Yeah, let's get rid of that.

Right.

Am I Am I making this up?

that literally they just look at what is working best to keep us safe and prosperous and then they go hm I think we should get rid of that right away soon as possible.

Well, Mike Benz has a take on uh the Epstein situation that uh is fairly complete.

Now, I don't know how we don't know how accurate it is because, you know, there's still some mysteries about Epstein.

But if Mike Benz has, you know, let's say he's landed on a point of view on this, I would take that very seriously because he's very credible.

and uh he believes that uh Epstein broker deals between the US, Israeli, British and Saudi intelligence probably secretly finance some political activities and uh and thinks that uh Israeli prime minister ex prime minister uh Ahoud Barack visited his island without security.

Now, does that seem like a good idea?

On one hand, you could say you don't need security on Epstein Island cuz it's such a controlled environment.

You know, the odds of, you know, somehow some terrorist knowing he was there and getting all the way there and getting to him, you know, pretty low.

So, on one hand, you wouldn't really need any security if you went to the island.

You know, you could imagine that you'd feel that way if you were an ex-p prime minister, not a not a current prime minister.

Um, but the other reason that you might want to have no security would be you don't want them to be witnesses to whatever it is you're up to.

Maybe now there's no evidence that um, Ahood Barack, you know, did anything illegal or did anything with women there.

There's no evidence of that.

But um he does look look like given given the vast number of contacts um it does seem that he might have been a handler of some kind or possibly Israel's contact with him but not the only contact.

You know there the the thinking here is that uh Epstein probably worked with whoever had money and wherever it made sense you know as long as they were allies of the US.

it looks like.

So, um, what do you think?

So, I guess Bill Clinton, uh, oh, Epstein visited the Bill Clinton White House at least 17 times.

So, here's the uh, I guess the picture that's emerging, the the emerging picture is that Trump did not do anything illegal, at least in front of anybody who's, you know, who would have been a witness.

Um, but that Bill Clinton probably was on the plane when when there was a rape.

I think that they would call rape in this context, specifically underage u females.

Um, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was against their will.

But, you know, the argument is that under a certain age, it doesn't mean anything to say that you're willing.

It's still a crime.

All right.

Um, so it looks like certainly the Clintons have something to explain.

Probably, you know, a dozen other important people have something to explain, but probably Trump doesn't.

Um, and that Epstein was certainly connected to some, you know, intelligence agencies and Israel was almost certainly one of them because of audac of course.

So, I don't know.

We don't know this.

These are not confirmed things.

But uh the the thinking now is that what Trump is doing is protecting other powerful people.

You know, you know what would be the most interesting if you had to write the movie and you had to figure out what's the most interesting thing, you know, that we don't know about yet.

To me, the most interesting thing would be if Trump is protecting Bill Clinton.

I don't think you beat that for an interesting movie.

Now, why Bill Clinton might be worth protecting?

Like, he might have some secrets of his own.

And it's entirely possible that uh Trump doesn't hate Bill Clinton.

He might he might have a different opinion about Hillary, but he might just say, "You know what?

I I can't take down the next president." Maybe, you know, or or I can't take down an ex-president who wasn't acting against me.

You know, Obama was acting against Trump, but Bill Clinton wasn't acting against Trump.

And even his words are, you know, not nearly the kinds of things that that Hillary says.

So, it could be at one time I think a uh Bill Clinton and Trump were kind of friendly, right?

It could be that that's who he's protecting, which would be wild, wouldn't it?

That would be absolutely wild.

Would it make you like Trump more or dislike him?

I can't decide.

might make me like him more because if the reason he's doing it is that he doesn't want to take down a president who wasn't acting against him directly, that's not the worst impulse in the world, even if he's guilty of something, you know, because that would at least establish some kind of a some kind of a boundary, some kind of a precedent.

You know, you might not like it, but it would establish a precedent.

Well, Stephen Miller was talking about all the uh let's call them the Trump enemy list that included, you know, Kobe Clapper, Brennan, Obama, Lisa, Monaco, etc.

He said that they all conspired together to try to sabotage the democratic institutions of this country.

This is Steven Miller again saying this.

He says, "I cannot find words harsh enough to condemn the conduct of these conspirators, these insurrectionists." And I said, "Oh, there it is.

You need to call them insurrectionists.

If if you have the goods, you know, if the evidence shows that that's what they were doing, you need to call them insurrectionists all day long.

You need to you need to take that word away from them so that it makes it a little bit easier to debunk the January 6 thing.

By the way, I think that Bill Maher is one hoax away and it's the January 6 hoax.

He's one hoax away from completely giving up on Democrats.

Once he realized that he's been hoaxed and he goes in public, you know, once a week and acts like somebody who's been bamboozled by his own team, I don't know if he's going to put up with that once he realizes that that number one, give me a fact check on this.

Number one, um the uh Republicans more or less didn't bring a weapons to an insurrection.

Number two, there is no known way that anybody has ever suggested that you can take over the United States by trespassing in one building.

No, nobody has an idea how you could make that turn into overcoming the country.

And number three, and I need a fact check on this, is it true that nobody involved was charged with the crime of insurrection?

Right.

As far as I know, nobody was even charged.

And and given that they were looking for every charge you could throw at them, they they were looking at charges that you wouldn't even think were charges.

So if they had anything that could go to insurrection, don't you think they'd be charged?

At least one person.

Nothing.

There is no I believe there is no documentation, no email, no messages, no no testimony that says anybody was thinking in those terms.

Now there might have been some you know a few crazies that who knows what they were saying but in terms of the general crowd the the 95% of them I don't believe there's any evidence of any planning any planning that that would that would look like an insurrection.

And then lastly, the dog not barking.

Is that um why don't we see every day a new January 6 person telling us why they were there?

Because it's not an insurrection if the people there don't think it is, right?

It doesn't matter if you think it's an insurrection.

If the people involved had no intention or not even the thought of overthrowing the country, then that's how can you call that an insurrection?

They have to be thinking it.

I think I will do this thing that will result in overthrowing the country.

If nobody had that thought, and as far as I know, there's no evidence that anybody had that thought.

Again, there might have been a couple of crazies in the crowd, but in terms of the larger nature of the crowd, no.

Now, if I had 60 seconds to just say those things to Bill Maher, I could reprogram him because unlike most people, he actually listens to arguments.

You know, this this is my best compliment I could ever give anybody.

He's actually able to find the door, but sometimes you have to, you know, shine on flashlight on the door knob.

But with just the smallest amount of help, I believe he's fully capable of escaping that hoax.

And when he does, I think he'll be done with Democrats.

I think you'll just be done with him at that point.

and and I think he also knows the whole Trump is stealing your democracy um is not really describing anything that's going on in the real world and at some point he's going to see you know presumably Trump leave the office peaceful turnover um and that'll change everything although if uh I'll tell you what's going to happen if JD Vance wins uh the presidency the Democrat rats are going to say, "Well, it's it's another term of Trump." So, really, it's just Trump staying in office, but he's doing it in this way that technically he's not staying in office, but damn it, it's still just Trump running everything.

So Trump will be the back door to JD Vance and JD Vance will know he's got to do what Trump wants even though Trump's out of office because Trump will have so much influence that he could take down the sitting president if he wanted to which he could which he could.

So it doesn't matter if Trump leaves or not.

If JD backfills or even Marco Rubio, uh, if anybody who is seemingly loyal to Trump backfills and is the next president, Democrats will say, "See, I told you he stole our democracy.

We just got more Trump no matter what we do." So, that's happening.

Anyway, let's call all of the uh the Russia hoaxers insurrectionists because that that name actually fits.

That that's not persuasion.

It's not brainwashing.

It's what they were doing.

It's exactly what they're doing and it's exactly not what January 6 people were doing.

So, let's use that word right.

Whale, the gateway pundit, Jim Ha, is writing about how um Tulsi Gabber, DNI director, is uh apparently uncovered yet more documents that seem to go to proving that Obama was behind doctoring the intel to make it look as though Trump and Putin stole the election.

Now, we already had indications that Obama was the, you know, the mastermind there, but apparently there's more.

I haven't seen them, so I can't judge how credible they are.

Um, but uh there's now irrefutable evidence, says Jim Hoff, that uh detail how Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment, a document that they knew was false.

I believe that is probably proven at this point.

Now, as far as I know, Obama probably would still not be prosecuted even if we had the goods on him.

Is that right?

Because he was a sitting president and you know, we don't go after them for what they did in office.

Maybe.

Although, you could you could argue that that president's been violated.

So, if Trump violates it, well, maybe he didn't start it.

Maybe.

All right.

And I also think that if uh Tulsi Gabbard and all the Republicans say, "Hey, this document is proof." It doesn't mean it's proof because I haven't seen it.

But you can imagine if it's like everything else in the world, the Democrats will read it differently and they'll say, "Oh, no, look at this sentence.

This this sentence, the way he worded it, um gets him out of trouble." and then the Republicans will say that's obviously he's just saying that to stay out of trouble.

It's clear that what he meant.

So I don't believe there's there is such a thing as a document that everybody would look at and say, "Oh yeah, yep.

If that document's real, that Obama is an insurrectionist." I don't think that's ever going to happen.

We'll just disagree what we see.

Well, meanwhile in Portland, the governor of Portland is um trying to get Trump not to send the military in for the violence that's happening in the streets and the the rioting, etc.

So, the governor of Oregon um says uh there's no insurrection, there's no threat to national security, no need for military troops in our major city, which would be Portland.

But uh correct me if I'm wrong.

Those uh those people that are doing the protesting, are they unarmed?

They don't have guns or they're not brandishing, right?

And are they trespassing in any in any situations?

Are they trespassing?

Because I was taught by the Democrats that if you are protesting in a way that is unarmed and also trespassing that that's called an insurrection.

An insurrection.

You've heard of that, right?

If you simply walk around without weapons in a building that you're not supposed to be in, that's an insurrection.

Apparently, the Democrats think that's how you overtake a country because that's why they think the January 6ers are insurrections because they wandered around without weapons inside a building where they didn't they didn't belong.

So, I would say the uh Portland is experiencing an insurrection as defined by Democrats.

Republicans, not so much.

But yeah, well, it's yet another day of pretending that uh we can't tell that Kla Harris is a sloppy drunk.

Uh there two more videos came out where she's just drunk as a skunk.

Now, it might be, you know, prescribed medication.

it.

I mean, it might be Xanax or something like that, but I've seen drunks and I'm pretty sure I've seen people on Xanax and this looks drunk.

I mean, I could be wrong, but it just looks so drunk.

It doesn't look stoned.

It looks drunk.

I can tell the difference.

All right, here's a reframe for you.

This will change your life.

All I'm going to do is reframe something you've been looking at and you'll never be able to see it the same again.

Um, you know, Mark Ruffalo, so actor Mark Ruffalo, he's uh very associated with Democrats and and the more leftleaning Democrats.

And uh he was complaining about why, you know, we need the Second Amendment and these what he calls weapons of war.

I think he means the rifles.

and he he acts with whoever he's talking to like he he's smart enough that he knows what Republicans don't know and that he knows that these weapons would be useless if the government, you know, turned on the people or, you know, a dictator started to form.

Now, does that sound like he's right?

No.

No.

He is someone who doesn't understand war or guns or anything.

Doesn't understand Republicans.

Uh, as I've said many times, I I promote no violence whatsoever.

I'm just describing.

I'm not recommending.

I'm not predicting.

I'm just describing.

If if some dictator tried to take over the United States, the plan would not be to go shoot the dictator.

Although we've seen recently that that a leader can't be protected outside.

If you put a leader outside, somebody's going to get on a building with one of these quote weapons of war, which is literally what was used against Trump, used against Charlie Kirk.

So, do does the dictator want to live in a world where he can never go outdoors because somebody's going to be on a roof with one of these?

Does the dictator want to live in a world where on day one all of that dictator's relatives will be rounded up and kept as prisoners for negotiating?

All of their relatives, all of their friends will be rounded up by armed men.

Now, Mark Ruffalo, did you really think that the people with the guns were going to go up directly against the military?

No.

No, that wouldn't work at all.

No, they're going to use those guns to kill every single person or kidnap them that would have any leverage with the dictator.

Do you think the dictator wants to lose every single person in their family and all their friends?

Probably not.

Probably not.

So there would be massive uh assassinations, massive assassinations.

You know, every every person associated with the regime when they walked out the door, they'd get clipped, you know, right the not necessarily the top, you know, five people in the government, but once you got past the top five, they can't really protect them that well.

We would know where they lived.

we would know their schedule pretty quickly and they would get clipped as soon as they walked outdoors.

So, that's what it would look like.

Now, I'm not recommending it.

I'm not I'm not uh I don't want to make that sound like it's noble or anything like that.

I'm just saying if you didn't know that the way it would work would be a, you know, not a direct confrontation with the military, if you didn't understand what the most likely outcome of that situation would be, you're not really qualified to talk about it because his opinion is based on his opinion.

Somebody says Scott's a monster.

Well, in this context, I simply am understanding monsters because there is something that will turn every man into a monster, including me.

All right.

I don't feel like I'm a monster at the moment, but do you think you could do something to me that would turn me into one?

Oh, yeah.

It wouldn't take long.

It would just depend what you did.

You know, if you if you hurt somebody, let's say, you know, a loved one or something, how long would it take me to turn into a monster?

immediate.

It would be immediate.

And I think that's most men.

Most men would turn monster if you give him a reason.

We just need a reason.

The the the reason the difference between a murderer and a law-abiding man, now this is just men.

I I can't speak for women, but the difference between a man who's a murderer and a man who's law-abiding is a good reason.

That's it.

Just a good reason.

We we all can become monsters immediately.

If you didn't know that, maybe you feel better not knowing it, but you're always surrounded by monsters.

They just happen to be in check.

They just don't have a reason.

That's it.

They just don't have a reason.

Give them a reason.

Find out what happens.

Um, I can tell you what happens.

So, here's my reframe.

I haven't gotten to it yet.

The reframe is this.

You think that the left have a different political point of view?

I say the left, the far-left, we're not talking about ordinary Democrats now.

Ordinary Democrats have nothing to do with what I'm about to say.

The far-left are all Dunning Krueger people.

Now, Dunning Krueger, most of you know what that is, but that's the observation that there are some people who believe, it's very common, that they know a lot more than they know.

So if there's something they don't know, they think it's unknown because if they don't know it, probably nobody else knows it either.

So that explains Mark Ruffalo.

He's simply, he's simply somebody who doesn't know the, you know, the weapons culture, doesn't know probably anything about guerrilla warfare or revolutions.

Maybe just uninformed.

And but he has that uh weird quality that you see on the far left.

Again, not regular normal people like Bill Maher.

So Bill Maher is not in this category.

I'm talking about the people who have that weird smug look on their face when they say things that are completely stupid.

Have you ever seen a a 20some with green hair explain how uh you know their ideas are better and how you should open the border and uh let the people out of jail and and they've got this look on their face like I'm so smart.

You know, I'm talking to some dummy, some dumb Republican, but look how smart I am.

I mean, look at my face.

I'm smug.

Why don't they understand that if they just all gave their weapons away, there would be no violence?

And look how smart I am.

Can you tell how smart I am by my smug smile?

Now, that's my reframe.

The reframe is that the far left are nothing but just nothing but um Dunning Krueger sufferers.

Nothing but.

Now, are there also some Dunning Krueger people on the right?

Of course.

Of course.

It's not limited to one side.

But the entire far left, every one of them believes they know more than they know.

Oh, I took this course in college that said that socialism was good, so Mandami must be a good choice.

And they would feel confident in that.

Not just confident, but they'd be sure that you're you're wrong.

Oh.

Oh.

Are you still sticking to that capitalism idea?

I can barely contain my smile at your stupidity when when socialism is obviously the best solution that's worked every time it's been tried as far as I know.

Yeah.

It's that stupid damn smug smile that gives it away.

And then on top of that, there's a bunch of people who are just, you know, in it for power and whatever.

And that's different.

The ones who are just in it for the power, you know, the Nancy Pelosies, etc., that that's completely different.

But the ordinary voters, yeah, that's Dunning Krueger.

Total Dunning Krueger.

Wall Street apes is reporting on an X.

um that there's a uh I guess there was an investigation by a gentleman named David I don't know how to say his last name is spelled K H A I T.

Would that be Kite or uh Jite or Kite?

Kite, I don't know.

Kate.

But apparently he has exposed um some Democrat protesters.

And did you know there's a union Apparently, there's an appropriate union so that some of the protesters are getting union pay.

They join the union and then they accept the uh the assignment and they get union pay.

So, apparently they can make 80 to 110,000 per year as professional protesters.

And so, a lot of the a lot of the protesters you see um they don't care.

They're they're not there because they care about the issue.

They're uh it rhymes with what?

Somebody was telling me what it was, so I missed it.

Um so and then he the one of them that uh this David Kate um exposed he uh he apparently is a prominent member with the Democrat Socialists of America Atlanta chapter and uh I guess there's a lot of them who do this kind of work.

Um so never trust the protests.

They're just paid protesters now.

We know it.

We know the whole structure of it, etc.

And uh so he's he's backing M dami.

So if a paid protester backs mom dummy, do you think that he actually backs him?

He it looks like he might because they're both socialists, but uh I wouldn't trust the paid protesters.

Um Oops.

So, in other news, Corey D'Angelos, who's a um very successful activist for his school choice, he uh came into possession of a leaked email from uh I guess it was the assistant to Randy Wearten.

So, Randy Weine is the head of the biggest teachers union and they're very political and I don't believe that the Democrats could win anything without them.

the teachers union funding and being on their side.

Um, apparently the assistant wrote an email that uh was warning people about backing Mom Donnie and he said that Mom Donnie has no experience in city government.

Um, and he points as a uh an analog the mayor of Chicago is at a 14% favorability rating.

I've never even heard of that.

Have you even heard of anybody at 14% uh approval politician?

I've never even heard it.

I I feel like Hitler was higher than that.

And uh he points out the assistant to Randy Warner, he points out that winning an election does not necessarily translate into the ability to govern.

And then it gets better.

He says it is important to face squarely what has happened in Chicago.

It has not gone well.

But here's the kill shot.

But something has clearly gone wrong and it can't just be attributed to our enemies.

There it is.

There it is.

Don't you wonder?

And haven't you wondered if, let's say, the teachers union, do they not recognize that they're backing the worst people in the world like Mom Donnie?

Do they not know it?

Are are they are they actually clueless?

And the answer is no.

They know it.

They know it and they're doing it anyway.

They know it and they're doing it anyway.

Why?

Power.

What?

What would be the other reason?

What would be the other reason you would back horrible candidates?

Well, some might say if they were running against Trump, you could always say, "Well, anything's better than Trump in my opinion." But that's not true for every politician everywhere all the time, mayors included.

Now, apparently Democrats know that the Chicago mayor is a disaster and that Mami will be another disaster.

Do you think that that the fact that the assistant to Weine Garden knows that?

And I'm pretty sure that, you know, the rest of the people know it, too.

Do you think that will change who they back?

I'm going to say no.

Nope.

Even being caught understanding that he would be a disaster even with that.

Nope.

Nope.

The the power um predictor says they'll just keep doing what they're doing.

So, Democrats are not serious.

Um they're not trying to make the country better.

Let's not kid ourselves.

They're they're not in it for that.

Well, there's a Somali woman uh who lives in Minnesota was charged for stealing, you know, fraudulently doing a scheme and autism site uh where she stole $14 million by pretending to treat children who in most cases probably didn't have autism.

So, she um apparently she was doing a $1,000 per child kickback to parents who would be willing to pretend that their children were autistic and enroll them.

Oh my god.

What happens to the child who gets enrolled in the urine autist school so that the the parents can make $1,000 and then they're trained as though they're autistic?

What does that do to your education path?

It feels like that would limit you a little bit, wouldn't it?

So, this might be one of the worst crimes you'll ever hear of in your whole life.

Um, if it's as bad as it sounds to me.

And the question is, do you think this is rare?

Do you think there's only one of these people who said, "Huh, all I have to do is pretend I'm treating autistic people and I can make millions of dollars." Do you think just the one woman had an idea like that?

No.

There I think there are tons of them.

It could be that the entire, you know, runup of costs on healthcare.

It might be that a 100% of it is crime.

It might be.

I mean, I I wouldn't bet on 100% of it being crime, but it it could be.

It's it's that size.

You know, we're probably talking about hundreds of billions a year in pure crime.

you know, not even not even a gray area, just pure theft, probably hundreds of billions a year.

All right.

Um, the feds have indicted uh three women who were involved with uh tracking down some ICE agents and uh following them home and doxing their home address on Instagram so that people could harass them or or bother them.

And a federal grand jury has indicted them.

Now, they're just indicted.

They're not not convicted.

But here's my question.

The women who were doing that were doing it publicly.

So, they weren't trying to hide.

Did they believe that because they were young women, they certain they just don't get arrested?

Like at what point would they not know that they were breaking a law and that it was obvious it was them and they would be on social media and did they not think that the law applied to them?

I I'm I'm feeling like that might be some of our problem that women don't see themselves as ever going to jail.

As a man, I imagine myself in jail, unfortunately, far too often and far too easily.

How hard is it for a man to imagine that something would go wrong, whether you actually did something illegal or not, and you would end up in jail?

it to me.

You know, your mileage might differ, but even though I'm I go out of my way not to break a law, you know, I try as hard as I can not to break any laws because I don't need to.

Like, why why would I need to?

I don't have any there's no gain.

So, but yet I still have a perpetual never goes away.

I can be thrown in jail for what?

I don't know.

somebody would come up with something.

But I don't think that women think that way, do they?

Here, I'm just speculating.

I can't read any minds.

But if but if you're a 20-year-old attractive woman, you've seen a lot of videos where young women are stopped by the police and they act like they can resist arrest as much as they want and that they won't be beaten up and they look like they think they'll never go to jail.

So, is that part of the problem that protesters are often female and they just haven't been raised with the mindset that, you know, if you take one wrong step, you're in jail?

Let's see from the men.

From the men, can you confirm that you've always been trained and or just knew that you were only one wrong step away from jail?

It's not just me, right?

I I would think that's a male um universal feeling because when you see a prison it's all men, right?

And all day long all the stories that I read today, how many of them were about somebody had legal problems and was going to go to jail and they were all men.

You know, there's this Lisa Monaco who popped up, but mostly it's men.

You know, Obama might go to jail.

Comey might go to jail.

Brennan Clapper Schiff might go to jail.

Right?

You you can't not notice that men are going to jail like crazy and it doesn't seem like women do.

Right.

I'm not saying they should or shouldn't.

It just is what it feels like.

Yeah.

It makes me wonder.

Well, there's a uh story about a woman named Assada Shakur.

Um Assada.

Her first name is spelled asss a ta.

And uh apparently she became some kind of a uh either a revolutionary fighter for justice or a coper.

Apparently she was a little bit of both of those things.

So she was involved with the execution of a cop.

Um I don't think she pulled the trigger, but she was, you know, part of the group.

So she went to jail and then she was broken out of jail.

there was some massive jailbreak um with help from the outside and they broke her in a jail some years ago and 1970s it looks like it was and then she escaped to Cuba in 1979 where she uh recently died but the reason that it's a big story is how it's being treated in the news the left-leaning news and indeed the Chicago's teachers union say things like this.

So, this is the Chicago Teachers Union.

Today, we honor the life and legacy of a revolutionary fighter, a fierce writer, a revered elder of black liberation, and a leader of freedom whose spirit continues to live in our struggle.

Well, Community Notes on X decided that it needed to put a little context on that.

So, here's what was left out of the Chicago Teachers Union praise for her life and her work.

Uh, Sada Shakur was convicted in 1977 of firstdegree murder in the 73 killing of a New Jersey state trooper and sentenced to life plus 33 years on other charges.

She escaped to Cuba in 79, has been a fugitive since listed on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list in 2013.

So, as others have pointed out, two movies on one screen, the same person.

She's either being honored for her revolutionary fighting or she's a terrorist, most wanted terrorist.

Same person.

Now, I will point out that if you are in favor of keeping revolutionary uh southern general statues, you would also be in favor of somewhat honoring people who might have owned slaves, might have killed some people, might have done some bad things back in the Civil Wars days.

And uh you should at least be consistent.

Now, I have said that if uh a significant number of black Americans find those statues offensive, that's a good enough reason to move them.

I don't need a better reason.

If if some large percentage of a demographic group that is part of my American experience says these are just offensive and they have a good reason, you know, because it represented slavery or whatever, I would say, you know what, I I'm not going to die on that hill.

If if that offends you and it offends you that much that you're willing to get active over it, yeah, I I'm open to moving it somewhere, you know, maybe taking it out of the park, maybe adding a plaque that just puts it in proper context.

So then you're not honoring them so much.

You're just it's just history.

So, I I think that's a perfectly reasonable um debate and I would be pretty flexible about that because if I had something in my house, let's say a painting of let's say I really liked a painting that depicted something from the slavery era and I just thought it was great art.

Had, you know, nothing political, nothing else.

It was just great art.

I put it on my wall and then my black and white friends look at it and go, "Uh, Scott, do you know what this is about?" And I'd be like, "It's just great art.

Don't worry about it." But let's say a number of people came to my house and they all said the same thing.

Uh, this is really this is gross.

You you shouldn't have that in your wall.

I would take it down.

I'm not I'm not going to die on that hill and say, "Oh, but it's great art, so it shouldn't bother you." If it does bother you, that's a good enough reason.

It does bother you, and you've got a good argument for it.

It's not like you have no argument, I'd take it down.

Same thing I do with the the park.

So um while I am not supporting anything about this particular cop killing terrorist lady, you can imagine that if you wait 50 years that the part about her killing a cop or being part of the people who killed the cop will be diminished over time much the way the southern general's uh exploits would be diminished over time.

And people look at it differently.

Now, I'm not telling you what you should or should not do with statues or what you should or should not do with this one thing.

I'm just making a comparison.

That's all.

I just think it's interesting that um people who have done terrible things can sometimes be rehabilitated over time.

Now, I'm not saying that they deserve to be rehabilitated.

I'm just saying it happens.

Um, and I would like to add to this conversation the following when black America decided to uh honor George Floyd, there were a lot of white Americans who said, "Uh, that's a terrible idea.

you should not be honoring people who were career criminals and and at the very least contributed to his own death by bad habits and bad decisions and and all that.

And I'm going to say again in my in my experience uh every person of every kind, black, white, old, young, just everybody, if they if they made the decisions that generally work in life, they usually did well.

And if they make the kind of decisions that you just shake your hand head and say, "Well, that's a bad decision." If you keep making bad decisions, you're going to get a bad outcome.

And there's no mystery to it whatsoever.

So if you make bad decisions like, you know, honoring criminals, well, what do you think's going to happen?

Like, you know, play that forward.

What do you think's going to happen?

Now, um, I'm going to do something selferving, but it's not why I'm doing it.

Um, if you wanted to make sure that your child or even yourself had uh the benefit of let's say good mentoring and good advice, good advice on how to be successful and what to avoid to avoid failure, you can do that.

There are books.

You don't need you don't need a human in your life if you read.

You just need to be able to read.

My books, I think, get very close to that.

The ones I would recommend for anyone who wanted to turn somebody who was aimless and didn't have a plan into somebody who understood what to do to be successful.

I would say my book, Loser Think, second edition.

Uh, loser think will teach you how to avoid bad arguments that other people recognize as bad arguments.

So, what you're trying to do is not look like a fool in front of people who actually know how the world works.

You want to look like you also know how the world works.

And then immediately people will say, "Oh, uh, that guy.

Yeah, we're going to hire that guy.

He knows how the world works." So that's what that's about.

Loser think is what to avoid so that smart people will want to work with you.

Want to marry you, want to work with you.

Win bigly teaches you persuasion.

There is no career path that isn't way better if you understand how to talk to people and persuade.

Right?

Do you do you believe that um those of you who have read this book there a lot of you in in the comments if you've read this book would you back me that that it would that knowing this book would make you more effective in whatever you're doing in life?

Would you agree?

Yeah.

Just watch the comments if you don't believe me.

Cuz you know, you should not believe the author.

Don't believe the author.

All authors think their books are great.

But if the people who read it think it's great, well, that's something I think you could trust that.

And you you'll see in the comments the yeses.

But the most important one by far is how to fill the most everything and still win big because it was written specifically for young people who didn't didn't have a mentor, somebody who could tell them what works, what doesn't work.

So this is a whole book of what works and what doesn't work.

Easy to read, easy to totally grasp.

And uh I I'll ask the same question for those of you who've read it, which is a lot of you.

Would this make a young person who is, you know, aimless at the moment make them more successful?

Yes, 100% it would.

Not there's it's not there's no gray area there.

These three books, if a young person read them, let's say let's say before the age of 20, their odds of succeeding in life, the only thing that would stop them would be really bad luck or a health problem, you know, or getting murdered and something like that.

But they would have all the tools.

They would literally know everything they needed to succeed.

Now, the one of the reasons I wrote this kind of book, you know, all three of them.

Um, oh, and also the the uh fourth one, reframe your brain.

So, where is that?

So the fourth one, the more this is the the newest one, reframe your brain.

It would teach you how to basically navigate all kinds of situations with the the right way to look at the situation so you're most productive.

Now, some of you have read all four of these books, right?

If any of you have read all four of them, make yourself known if you'd like to in the comments.

And um tell me if it made you more effective.

I already know the answer.

I know the answer.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not the only person who wrote books that would teach you how to be successful.

These are the ones I know the best because I wrote them and I and I watch the the notes coming in.

So, a lot of people write to me almost every day.

Almost every day, somebody says, "I read one of these books.

It changed my life for the positive.

So, let me let me get back to George Floyd and uh this terrorist cop killer.

If you did the things in my book, which are designed to make any person, you know, you could be black or white or male or female, it's designed to make any person way more effective and have a way better chance of getting whatever they want in life, whatever they decide is success.

You would be way better situation to get all those things.

Um, that would be a good idea.

So the people who do what makes sense become life lifelong learners.

And again doesn't have to be these books.

The I I'm a lifetime learner.

Most of what I've uh end up putting in books are things that probably I ran into somewhere first, you know, over my lifetime.

And once I'd accumulated enough of these tips, I thought, you know, I'll bet I could write a better book than than other people.

because I have done nothing in Krueger myself sometimes.

All right.

So that's the point.

We should get away from race race and we should get toward individual individual individual.

If you give me an individual, I know exactly how to make them more successful as long as they can read and they're willing to put a little work in.

So that's my uh that's my statement for the day.

Uh Palmer Lucky is talking about how the leaders in Silicon Valley are unwilling to speak out against China or even in favor of Taiwan because they're so afraid of China.

You know, they might need China later as a market.

They might need China as a supplier.

Um they just might need China.

So apparently in Silicon Valley uh and wherever there are tech leaders, there are not many people speaking out against China.

So that's why I'm here.

I'll fill in that gap for you.

The Trump administration says they have plans to end the Gaza war according to the Washington Post.

And uh here here's their plan.

Now you tell me if this sound like this would work.

I may be biasing you a little bit.

Spoiler, this plan could never work.

There's no chance that this plan can work.

All right, so the plan according to the Washington Post, there's a 21point proposal.

I haven't seen all the points, but uh it would start with uh Gaza would give back the hostages, every one of them, and in return um Israel would stop all war.

So the war would be done, the hostages come back and then there would be some uh post-war governance plan uh without Hamas.

So they would be disarmed and some kind of international security force would be formed to uh keep things together.

Now uh the reporting says Israel has expressed reservations about some elements.

All right.

So apparently it's a plan that neither Hamas nor Israel wants.

Do you think that the US can force this on them?

I don't think so.

And and by the way, as soon as Hamas releases the uh hostages, aren't they going to be killed?

I mean, it's the only thing keeping them alive, right?

The fact that there might be some hostages in the tunnels.

Otherwise, Israel is just going to say, "Well, I think there might be a tunnel under here somewhere.

If all of our hostages are home, they're just going to flatten everything that needs to be flattened." Um, because they're not going to take a chance that Hamas can reform.

They're not going to take that chance.

So, they're going to kill or imprison every single one of the Hamas fighters and leaders.

Why would you surrender if you knew you were going to go to jail or be killed?

If you knew it, you you know it like even if you even if they came up with a plan and says, "All right, Israel has agreed that they will not hurt us if we, you know, go public and let the hostages out." Do you think Israel would keep that deal or would there be a sudden, you know, the brakes don't work on the Hamas leader's car?

Well, not our fault.

No, they're all going to be dead.

Why would they agree to this?

Why would they?

I mean, there's there's no reason.

So, I'm going to go with I don't think there will be a peace deal right away, if ever.

And I don't believe that Netanyahu wants a peace deal.

I think he wants um Oh, the fourth one, Mike Bert, is reframe your brain.

Yeah, reframe your brain.

All right.

Um, Tucker Carlson says that Trump needs to uh get some distance between himself and BB Netanyahu and do it right away.

He thinks Tucker thinks that Netanyahu is hurting Trump's presidency.

And he's careful to say he's not blaming Israel.

He's not blaming Jews.

He's just blaming Netanyahu.

And he thinks Netanyahu is bad for Trump.

and that uh allegedly he's condescending Netanyahu and talks behind Trump's back and says bad things.

I don't know about that.

Then Tucker says and Nanyahu quote only cares about himself.

Well, um isn't that what everybody says about any leader they don't like, that they only care about themselves?

I find that the least useful criticism because everybody cares about themselves the most.

Uh but if you're a public leader, don't you have to do a terrific job for your country in order to maximize your own benefit?

Pretty sure you do.

So this whole only cares about himself, how does that actually play out in the real world?

Wait, is he going to do things that are obviously bad for Israel but only good for him?

He can't get away with that.

Everything he does is public.

So, seems to me that everything he does would have to be for the benefit of his own country.

Uh or he just couldn't get away with doing it, you know.

Anyway, so I don't know about that, but that's what Tucker thinks.

Um, I I think I've told you that whenever I talk about Israel, I have to give you this little speech to go with it.

I am not supporting Israel and I am not uh opposing Israel.

It's not my country.

And whether I opposed it or supported it, that should have exactly zero impact on what Israel does.

Israel's job is to maximize the benefit of Israel in my opinion, which has nothing to do with what Israel should do.

This is just me sitting in my chair in America.

No impact on Israel.

Israel will do what they do.

I'll observe it and I'll predict it, but I'm not going to judge it.

It seems to me that if Israel did manage to consolidate Gaza plus the whole West Bank and that in a 100 years from now we're looking at history and say, "Wow, it used to be tiny tiny and then it got, you know, a multiple bigger." Um, but you know, maybe it was kind of shady and evil the way they got there.

Don't you think that it would still look like a good deal after about 200 years?

Like eventually, don't you think that Netanyahu would be probably more likely to have a statue built in his honor if he got away with it?

Only if he got away with it.

But if he actually made Israel what would it be, 25 times bigger if he absorbed the West Bank in Gaza?

if they I I feel like that would look like some parts of American history where we we just sort of don't talk so much about the Native Americans being, you know, wiped out or, you know, relocated or any of that.

And we just sort of glorify the growth of the country.

It's like, whoa, used to be this big and then we added some states and look at us.

Look how awesome we are at adding states.

And when we talk about the history of the United States, we don't want to say, "Oh, we sure are losers and jerks and evil bastards because then we might have to give it back.

It's bad enough that we do land acknowledgements, but I I'll just make this prediction.

I won't be around to see how it turns out probably.

But in 200 years, if Israel expands, either just Gaza or the West Bank plus Gaza, uh if that happened, it would be treated as an amazing great thing in Israeli history.

And that would be totally normal.

And I wouldn't judge him for it because it's probably the way every country treats their own pasts.

Probably they all do that.

There there's a point where somebody did something that other people thought was pretty sketchy to increase the size of their nation, but you wait along.

You just keep waiting years and years and years and eventually it just looks like it was a good idea because you you know your country got stronger.

So I think that's where it's going to go.

I will um also say that if I had criticisms of Israel, I might not share them because it's not safe.

Would would you agree that it's not really safe to criticize Israel?

I mean, I couldn't I' I'd probably Well, I would worry what would happen to me personally.

So, in case you're wondering, Scott, do you ever hold back on your criticisms of Israel?

I can't think of anything specific that I'm holding back on, but no, it's not safe to to honestly criticize Israel.

Totally not safe.

So if I had something, you could not trust me that I would risk my entire life to make some criticism of something that wouldn't make any difference anyway.

Um, so just know that that I would be afraid of criticizing Israel.

But I will say this on October 7th when you know tragically 1,200 Israelis were slaughtered in the worst possible way and numerous people injured and and raped and captured and everything else.

um on October 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and so on, Israel had all the the moral cover to be brutal um if they thought they needed it.

Most of the world said, "Yeah, okay.

All right.

I I see why you're doing it.

I understand.

We would do the same thing." Right?

So, that's when that's when 1,200 of their people are slaughtered and there's been no response yet.

So it's pretty easy to take a side, right?

But now 65,000 gazins reportedly, you know, you could you could debate the number, but somewhere in that range, you know, above 50,000 probably.

Um, so now it's like 65,000 to,200.

How long can you do that?

Especially as the 65 will continue to climb.

How long can you do that and still have the moral high ground?

I would argue that they've already given up the moral high ground.

They had 100% moral high ground.

And again, let me clarify again.

My sense of morality is not in this conversation.

What what I think is moral or ethical has nothing to do with this.

I'm not giving you my personal opinion.

I'm just saying that an observer would say, hm, 1,200 to zero is definitely a free pass for Israel to get violent.

But once it turns to 65,000 to,200 plus you'd add to that how many IDF soldiers got killed.

So let's let's round it up to I don't know 13,400.

I don't know what the numbers are, but once you compare that to 65,000, what does the public say about the moral or ethical balance there?

Now, again, I think Israel is doing a tremendous job of pursuing their own self-interest, and everybody gets to do that.

You know, other countries pursue their self-interest, too.

So that part I never criticize.

As long as they're wisely and effectively pursuing their own best interests, they definitely are.

But I think that they're giving up um almost all of their moral and ethical um armor that served them so well up till now.

So it's one of the biggest, you know, risk benefit decisions anybody ever made.

And Netanyahu's in the center of that.

if if he wins, gets control of Gaza, depopulates it, somehow gets control of the West Bank, you know, maybe officially, not just de facto the way it is, um, he will be seen as a national hero eventually because that will look like a bigger gain than, you know, eventually you forget about all the death and destruction, especially if it didn't happen to you.

So, um, that's what I see happening.

So, if Netanyahu intentionally traded off the Holocaust, traded off the October 7th, uh, goodwill armor, but what he got in return was a much bigger Israel that's stronger for the next, you know, hundreds and hundreds of years.

It's going to look like a win.

It will look like a win.

And again, not my opinion.

My preferences are not part of the story.

I have nothing to do with Israel.

All right.

Um, meanwhile, over in Ukraine, uh, apparently one of their big nuclear power plants is on the fifth day of having no um, power by power lines.

So, it's got destroyed by uh, Russia.

Newsmax World is reporting on this.

So, they're they're keeping the plant from melting down by running a diesel backup generators.

Now, they do have enough fuel, and they do have enough backup generators to prevent it from melting down, unless something happened to the fuel or something happened to the backup generators.

And who knows how dependable those backup generators are.

So apparently they're very close to the edge of a major uh nuclear meltdown.

So we'll keep an eye on that.

And I guess there's a $90 billion arms agreement with the US, which I hope means that the uh the money will come from Europe to the US and then the US will sell those weapons to Ukraine.

I believe so.

If that's what's happening, Trump gets the win for making $90 billion for America, uh, and paying nothing.

If that's what it is.

Uh, according to Defense Blog, Ukraine has a new generation of robots, uh, that look like little tanks, you know, so they're groundbased robots, and apparently they can do all kinds of stuff.

They can attack and they can move logistics.

um they can move stuff back and forth.

But what I'd like to know is do we have a sense of the ratio of robots to human fighters on the front line?

Because that ratio is going to change every day to more robots, fewer humans, if only because the humans are dying.

So what do you what do you think's the ratio?

If you have to guess, how many robots to humans are there?

I I imagine we're getting close to the point where the robots outnumber the humans and then the humans will continue to decrease and the robots will continue to get more um AI self-guided and uh then it will be an all robot war.

So, we're getting closer and closer to the all robot war.

I've been telling you is coming.

Well, uh, Pavl Durov, you may have heard of him.

He's the founder and CEO of the Telegram app.

So, which in theory would be an encrypted app.

In reality, of course, has ways to get in, but he tells this story.

I'm just going to read it.

So, this is in his own words.

He said, "About a year ago, I was stuck in Paris.

remember when the French picked him up and they were holding him and we didn't know why, but obviously they were twisting his arm over something.

He said, "While I was stuck in Paris," which is an interesting way to word it, "Stuck in Paris, picked up by the authorities, not allowed to leave." Yeah, stuck in Paris.

He said, "The French intelligence services reached out to me through an intermediary asking me to help the Muldoven government censor certain telegraph channels." And he goes on to say that they looked at him and they were in fact violating the standards of telegram.

So no problem.

Uh they were banned.

And uh then um and then they said that in exchange for this cooperation, French intelligence would quote say good things about him to the judge who had ordered his arrests.

Okay.

Um, and he said this was unacceptable on several levels.

If the agency did in fact approach the judge, it constituted an attempt to interfere in the judicial process.

Well, I don't think that's too unusual.

If it did not, and merely claimed to have done so, then it was exploiting my legal situation in France to influence political developments in Eastern Europe.

A pattern uh we have also observed in Romania.

I don't know what the Romania story is.

Um but then got worse.

He says shortly thereafter the telegram team received a second list of so-called problematic Muldoven channels.

Unlike the first, nearly all of these channels were legitimate and fully compliant with their rules.

Their only commonality was that they voiced political positions disliked by the French and Muldoven governments.

We refuse to act on this request.

Well, if you wondered what the real world is like, you know, what's happening in the real world, like behind the curtains, this stuff.

Yeah.

Th this is what the real world looks like.

Just like this.

Meanwhile, I guess the president of Colombia was in the US recently and he picked up a bullhorn on the streets of New York and started talking to protesters and uh and urged US soldiers to disobey orders and uh he was apparently inciting violence.

And so uh Rubio and the State Department decided you have no visa anymore.

So they yanked his visa.

So, he will not be visiting the United States again anytime soon.

He got his visa yanked.

All right, went a little long, but I think it was totally worth it because you enjoy Sundays.

All right, I'm going to run and say hi to the locals people, my beloved local subscribers.

Everybody else, thanks for joining.

Come back again.

All right, we'll be p

Oh, there you are. Come on in.

It's almost time for the show. I'm just

getting ready.

[Music]

Hey, there we are.

>> Good morning.

>> Oh, shut up, Scott.

>> Everybody ready for a ride? Let's see.

>> That was the morning show. The pre-show.

You don't get that.

H I've adjusted my camera warmth.

Should be perfect this morning. Perfect.

Do you like it when I put my cartoon on

the back?

All right, let me do that.

[Music]

Makes it look more official.

There we go.

There we go.

[Music]

Whoa,

that didn't work. Hold on.

Apparently, when you knock your papers,

it knocks your camera right off of your

computer.

So, now I know not to do that so

vigorously.

Don't be so vigorous when you pound your

papers.

You know,

I I don't for the life of me, I don't

understand why the the camera thing

that's supposed to attach to your screen

has the tiniest tiniest little edge to

catch the edge. Of course, it's going to

Sorry. Of course, it's going to

fall off.

It's designed so it should fall off with

the slightest movement.

God.

Let's try this again.

Ah, better. Good morning everybody and

welcome to the highlight of human

civilization and skull coffee with Scott

Adams. You've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance on

elevating your experience up to levels

that nobody can understand with their

tiny shiny human brains, all you need

for that is a copper mug or a glass of

tanker shells in a canteen jug flask

vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join

me now for the unparalleled pleasure,

the dopamine day of the day, the thing

that makes everything better. It's

called Hold on, hold on.

I'm getting some kind of ASP message.

Something from I believe Canada.

Winnipeg. Winnipeg. Is there somebody in

Winnipeg

who has a birthday today?

Ellie. Ellie,

are you 12 years old today in Winnipeg?

I'm I'm getting some kind of weird ESP

message. Well, happy birthday, Ellie.

This one's to you.

That's just in case you were not aware

that my show is mostly magic. It's

mostly magic.

Well, did you know there's a study

according to Mass General Bighgam that

cocoa

cocoa supplements um have surprising

anti-aging potential. So, if you eat

cocoa, your inflammation markers will

drop and you'll be happy. And if you're

smart enough to combine your cocoa with

your coffee, you can live forever. I

think that's what science says. You will

live forever.

All right.

Um, science. Well, I wonder if there's

any science that they didn't need to do.

They could have just asked me. Oh, in

Scypost, Eric Nolan.

You you must recognize his name by now.

I wonder if he knows that. Um, I talk

about him almost every other show. Eric

Nolan is writing, "The scientists have

discovered what they call a surprising

link between your gut and your brain."

So, if your gut is right, it makes you

less depressed and more happy and stuff.

Now, who could tell you that the state

of your gut would influence how you feel

mentally?

Well, they could have just asked Scott

because I've been saying this. Oh, twice

a week in public for years. Your body is

your brain. Your body is your brain.

They're not different. To to imagine

that, hey, the gut is influencing the

brain. No, it's not. No, the gut is not

influencing the brain. The gut is part

of your brain. It just is distributed.

Right? So once you realize that,

everything makes sense. Your body is

your brain.

Well, the movie studio Lion's Gate, you

know, one of the big ones, um, looks

like they've decided that they can't use

AI to make a featurelength movie after

all, according to an article in

Futurism. So, I guess they've been

trying for a year, and they were working

with the AI startup Runway. And you

probably have seen all kinds of examples

of a 10-second or a 30-se secondond clip

where it looks like they made a movie

like thing and you said to yourself,

"Hey, if they can make a 30-second

perfect movie, well, all they have to do

is just keep doing that until you've

added enough 30 seconds together to hey,

got a 2-hour movie." But it turns out

that nobody's been able to do that. the

technology just sort of doesn't look

like it will. Honestly, it doesn't look

like it'll ever be there. So, maybe it

will, you know, you hate to uh bet

against technology, but uh maybe. So,

but they have problems with copyrights

and all kinds of things. And then

they're trying to they're trying to

overlay the AI on top of the regular

human jobs that they already are

associated with. Can you imagine all the

people who knew that if the AI made a

proper movie that they and all their

friends that work with them would lose

their jobs. How hard are they going to

work to make sure that the AI can make a

good movie?

It seems to me that all the people who

have a job that would lose their job if

AI could make a movie are not the ones

who should be implementing it. But I'll

bet they were because, you know, big

organization, you know, you don't fire

everybody to do the new thing. You see,

if you can get the people that you have

working there to implement the new

thing.

How excited do you think they were about

doing that? And how capable were they to

implement AI? Not excited, not capable.

So, not too surprised that after one

year they might give up on that.

Well, do you know how I keep telling you

that I don't really believe there's a

tick tock deal? Uh, even though it's

announced, even though we've heard

details, I'm not so sure there's really

a tick tock deal because China, you've

heard of China? Well, now uh CNBC Dylan

Buts uh is writing that uh Beijing has

been what he says is conspicuously quiet

about the Tik Tok deal. In other words,

we don't have confirmation from China

really that there's a deal now. Do you

think that China would just decide to be

quiet about it? Does that make sense to

you? Or is it more likely that they're

going to yank that football away from

Trump yet again um when he after he's

announced the deal so that he looks weak

and pathetic and it looks like he

doesn't know what he's doing. I don't

know. Um maybe the deal will happen, but

at the moment I'd say it's a coin and

flip. It's probably a 50/50. So don't

get too excited about a tick tock deal.

may or may not happen.

According to interesting engineering,

uh, China has created quite a few robots

in the last year. Now, mostly these

would be factory robots, you know, the

big one arm robot, not not a humanoid

robot, but guess how many robots China

has built and implemented in one year.

Um, before you guess how many China has

done, I'll tell you how many the United

States has done. So, these are just

factory robots, again, just the the big

one arm thing usually. Um, so American

factories have installed 34,000 of these

robots in the past year. Now, that's

impressive. 34,000

robots implemented. Yeah, they're

actually in action right now. Uh, let's

see how China did. 300,000

Oh

well, suddenly that 34,000 doesn't sound

so big.

I feel like China has a bigger problem

than we do because doesn't that mean

that 300,000 people don't have a job?

That's kind of what that means, right?

you know, at least I it's not one to

one, but

I don't know how China survives because

they have to go robotic to be

competitive, but where does everybody

going to work? Well, well, they'll

figure it out. Well, Google's deep mind,

the uh the meta chief Yan Lacon,

he thinks that uh AGI, the the really

super general uh intelligence version,

which would be way different than the

current AI, it would be the good one

where it can actually think and it

doesn't hallucinate and all that stuff,

thinks that might be 5 to 10 years away.

Now, those of you who have spent even 1

minute in the real world, what does it

really mean when somebody says something

might be 5 to 10 years away, what what's

what's the way to interpret that? Well,

let me tell you. Let's take a page end

of the uh fusion, nuclear fusion. How

long has nuclear fusion been 5 to 10

years away?

30 or 50 years, maybe 50 years. It's

been five years away now. It might

actually be five years away now because

they've actually green lit some fusion

plants. But if you look at the total

history of how long they've been saying

it's 5 years away, it's about 50 years,

right? Some saying in the comments, some

say 60 years, something like that.

So when when Meta says and this is

somebody who is in the middle of it so

he would know when they say 5 to 10

years I hear we don't know how to do it

and nobody has any idea when we'll

figure out how to do it.

It's one thing if it's just an

engineering problem or or they just have

to train it more. But that's not

anything that has to do with, you know,

what's holding up AGI. Um, they just

don't know how to do it like at all.

Nobody knows how to do it. So, why would

you even be able to guess that you'd be

able to do a thing that you don't know

how to do and you don't even know the

path to get there? How could you predict

it would be 5 to 10 years?

On what basis would you predict that?

Yeah. It it'd be like saying we're gonna

have an anti-gravity car in five to 10

years. No, we don't have any idea how to

do it. No, nobody has any idea how to do

it. But 5 to 10 years cuz they're

working on it really hard.

Yeah, that's what it sounds like.

Meanwhile, in other AI news, Elon Musk's

uh AI, the X AI, is accusing Open AI,

their big competitor, of stealing trade

secrets by hiring away their staff. Now,

if you were one of these real high-end

AI experts,

wouldn't you take a job and then then

make sure you got poached away for way

more money? It feels like nobody should

take a job and then just keep it because

they're all being poached, you know, all

the good ones. So, no matter what salary

you negotiated or compensation, you

should go there. You should work one

year until you know all their secrets

and then you should let yourself get

poached because you're probably talking

about a hundred million dollars. You

know, who in the world is gonna say,

"Oh, I think I'll use my corporate

loyalty instead of taking a hundred

million dollars."

Well, let me give you some advice that

I've given many people, young people

usually, when they're trying to figure

out, ah, I wonder if I should quit my

current job. I've got this great offer,

but I feel like, you know, I told my

current employer that I would stay here

and not be a job hopper, so I don't

know. I think I can't take that

promotion and raise it at that other

company. And then they said to me, "But

that's the that's the right decision,

right? Because I want to be a good

person, you know? I want to be I want to

be true to my word. If I said I would

stay here for a few years, I don't want

to leave for money." And I look at them

and say, "You don't owe them a

thing. Do you think they wouldn't fire

you in a heartbeat if they had any good

reason, as in it would make more money

if they fire you?" Of course they would.

You owe them nothing.

If it's good for you to quit that job

and take another job, you should quit

that job and take another job every

time. There there's no ambiguity there.

You are for you are working for you.

You're not working for your boss. You're

working for your next job. You know, I I

put that in one of my books that your

job is not your job. Your job is to get

a better job. The moment you think your

job is your job,

you're trapped. As soon as you go, "Oh,

this is a stepping stone, and I'm going

to step as fast as I can step. Just as

fast as I can." So that's the advice I

give to people. It's good advice. All

right.

Um Sam Molman in an interview recently

said he thinks that uh just because AI

will become incredibly intelligent and

have all these abilities. Um he says it

will not become the center of the human

story.

Now what he means by that he said quote

we're wired to care about people not

machines. Now, I saw a quote from Naval

the other day. This seemed to me, I

think, I'm not sure. I can't read either

of their minds, but I think is in the

same direction, which is to say that we

will care about art that comes from

people, but we won't really care about

what AI does. AI will just be a tool. So

people will always be the thing that

absolutely lights us up, gives us our

oxytocin, our dopamine, gives us all our

meaning in life. Uh it's the only thing

we're interested in mostly because it's

an extension of our mating impulse.

Um and I think the AI is exciting

because it's new, but eventually will

sink into the background of our

experience as just a tool.

And it sounds like that's pretty close

to what Sam Alman saying. And I I would

uh I mean it's just a prediction. You

don't know for sure, but I think that

prediction is right on. I think he's

he's got that.

Well, a Danish airport, according to

AFP, is uh closed again because they got

a suspicious new drone sighting. And

apparently they're going to close their

entire airspace from Monday to Friday

next week because they they're hosting

some European summits

and they don't have control of their own

airspace.

Do you know how embarrassing that would

be as a nation? It's as embarrassing as

all those drones that were over New

Jersey. Um why don't you go up and take

a look and see what they are? What? You

can't do that. We we don't have any way

to just go look at them. Well, how about

shooting one down? Shoot one down. You

know, they're drones. There's nobody in

it. And you know, if they're not if

they're somehow, I don't know, they

don't have transponders or they're not

acting totally legally and we don't know

what they are, shoot one down. We'll

find out what it is. Nope. Can't do

that.

Well, uh, is there anything we can do?

Nope. we just wait and they just fly

around our restricted airspace and

that's where Denmark's at.

Nope. They they apparently don't have

anything like a air defense.

Now,

what uh who do you think would do this?

On one hand, I feel like it could be,

you know, just some private drone

operators with unusually large drones

because I doubt these are the small

ones, right? I assume that these are

pretty sizable drones. They're not, you

know, not the ones you hold in your

hand. I'm guessing I haven't heard

either way, but uh it could be something

domestic where somebody's just playing

with the government.

Could be Russian.

But do you think Russia has enough

upside benefit for doing that? What

would exactly be the play? What what

would Putin be trying to do? Just sewing

I don't know, sewing doubt about their

ability to defend themselves if World

War II breaks out. Would that be it? No.

You think it's a false flag maybe to

generate um an excuse for war?

That's not a bad idea. That's not bad.

May maybe it's somebody who's, you know,

at least on paper is on our side just

trying to make sure that we really know

we got to take care of this Putin

problem. Maybe it's not a terrible uh

hypothesis, but it feels like all of the

hypotheses are sort of in the category

of well, maybe,

but that doesn't feel like a good plot.

If if the most you can get out of it is

well maybe it's something bad

does that really affect the world too

much? I don't know. It's a good mystery.

At the same time Poland shut some

airports and NATO is on high alert

because in this case they think that uh

there's some Russian drone activity.

Now, if you knew that Russia was

definitely behind the drones that are

sort of plaguing the aerospace over

Poland, a NATO country, would that would

that tell you, well, if they're doing it

to Poland,

you know, probably they're doing it to

Denmark, but why would they just pick

Denmark of all places? Like, why not?

Uh,

Sergio, you're so right. Um yeah,

apparently somebody in the comments I

saw somebody said that I don't

understand the uh Islamic risk

and uh somebody had to point out that I

have a popular book that's very much I

mean it's fiction but it certainly it

certainly explains the risk. So yeah,

I'm quite tuned into that.

Uh, all right. So,

drones of plenty.

According to General Flynn, he says that

a bunch of whistleblowers from the FBI

are coming forward and that he says that

we're being flooded with whistleblowers.

Now, I don't know what a flood would be.

A flood of FBI whistleblowers. Would

that be three?

I mean, three would be a lot. Would it

be five?

So, it makes you wonder what what is

this flood of whistleblowers and has

something to do with, you know, Comey

being indicted seems to have opened some

kind of floodgate.

Speaking of floods, um, and Flynn says

that, uh, Comey should probably hurry up

and flip to get a lighter sentence

because every every day that goes by,

there's going to be a new whistleblower.

So, it could be that uh uh Comey's um

future depends on how long he waits.

If he waits too long, maybe more

whistleblowers will come in with uh

information that would increase the

charges. But if he flipped today, could

he make a deal that says um you hold me

uh guiltless even from things you don't

know about yet? you know, as long as it

was during my job as the FBI director.

So, that's an interesting prospect. Do

you think that Comey would flip

um with or without the whistleblowers?

But the whistleblowers do add some

pressure to the the potential flipping.

Um I'm going to say that it would be too

dangerous to flip on these people. The

the people that he could flip on are the

people that can kill you.

doesn't mean they've ever killed

anybody, but definitely the people who

have had the jobs where you decide who

gets to live or die. So, I don't know.

I'm not sure the whistleblowers are

going to have any goods, but I don't

think that Kobe is going to flip. What

do you think? I I feel like he would go

to jail before he would flip if he had

anything to flip on. We don't know that.

Well, Michael Cowan, you all know him,

the disgraced ex lawyer, handler, fixer

for Trump, who went to jail himself.

And so, because he was so anti-Trump

um after his legal problem started,

especially, uh he's been a regular guest

on MSNBC.

But MSNBC may be having a little uh

second thoughts about that

because Cowen is not only somebody who

knows everything about this situation,

but a lawyer. So, he's not, you know,

just some guy. He's a lawyer as well.

and he believes that uh James Comey did

in fact weaponize the government against

Trump and that the evidence will show it

and uh President Trump will be proven

right and that Comey will be uh will be

convicted and that the evidence will

quote validate the vendetta of Trump.

validate the vendetta cuz it's not

really a vendetta.

If they they show that he was trying to

overthrow the government Comey, it's not

a vendetta then it's justice.

So I love the fact that Michael Cohen,

you know, got all this credibility on

MSNBC and then goes on and just he he

just pisses in their punch bowl and they

have to sit there and just take it. It's

like Yeah. Yeah, this punch is

delicious. Now,

all right, that was too visual.

Uh John Brennan uh has done a deep dive

into his own the accusations against him

and uh he's decided that uh I just don't

see any case against me. Now, I'd like

to give you my impression of John

Brennan saying that there's doesn't seem

to be a case against him because I don't

know what drugs he's on or cuz I've seen

him talk a lot of times. I've never seen

him talk that way. Here's him just

talking about his own charges. Well,

I'll tell you the

the things uh about me are uh well uh uh

well, there doesn't seem to be any

anything about me. Uh looks like I'm

completely

I

innocent and uh no evidence whatsoever

that anything is is going to, you know,

get me in trouble.

Did you see it? Did you see the video

live?

There's something going on with that

man. In the comments, somebody says

cocaine. Um, I'm not going to accuse him

of that because I have no no reason to

believe he's on cocaine. But if you if

you said, "Can you describe what it

looked like?" Yeah, it looked like he

was on cocaine.

He he had the uh the Gavin Newsome

little bit too much jumpiness.

Now is it sticks out if you've watched

this same person for years and he's not

always like that. If he was always like

that, you would either say, "Well,

that's just the way he is." Or maybe

every single time he goes on TV does

cocaine, but that seems unlikely.

Aderall.

I know a lot of people on aderall. I've

never seen them act like that. They just

have a lot of energy. what he was doing

was a different thing. He He was like

fidgeting uncontrollably.

Yeah. All right. Um

Bernie Sanders

saying in a speech, he says, "We got to

figure out a way to stop ICE from what

they are doing as soon as possible."

Is it my imagination or is the entire

Democrat party dedicated to find out

what works and then stopping it?

Is that Am I just making that up? You're

seeing it too, right? They figure out

what works, such as um having a police

force. Hey, that look like that works.

Let's see if we can get rid of that.

Then there's capitalism.

They say, "Look, it looks like that

capitalism

made us the strongest country. Let's get

rid of that." And then they look at uh

the border. They say, "Hm, closed border

seems to be keeping us very safe. Let's

get rid of that. Let's get rid of that."

Then they then they know that uh

homeschooling would be very helpful.

Make a little more competitive

situation, improve everything. Let's get

rid of that. Yeah, let's get rid of

that. Um, how about um,

is it high school sports? H, high school

sports seems to be working really well.

You got the boys playing with boys. You

got the the women playing with women.

Let's get rid of that. Yeah, let's get

rid of that.

Right.

Am I Am I making this up? that literally

they just look at what is working best

to keep us safe and prosperous and then

they go hm

I think we should get rid of that right

away soon as possible.

Well, Mike Benz has a take on uh the

Epstein situation

that uh is fairly complete. Now, I don't

know how we don't know how accurate it

is because, you know, there's still some

mysteries about Epstein. But if Mike

Benz has, you know, let's say he's

landed on a point of view on this, I

would take that very seriously because

he's very credible. and uh he believes

that uh Epstein broker deals between the

US, Israeli, British and Saudi

intelligence probably secretly finance

some political activities and uh and

thinks that uh Israeli prime minister ex

prime minister uh Ahoud Barack visited

his island without security.

Now, does that seem like a good idea? On

one hand, you could say you don't need

security on Epstein Island cuz it's such

a controlled environment. You know, the

odds of, you know, somehow some

terrorist knowing he was there and

getting all the way there and getting to

him, you know, pretty low. So, on one

hand, you wouldn't really need any

security if you went to the island. You

know, you could imagine that you'd feel

that way if you were an ex-p prime

minister, not a not a current prime

minister. Um,

but the other reason that you might want

to have no security

would be you don't want them to be

witnesses to whatever it is you're up

to. Maybe now there's no evidence that

um,

Ahood Barack, you know, did anything

illegal or did anything with women

there. There's no evidence of that. But

um he does look look like given given

the vast number of contacts

um it does seem that he might have been

a handler of some kind or possibly

Israel's contact with him but not the

only contact. You know there the the

thinking here is that uh Epstein

probably worked with whoever had money

and wherever it made sense you know as

long as they were allies of the US. it

looks like.

So,

um, what do you think?

So, I guess Bill Clinton, uh, oh,

Epstein visited the Bill Clinton White

House at least 17 times. So, here's the

uh, I guess the picture that's emerging,

the the emerging picture is that Trump

did not do anything illegal, at least in

front of anybody who's, you know, who

would have been a witness. Um, but that

Bill Clinton probably was on the plane

when when there was a rape. I think that

they would call rape in this context,

specifically underage u females.

Um, it doesn't necessarily mean that it

was against their will. But, you know,

the argument is that under a certain

age, it doesn't mean anything to say

that you're willing. It's still a crime.

All right.

Um,

so it looks like certainly the Clintons

have something to explain. Probably, you

know, a dozen other important people

have something to explain, but probably

Trump doesn't. Um, and that Epstein was

certainly connected to some, you know,

intelligence agencies and Israel was

almost certainly one of them because of

audac of course. So, I don't know. We

don't know this. These are not confirmed

things.

But uh the the thinking now is that what

Trump is doing is protecting other

powerful people. You know, you know what

would be the most interesting

if you had to write the movie and you

had to figure out what's the most

interesting thing, you know, that we

don't know about yet. To me, the most

interesting thing would be if Trump is

protecting Bill Clinton.

I don't think you beat that for an

interesting movie. Now, why Bill Clinton

might be worth protecting? Like, he

might have some secrets of his own. And

it's entirely possible that uh Trump

doesn't hate Bill Clinton. He might he

might have a different opinion about

Hillary, but he might just say, "You

know what? I I can't take down the next

president."

Maybe, you know, or or I can't take down

an ex-president who wasn't acting

against me. You know, Obama was acting

against Trump, but Bill Clinton wasn't

acting against Trump. And even his words

are, you know, not nearly the kinds of

things that that Hillary says. So, it

could be at one time I think a uh Bill

Clinton and Trump were kind of friendly,

right? It could be that that's who he's

protecting, which would be wild,

wouldn't it? That would be absolutely

wild. Would it make you

like Trump more or dislike him? I can't

decide.

might make me like him more because if

the reason he's doing it is that he

doesn't want to take down a president

who wasn't acting against him directly,

that's not the worst impulse in the

world, even if he's guilty of something,

you know, because that would at least

establish some kind of a some kind of a

boundary, some kind of a precedent. You

know, you might not like it, but it

would establish a precedent. Well,

Stephen Miller was talking about all the

uh let's call them the Trump enemy list

that included, you know, Kobe Clapper,

Brennan, Obama, Lisa, Monaco, etc. He

said that they all conspired together to

try to sabotage the democratic

institutions of this country. This is

Steven Miller again saying this. He

says, "I cannot find words harsh enough

to condemn the conduct of these

conspirators, these insurrectionists."

And I said, "Oh, there it is. You need

to call them insurrectionists.

If if you have the goods, you know, if

the evidence shows that that's what they

were doing, you need to call them

insurrectionists all day long. You need

to you need to take that word away from

them so that it makes it a little bit

easier to debunk the January 6 thing. By

the way, I think that Bill Maher is one

hoax away and it's the January 6 hoax.

He's one hoax away from completely

giving up on Democrats. Once he realized

that he's been hoaxed and he goes in

public, you know, once a week and acts

like somebody who's been bamboozled by

his own team, I don't know if he's going

to put up with that once he realizes

that that number one, give me a fact

check on this. Number one, um the uh

Republicans

more or less didn't bring a weapons to

an insurrection. Number two, there is no

known way that anybody has ever

suggested that you can take over the

United States by trespassing in one

building. No, nobody has an idea how you

could make that turn into overcoming the

country.

And number three, and I need a fact

check on this, is it true that nobody

involved was charged with the crime of

insurrection?

Right. As far as I know, nobody was even

charged. And and given that they were

looking for every charge you could throw

at them, they they were looking at

charges that you wouldn't even think

were charges. So if they had anything

that could go to insurrection, don't you

think they'd be charged? At least one

person. Nothing. There is no I believe

there is no documentation, no email, no

messages, no no testimony that says

anybody was thinking in those terms. Now

there might have been some you know a

few crazies that who knows what they

were saying but in terms of the general

crowd the the 95% of them I don't

believe there's any evidence of any

planning

any planning that that would that would

look like an insurrection.

And then lastly, the dog not barking. Is

that um why don't we see every day a new

January 6 person telling us why they

were there? Because it's not an

insurrection if the people there don't

think it is, right? It doesn't matter if

you think it's an insurrection. If the

people involved had no intention

or not even the thought of overthrowing

the country,

then that's how can you call that an

insurrection? They have to be thinking

it. I think I will do this thing that

will result in overthrowing the country.

If nobody had that thought, and as far

as I know, there's no evidence that

anybody had that thought. Again, there

might have been a couple of crazies in

the crowd, but in terms of the larger

nature of the crowd, no. Now,

if I had 60 seconds to just say those

things to Bill Maher, I could reprogram

him because unlike most people, he

actually listens to arguments.

You know, this this is my best

compliment I could ever give anybody.

He's actually able to find the door, but

sometimes you have to, you know, shine

on flashlight on the door knob. But with

just the smallest amount of help, I

believe he's fully capable of escaping

that hoax. And when he does,

I think he'll be done with Democrats. I

think you'll just be done with him at

that point. and and I think he also

knows the whole Trump is stealing your

democracy

um is not really describing anything

that's going on in the real world and at

some point he's going to see you know

presumably Trump leave the office

peaceful turnover

um and that'll change everything

although if uh I'll tell you what's

going to happen if JD Vance wins

uh the presidency

the Democrat rats are going to say,

"Well, it's it's another term of Trump."

So, really, it's just Trump staying in

office, but he's doing it in this way

that technically he's not staying in

office, but damn it, it's still just

Trump running everything. So Trump will

be the back door to JD Vance and JD

Vance will know he's got to do what

Trump wants even though Trump's out of

office because Trump will have so much

influence that he could take down the

sitting president if he wanted to which

he could

which he could. So it doesn't matter if

Trump leaves or not. If JD backfills or

even Marco Rubio, uh, if anybody who is

seemingly loyal to Trump backfills and

is the next president,

Democrats will say, "See, I told you

he stole our democracy. We just got more

Trump no matter what we do." So, that's

happening. Anyway,

let's call all of the uh the Russia

hoaxers insurrectionists because that

that name actually fits. That that's not

persuasion.

It's not brainwashing. It's what they

were doing. It's exactly what they're

doing and it's exactly not what January

6 people were doing. So, let's use that

word right.

Whale, the gateway pundit, Jim Ha, is

writing about how um Tulsi Gabber, DNI

director, is uh apparently uncovered yet

more documents that seem to go to

proving that Obama was behind doctoring

the intel to make it look as though

Trump and Putin stole the election. Now,

we already had indications that Obama

was the, you know, the mastermind there,

but apparently there's more. I haven't

seen them, so I can't judge how credible

they are. Um, but uh there's now

irrefutable evidence, says Jim Hoff,

that uh detail how Obama and his

national security team directed the

creation of an intelligence community

assessment, a document that they knew

was false.

I believe that is probably

proven at this point. Now, as far as I

know, Obama

probably would still not be prosecuted

even if we had the goods on him. Is that

right? Because he was a sitting

president and you know, we don't go

after them for what they did in office.

Maybe. Although, you could you could

argue that that president's been

violated. So, if Trump violates it,

well,

maybe he didn't start it. Maybe.

All right.

And I also think that if uh Tulsi

Gabbard and all the Republicans say,

"Hey, this document is proof." It

doesn't mean it's proof because I

haven't seen it. But you can imagine if

it's like everything else in the world,

the Democrats will read it differently

and they'll say, "Oh, no, look at this

sentence. This this sentence, the way he

worded it, um gets him out of trouble."

and then the Republicans will say that's

obviously he's just saying that to stay

out of trouble. It's clear that what he

meant. So I don't believe there's there

is such a thing as a document that

everybody would look at and say, "Oh

yeah, yep. If that document's real, that

Obama is an insurrectionist." I don't

think that's ever going to happen. We'll

just disagree what we see. Well,

meanwhile in Portland, the governor of

Portland is um trying to get Trump not

to send the military in for the violence

that's happening in the streets and the

the rioting, etc. So, the governor of

Oregon um says uh there's no

insurrection, there's no threat to

national security, no need for military

troops in our major city, which would be

Portland.

But uh correct me if I'm wrong. Those uh

those people that are doing the

protesting,

are they unarmed?

They don't have guns or they're not

brandishing, right? And are they

trespassing in any in any situations?

Are they trespassing? Because I was

taught by the Democrats that if you are

protesting in a way that is unarmed and

also trespassing that that's called an

insurrection. An insurrection.

You've heard of that, right? If you

simply walk around without weapons in a

building that you're not supposed to be

in, that's an insurrection. Apparently,

the Democrats think that's how you

overtake a country because that's why

they think the January 6ers are

insurrections because they wandered

around without weapons inside a building

where they didn't they didn't belong.

So, I would say the uh Portland is

experiencing an insurrection as defined

by Democrats.

Republicans, not so much. But yeah,

well, it's yet another day of pretending

that uh we can't tell that Kla Harris is

a sloppy drunk. Uh there two more videos

came out where she's just drunk as a

skunk.

Now, it might be, you know, prescribed

medication. it. I mean, it might be

Xanax or something like that, but I've

seen drunks

and I'm pretty sure I've seen people on

Xanax and this looks drunk. I mean, I

could be wrong, but it just looks so

drunk. It doesn't look stoned. It looks

drunk.

I can tell the difference. All right,

here's a reframe for you. This will

change your life. All I'm going to do is

reframe something you've been looking at

and you'll never be able to see it the

same again.

Um, you know, Mark Ruffalo, so actor

Mark Ruffalo, he's uh very associated

with Democrats and and the more

leftleaning Democrats. And uh he was

complaining about why, you know, we need

the Second Amendment and these what he

calls weapons of war. I think he means

the rifles. and

he he acts with whoever he's talking to

like he he's smart enough that he knows

what Republicans don't know and that he

knows that these weapons would be

useless if the government, you know,

turned on the people or, you know, a

dictator started to form.

Now, does that sound like he's right?

No. No. He is someone who doesn't

understand war or guns or anything.

Doesn't understand Republicans. Uh, as

I've said many times, I I promote no

violence whatsoever. I'm just

describing. I'm not recommending. I'm

not predicting. I'm just describing.

If if some dictator tried to take over

the United States, the plan would not be

to go shoot the dictator. Although we've

seen recently that that a leader can't

be protected outside. If you put a

leader outside, somebody's going to get

on a building with one of these quote

weapons of war, which is literally what

was used against Trump, used against

Charlie Kirk. So, do does the dictator

want to live in a world where he can

never go outdoors because somebody's

going to be on a roof with one of these?

Does the dictator want to live in a

world where on day one all of that

dictator's relatives will be rounded up

and kept as prisoners for negotiating?

All of their relatives, all of their

friends will be rounded up by armed men.

Now, Mark Ruffalo, did you really think

that the people with the guns were going

to go up directly against the military?

No. No, that wouldn't work at all. No,

they're going to use those guns to kill

every single person or kidnap them that

would have any leverage

with the dictator.

Do you think the dictator wants to lose

every single person in their family and

all their friends?

Probably not. Probably not.

So there would be massive uh

assassinations, massive assassinations.

You know, every every person associated

with the regime when they walked out the

door, they'd get clipped, you know,

right the not necessarily the top, you

know, five people in the government, but

once you got past the top five, they

can't really protect them that well. We

would know where they lived.

we would know their schedule pretty

quickly and they would get clipped as

soon as they walked outdoors. So, that's

what it would look like. Now, I'm not

recommending it. I'm not I'm not uh I

don't want to make that sound like it's

noble or anything like that. I'm just

saying if you didn't know that the way

it would work would be a, you know, not

a direct confrontation with the

military, if you didn't understand what

the most likely outcome of that

situation would be,

you're not really qualified to talk

about it because his opinion is based on

his opinion. Somebody says Scott's a

monster. Well, in this context, I simply

am understanding monsters because there

is something that will turn every man

into a monster,

including me. All right. I don't feel

like I'm a monster at the moment, but do

you think you could do something to me

that would turn me into one? Oh, yeah.

It wouldn't take long. It would just

depend what you did. You know, if you if

you hurt somebody, let's say, you know,

a loved one or something, how long would

it take me to turn into a monster?

immediate.

It would be immediate. And I think

that's most men. Most men would turn

monster if you give him a reason. We

just need a reason.

The the the reason the difference

between a murderer and a law-abiding

man, now this is just men. I I can't

speak for women, but the difference

between a man who's a murderer and a man

who's law-abiding is a good reason.

That's it. Just a good reason.

We we all can become monsters

immediately.

If you didn't know that, maybe you feel

better not knowing it,

but you're always surrounded by

monsters. They just happen to be in

check. They just don't have a reason.

That's it. They just don't have a

reason. Give them a reason. Find out

what happens.

Um, I can tell you what happens.

So, here's my reframe. I haven't gotten

to it yet. The reframe is this. You

think that the left have a different

political point of view? I say the left,

the far-left, we're not talking about

ordinary Democrats now. Ordinary

Democrats have nothing to do with what

I'm about to say. The far-left

are all Dunning Krueger people. Now,

Dunning Krueger, most of you know what

that is, but that's the observation that

there are some people who believe, it's

very common, that they know a lot more

than they know. So if there's something

they don't know, they think it's unknown

because if they don't know it, probably

nobody else knows it either. So that

explains Mark Ruffalo. He's simply, he's

simply somebody who doesn't know the,

you know, the weapons culture, doesn't

know probably anything about guerrilla

warfare or revolutions. Maybe just

uninformed.

And but he has that uh weird quality

that you see on the far left. Again, not

regular normal people like Bill Maher.

So Bill Maher is not in this category.

I'm talking about the people who have

that weird smug look on their face when

they say things that are completely

stupid. Have you ever seen a a 20some

with green hair explain how uh you know

their ideas are better and how you

should open the border and uh let the

people out of jail and and they've got

this look on their face like

I'm so smart. You know, I'm talking to

some dummy, some dumb Republican,

but look how smart I am. I mean, look at

my face. I'm smug.

Why don't they understand that if they

just all gave their weapons away, there

would be no violence?

And look how smart I am. Can you tell

how smart I am by my smug smile?

Now, that's my reframe. The reframe is

that the far left are nothing but just

nothing but um Dunning Krueger

sufferers. Nothing but. Now, are there

also some Dunning Krueger people on the

right? Of course. Of course. It's not

limited to one side. But the entire far

left, every one of them believes they

know more than they know. Oh, I took

this course in college that said that

socialism was good, so Mandami must be a

good choice.

And they would feel confident in that.

Not just confident, but they'd be sure

that you're you're wrong. Oh. Oh. Are

you still sticking to that capitalism

idea?

I can barely contain my smile at your

stupidity when when socialism is

obviously the best solution that's

worked every time it's been tried as far

as I know.

Yeah. It's that stupid damn smug smile

that gives it away.

And then on top of that, there's a bunch

of people who are just, you know, in it

for power and whatever. And that's

different. The ones who are just in it

for the power, you know, the Nancy

Pelosies, etc., that that's completely

different. But the ordinary voters,

yeah, that's Dunning Krueger. Total

Dunning Krueger.

Wall Street apes is reporting on an X.

um that there's a uh I guess there was

an investigation by a gentleman named

David I don't know how to say his last

name is spelled K H A I T.

Would that be Kite or

uh Jite or Kite? Kite, I don't know.

Kate.

But apparently he has exposed um some

Democrat protesters. And

did you know there's a union

Apparently, there's an appropriate union

so that some of the protesters are

getting union pay.

They join the union and then they accept

the uh the assignment and they get union

pay. So, apparently they can make 80 to

110,000 per year as professional

protesters.

And so, a lot of the a lot of the

protesters you see um they don't care.

They're they're not there because they

care about the issue. They're uh it

rhymes with what?

Somebody was telling me what it was, so

I missed it.

Um so and then he the one of them that

uh this David Kate um exposed he uh he

apparently is a prominent member with

the Democrat Socialists of America

Atlanta chapter and uh I guess there's a

lot of them who do this kind of work. Um

so never trust the protests. They're

just paid protesters now. We know it. We

know the whole structure of it, etc. And

uh

so he's he's backing M dami. So if a

paid protester backs mom dummy, do you

think that he actually backs him? He it

looks like he might because they're both

socialists,

but uh I wouldn't trust the paid

protesters.

Um

Oops.

So, in other news, Corey D'Angelos,

who's a um very successful activist for

his school choice, he uh came into

possession of a leaked email from uh I

guess it was the assistant to Randy

Wearten. So, Randy Weine is the head of

the biggest teachers union and they're

very political and I don't believe that

the Democrats could win anything without

them. the teachers union funding and

being on their side. Um, apparently the

assistant wrote an email that uh was

warning people about backing Mom Donnie

and he said that Mom Donnie has no

experience in city government. Um, and

he points as a uh an analog the mayor of

Chicago is at a 14% favorability rating.

I've never even heard of that. Have you

even heard of anybody at 14%

uh approval

politician? I've never even heard it. I

I feel like Hitler was higher than that.

And uh he points out the assistant to

Randy Warner, he points out that winning

an election does not necessarily

translate into the ability to govern.

And then it gets better. He says it is

important to face squarely what has

happened in Chicago. It has not gone

well. But here's the kill shot. But

something has clearly gone wrong and it

can't just be attributed to our enemies.

[Music]

There it is. There it is. Don't you

wonder? And haven't you wondered if,

let's say, the teachers union, do they

not recognize that they're backing the

worst people in the world like Mom

Donnie? Do they not know it? Are are

they are they actually clueless? And the

answer is no. They know it. They know it

and they're doing it anyway.

They know it and they're doing it

anyway. Why? Power. What? What would be

the other reason? What would be the

other reason you would back horrible

candidates? Well, some might say if they

were running against Trump, you could

always say, "Well, anything's better

than Trump in my opinion." But that's

not true for every politician everywhere

all the time, mayors included. Now,

apparently Democrats know that the

Chicago mayor is a disaster and that

Mami will be another disaster. Do you

think that that the fact that the

assistant to Weine Garden knows that?

And I'm pretty sure that, you know, the

rest of the people know it, too. Do you

think that will change who they back?

I'm going to say no.

Nope. Even being caught

understanding that he would be a

disaster even with that. Nope. Nope. The

the power

um predictor says they'll just keep

doing what they're doing.

So, Democrats are not serious. Um

they're not trying to make the country

better. Let's not kid ourselves. They're

they're not in it for that. Well,

there's a Somali woman uh who lives in

Minnesota was charged for stealing,

you know, fraudulently doing a scheme

and autism site uh where she stole $14

million by pretending to treat children

who in most cases probably didn't have

autism. So, she um apparently she was

doing a $1,000 per child kickback to

parents who would be willing to pretend

that their children were autistic and

enroll them.

Oh my god. What happens to the child who

gets enrolled in the urine autist school

so that the the parents can make $1,000

and then they're trained as though

they're autistic? What does that do to

your education path?

It feels like that would limit you a

little bit, wouldn't it? So, this might

be one of the worst crimes you'll ever

hear of in your whole life. Um, if it's

as bad as it sounds to me.

And the question is, do you think this

is rare? Do you think there's only one

of these people who said, "Huh, all I

have to do is pretend I'm treating

autistic people and I can make millions

of dollars." Do you think just the one

woman had an idea like that? No. There I

think there are tons of them. It could

be that the entire, you know, runup of

costs on healthcare. It might be that a

100% of it is crime. It might be. I

mean, I I wouldn't bet on 100% of it

being crime, but it it could be. It's

it's that size. You know, we're probably

talking about hundreds of billions a

year in pure crime. you know, not even

not even a gray area, just pure theft,

probably hundreds of billions a year.

All right. Um, the feds have indicted uh

three women who were involved with uh

tracking down some ICE agents and uh

following them home and doxing their

home address on Instagram

so that people could harass them or or

bother them. And a federal grand jury

has indicted them. Now, they're just

indicted. They're not not convicted. But

here's my question. The women who were

doing that were doing it publicly.

So, they weren't trying to hide.

Did they believe that because they were

young women, they certain they just

don't get arrested?

Like at what point would they not know

that they were breaking a law and that

it was obvious it was them and they

would be on social media and

did they not think that the law applied

to them? I I'm I'm feeling like that

might be some of our problem that women

don't see themselves as ever going to

jail.

As a man, I imagine myself in jail,

unfortunately, far too often and far too

easily. How hard is it for a man to

imagine that something would go wrong,

whether you actually did something

illegal or not, and you would end up in

jail?

it to me. You know, your mileage might

differ, but even though I'm I go out of

my way not to break a law, you know, I

try as hard as I can not to break any

laws because I don't need to. Like, why

why would I need to? I don't have any

there's no gain. So, but yet

I still have a perpetual never goes

away. I can be thrown in jail for what?

I don't know. somebody would come up

with something. But I don't think that

women think that way, do they? Here, I'm

just speculating. I can't read any

minds. But if but if you're a

20-year-old attractive woman, you've

seen a lot of videos where young women

are stopped by the police and they act

like they can resist arrest as much as

they want

and that they won't be beaten up and

they look like they think they'll never

go to jail. So, is that part of the

problem that protesters are often female

and they just haven't been raised with

the mindset that, you know, if you take

one wrong step, you're in jail? Let's

see from the men.

From the men, can you confirm that

you've always been trained and or just

knew that you were only one wrong step

away from jail?

It's not just me, right?

I I would think that's a male um

universal feeling because when you see a

prison it's all men, right? And all day

long all the stories that I read today,

how many of them were about somebody had

legal problems and was going to go to

jail and they were all men. You know,

there's this Lisa Monaco who popped up,

but mostly it's men. You know, Obama

might go to jail. Comey might go to

jail. Brennan Clapper Schiff might go to

jail.

Right? You you can't not notice that men

are going to jail like crazy and it

doesn't seem like women do.

Right. I'm not saying they should or

shouldn't. It just is what it feels

like. Yeah. It makes me wonder.

Well, there's a uh story about a woman

named Assada Shakur. Um Assada. Her

first name is spelled asss

a ta.

And uh apparently she became some kind

of a uh either a revolutionary fighter

for justice or a coper.

Apparently she was a little bit of both

of those things. So she was involved

with the execution of a cop. Um I don't

think she pulled the trigger, but she

was, you know, part of the group. So she

went to jail and then she was broken out

of jail. there was some massive

jailbreak um with help from the outside

and they broke her in a jail some years

ago and 1970s it looks like it was and

then she escaped to Cuba in 1979 where

she uh recently died

but the reason that it's a big story is

how it's being treated in the news

the left-leaning news and indeed the

Chicago's teachers union say things like

this. So, this is the Chicago Teachers

Union. Today, we honor the life and

legacy of a revolutionary fighter, a

fierce writer, a revered elder of black

liberation, and a leader of freedom

whose spirit continues to live in our

struggle.

Well, Community Notes on X decided that

it needed to put a little context on

that.

So, here's what was left out of the

Chicago Teachers Union praise for her

life and her work. Uh, Sada Shakur was

convicted in 1977

of firstdegree murder in the 73 killing

of a New Jersey state trooper and

sentenced to life plus 33 years on other

charges. She escaped to Cuba in 79, has

been a fugitive since listed on the

FBI's most wanted terrorist list in

2013.

So, as others have pointed out, two

movies on one screen, the same person.

She's either being honored for her

revolutionary fighting or she's a

terrorist, most wanted terrorist. Same

person. Now, I will point out

that if you are in favor of keeping

revolutionary

uh southern general statues,

you would also be in favor of

somewhat honoring people who might have

owned slaves, might have killed some

people, might have done some bad things

back in the Civil Wars days. And uh you

should at least be consistent.

Now, I have said that if uh a

significant number of black Americans

find those statues offensive, that's a

good enough reason to move them. I don't

need a better reason. If if some large

percentage of a demographic group that

is part of my American experience says

these are just offensive and they have a

good reason, you know, because it

represented slavery or whatever, I would

say, you know what, I I'm not going to

die on that hill. If if that offends you

and it offends you that much that you're

willing to get active over it, yeah, I

I'm open to moving it somewhere, you

know, maybe taking it out of the park,

maybe adding a plaque that just puts it

in proper context. So then you're not

honoring them so much. You're just it's

just history. So, I I think that's a

perfectly reasonable

um debate and I would be pretty flexible

about that because if I had something in

my house, let's say a painting of let's

say I really liked a painting that

depicted something from the slavery era

and I just thought it was great art.

Had, you know, nothing political,

nothing else. It was just great art. I

put it on my wall and then my black and

white friends look at it and go, "Uh,

Scott, do you know what this is about?"

And I'd be like, "It's just great art.

Don't worry about it." But let's say a

number of people came to my house and

they all said the same thing. Uh, this

is really this is gross. You you

shouldn't have that in your wall. I

would take it down. I'm not I'm not

going to die on that hill and say, "Oh,

but it's great art, so it shouldn't

bother you." If it does bother you,

that's a good enough reason. It does

bother you, and you've got a good

argument for it. It's not like you have

no argument, I'd take it down. Same

thing I do with the the park. So um

while I am not supporting anything about

this particular cop killing terrorist

lady, you can imagine that if you wait

50 years that the part about her killing

a cop or being part of the people who

killed the cop will be diminished over

time

much the way the southern general's uh

exploits would be diminished over time.

And people look at it differently. Now,

I'm not telling you what you should or

should not do with statues or what you

should or should not do with this one

thing. I'm just making a comparison.

That's all. I just think it's

interesting that um people who have done

terrible things can sometimes be

rehabilitated over time.

Now, I'm not saying that they deserve to

be rehabilitated. I'm just saying it

happens. Um,

and I would like to add to this

conversation the following

when black America decided to uh honor

George Floyd, there were a lot of white

Americans who said, "Uh, that's a

terrible idea. you should not be

honoring people who were career

criminals and and at the very least

contributed to his own death

by bad habits and bad decisions and and

all that. And I'm going to say again in

my in my experience

uh every person of every kind, black,

white, old, young, just everybody, if

they if they made the decisions

that generally work in life, they

usually did well. And if they make the

kind of decisions that you just shake

your hand head and say, "Well, that's a

bad decision." If you keep making bad

decisions, you're going to get a bad

outcome.

And there's no mystery to it whatsoever.

So if you make bad decisions like, you

know, honoring criminals, well, what do

you think's going to happen? Like, you

know, play that forward. What do you

think's going to happen?

Now, um, I'm going to do something

selferving, but it's not why I'm doing

it. Um, if you wanted to make sure that

your child or even yourself had uh the

benefit of let's say good mentoring

and good advice, good advice on how to

be successful and what to avoid to avoid

failure, you can do that. There are

books. You don't need you don't need a

human in your life if you read. You just

need to be able to read. My books, I

think, get very close to that. The ones

I would recommend for anyone who wanted

to turn somebody who was aimless and

didn't have a plan into somebody who

understood what to do to be successful.

I would say my book, Loser Think, second

edition. Uh, loser think will teach you

how to avoid bad arguments that other

people recognize as bad arguments. So,

what you're trying to do is not look

like a fool in front of people who

actually know how the world works. You

want to look like you also know how the

world works. And then immediately people

will say, "Oh, uh, that guy. Yeah, we're

going to hire that guy. He knows how the

world works." So that's what that's

about. Loser think is what to avoid so

that smart people will want to work with

you. Want to marry you, want to work

with you. Win bigly teaches you

persuasion.

There is no career path that isn't way

better if you understand how to talk to

people and persuade. Right? Do you do

you believe that um those of you who

have read this book there a lot of you

in in the comments if you've read this

book would you back me that that it

would that knowing this book would make

you more effective in whatever you're

doing in life? Would you agree? Yeah.

Just watch the comments if you don't

believe me. Cuz you know, you should not

believe the author.

Don't believe the author. All authors

think their books are great. But if the

people who read it think it's great,

well, that's something I think you could

trust that. And you you'll see in the

comments the yeses. But the most

important one by far is how to fill the

most everything and still win big

because it was written specifically for

young people who didn't didn't have a

mentor, somebody who could tell them

what works, what doesn't work. So this

is a whole book of what works and what

doesn't work. Easy to read, easy to

totally grasp. And uh I I'll ask the

same question for those of you who've

read it, which is a lot of you. Would

this make a young person who is, you

know, aimless at the moment make them

more successful? Yes, 100% it would. Not

there's it's not there's no gray area

there. These three books, if a young

person read them, let's say let's say

before the age of 20,

their odds of succeeding in life, the

only thing that would stop them would be

really bad luck or a health problem, you

know, or getting murdered and something

like that. But they would have all the

tools. They would literally know

everything they needed to succeed. Now,

the one of the reasons I wrote this kind

of book, you know, all three of them.

Um, oh, and also the the uh fourth one,

reframe your brain. So, where is that?

So the fourth one, the more this is the

the newest one, reframe your brain. It

would teach you how to basically

navigate all kinds of situations with

the the right way to look at the

situation so you're most productive.

Now, some of you have read all four of

these books, right? If any of you have

read all four of them, make yourself

known if you'd like to in the comments.

And um tell me if it made you more

effective. I already know the answer. I

know the answer. Now, just to be clear,

I'm not the only person who wrote books

that would teach you how to be

successful.

These are the ones I know the best

because I wrote them and I and I watch

the the notes coming in. So, a lot of

people write to me almost every day.

Almost every day, somebody says, "I read

one of these books. It changed my life

for the positive. So, let me let me get

back to George Floyd and uh this

terrorist cop killer.

If you did the things in my book, which

are designed to make any person, you

know, you could be black or white or

male or female, it's designed to make

any person way more effective and have a

way better chance of getting whatever

they want in life, whatever they decide

is success. You would be way better

situation to get all those things. Um,

that would be a good idea. So the people

who do what makes sense

become life lifelong learners. And again

doesn't have to be these books. The I

I'm a lifetime learner. Most of what

I've uh end up putting in books are

things that probably I ran into

somewhere first, you know, over my

lifetime. And once I'd accumulated

enough of these tips, I thought, you

know, I'll bet I could write a better

book than than other people.

because I have done nothing in Krueger

myself sometimes.

All right. So that's the point. We

should get away from race race and we

should get toward individual individual

individual. If you give me an

individual,

I know exactly how to make them more

successful as long as they can read and

they're willing to put a little work in.

So that's my uh

that's my statement for the day. Uh

Palmer Lucky is talking about how the

leaders in Silicon Valley are unwilling

to speak out against China or even in

favor of Taiwan because they're so

afraid of China. You know, they might

need China later as a market. They might

need China as a supplier. Um they just

might need China. So apparently in

Silicon Valley

uh and wherever there are tech leaders,

there are not many people speaking out

against China. So that's why I'm here.

I'll fill in that gap for you.

The Trump administration says they have

plans to end the Gaza war according to

the Washington Post. And uh here here's

their plan. Now you tell me if this

sound like this would work.

I may be biasing you a little bit.

Spoiler, this plan could never work.

There's no chance that this plan can

work. All right, so the plan according

to the Washington Post, there's a

21point proposal. I haven't seen all the

points, but uh it would start with uh

Gaza would give back the hostages, every

one of them, and in return um

Israel would stop all war. So the war

would be done, the hostages come back

and then there would be some uh post-war

governance plan uh without Hamas. So

they would be disarmed and some kind of

international security force would be

formed to uh keep things together.

Now uh the reporting says Israel has

expressed reservations about some

elements.

All right. So apparently it's a plan

that neither Hamas nor Israel wants.

Do you think that the US can force this

on them? I don't think so. And and by

the way, as soon as Hamas releases the

uh hostages,

aren't they going to be killed?

I mean, it's the only thing keeping them

alive, right? The fact that there might

be some hostages in the tunnels.

Otherwise, Israel is just going to say,

"Well, I think there might be a tunnel

under here somewhere. If all of our

hostages are home, they're just going to

flatten everything that needs to be

flattened." Um, because they're not

going to take a chance that Hamas can

reform. They're not going to take that

chance. So, they're going to kill or

imprison every single one of the Hamas

fighters and leaders. Why would you

surrender if you knew you were going to

go to jail or be killed? If you knew it,

you you know it like even if you even if

they came up with a plan and says, "All

right, Israel has agreed that they will

not hurt us if we, you know, go public

and let the hostages out." Do you think

Israel would keep that deal or would

there be a sudden, you know, the brakes

don't work on the Hamas leader's car?

Well, not our fault. No, they're all

going to be dead. Why would they agree

to this?

Why would they? I mean, there's there's

no reason. So, I'm going to go with I

don't think there will be a peace deal

right away, if ever.

And I don't believe that Netanyahu wants

a peace deal. I think he wants um

Oh, the fourth one, Mike Bert, is

reframe your brain.

Yeah, reframe your brain. All right.

Um, Tucker Carlson says that Trump needs

to uh get some distance between himself

and BB Netanyahu and do it right away.

He thinks Tucker thinks that Netanyahu

is hurting Trump's presidency.

And he's careful to say he's not blaming

Israel. He's not blaming Jews. He's just

blaming Netanyahu. And he thinks

Netanyahu is bad for Trump. and that uh

allegedly he's condescending Netanyahu

and talks behind Trump's back and says

bad things. I don't know about that.

Then Tucker says and Nanyahu quote only

cares about himself.

Well,

um isn't that what everybody says about

any leader they don't like, that they

only care about themselves? I find that

the least useful criticism

because everybody cares about themselves

the most.

Uh but if you're a public leader,

don't you have to do a terrific job for

your country in order to maximize your

own benefit?

Pretty sure you do. So this whole only

cares about himself, how does that

actually play out in the real world?

Wait, is he going to do things that are

obviously bad for Israel but only good

for him? He can't get away with that.

Everything he does is public. So, seems

to me that everything he does would have

to be for the benefit of his own

country. Uh or he just couldn't get away

with doing it, you know. Anyway, so I

don't know about that, but that's what

Tucker thinks.

Um,

I I think I've told you that whenever I

talk about Israel, I have to give you

this little speech to go with it. I am

not supporting Israel and I am not uh

opposing Israel. It's not my country.

And whether I opposed it or supported

it, that should have exactly zero impact

on what Israel does. Israel's job is to

maximize the benefit of Israel in my

opinion, which has nothing to do with

what Israel should do. This is just me

sitting in my chair in America. No

impact on Israel. Israel will do what

they do. I'll observe it and I'll

predict it,

but I'm not going to judge it. It seems

to me that if Israel did manage to

consolidate Gaza plus the whole West

Bank and that in a 100 years from now

we're looking at history and say, "Wow,

it used to be tiny tiny and then it got,

you know, a multiple bigger." Um, but

you know, maybe it was kind of shady and

evil the way they got there. Don't you

think that it would still look like a

good deal after about 200 years? Like

eventually, don't you think that

Netanyahu would be

probably more likely to have a statue

built in his honor if he got away with

it? Only if he got away with it. But if

he actually made Israel what would it

be, 25 times bigger if he absorbed the

West Bank in Gaza? if they I I feel like

that would look like some parts of

American history where we we just sort

of don't talk so much about the Native

Americans being, you know, wiped out or,

you know, relocated or any of that. And

we just sort of glorify the growth of

the country. It's like, whoa, used to be

this big and then we added some states

and look at us. Look how awesome we are

at adding states. And when we talk about

the history of the United States, we

don't want to say, "Oh, we sure are

losers and jerks and evil bastards

because then we might have to give it

back.

It's bad enough that we do land

acknowledgements, but

I I'll just make this prediction. I

won't be around to see how it turns out

probably. But in 200 years, if Israel

expands, either just Gaza or the West

Bank plus Gaza, uh if that happened, it

would be treated as an amazing great

thing in Israeli history. And that would

be totally normal. And I wouldn't judge

him for it because it's probably the way

every country treats their own pasts.

Probably they all do that. There there's

a point where somebody did something

that other people thought was pretty

sketchy to increase the size of their

nation, but you wait along. You just

keep waiting years and years and years

and eventually it just looks like it was

a good idea because you you know your

country got stronger. So I think that's

where it's going to go. I will um also

say that if I had criticisms of Israel,

I might not share them because it's not

safe. Would would you agree that it's

not really safe to criticize Israel? I

mean, I couldn't I' I'd probably Well, I

would worry what would happen to me

personally. So, in case you're

wondering, Scott, do you ever hold back

on your criticisms of Israel? I can't

think of anything specific that I'm

holding back on, but no, it's not safe

to to honestly criticize Israel. Totally

not safe. So if I had something, you

could not trust me that I would risk my

entire life to make some criticism of

something that wouldn't make any

difference anyway.

Um, so just know that that I would be

afraid of criticizing Israel.

But I will say this

on October 7th when you know tragically

1,200 Israelis were slaughtered in the

worst possible way and numerous people

injured and and raped and captured and

everything else. um on October 7th, 8th,

9th, 10th, and so on, Israel had all the

the moral cover to be brutal

um if they thought they needed it. Most

of the world said, "Yeah, okay. All

right. I I see why you're doing it. I

understand. We would do the same thing."

Right? So, that's when that's when 1,200

of their people are slaughtered and

there's been no response yet.

So it's pretty easy to take a side,

right? But now 65,000

gazins reportedly, you know, you could

you could debate the number, but

somewhere in that range, you know, above

50,000 probably. Um, so now it's like

65,000

to,200.

How long can you do that? Especially as

the 65 will continue to climb. How long

can you do that and still have the moral

high ground? I would argue that they've

already given up the moral high ground.

They had 100% moral high ground. And

again, let me clarify again.

My sense of morality is not in this

conversation.

What what I think is moral or ethical

has nothing to do with this. I'm not

giving you my personal opinion. I'm just

saying that an observer

would say, hm, 1,200 to zero is

definitely a free pass for Israel to get

violent.

But once it turns to 65,000 to,200 plus

you'd add to that how many IDF soldiers

got killed.

So let's let's round it up to I don't

know 13,400. I don't know what the

numbers are, but once you compare that

to 65,000,

what does the public say about the moral

or ethical balance there? Now, again,

I think Israel is doing a tremendous job

of pursuing their own self-interest, and

everybody gets to do that.

You know, other countries pursue their

self-interest, too. So that part I never

criticize. As long as they're wisely and

effectively pursuing their own best

interests, they definitely are. But I

think that they're giving up um almost

all of their moral and ethical

um armor that served them so well up

till now. So it's one of the biggest,

you know, risk benefit decisions anybody

ever made. And Netanyahu's in the center

of that. if if he wins, gets control of

Gaza, depopulates it, somehow gets

control of the West Bank, you know,

maybe officially, not just de facto the

way it is, um, he will be seen as a

national hero eventually

because that will look like a bigger

gain

than, you know, eventually you forget

about all the death and destruction,

especially if it didn't happen to you.

So, um, that's what I see happening. So,

if Netanyahu intentionally traded off

the Holocaust, traded off the October

7th, uh, goodwill armor, but what he got

in return was a much bigger Israel

that's stronger for the next, you know,

hundreds and hundreds of years. It's

going to look like a win. It will look

like a win.

And again, not my opinion. My

preferences are not part of the story. I

have nothing to do with Israel.

All right.

Um, meanwhile, over in Ukraine,

uh, apparently one of their big nuclear

power plants is on the fifth day of

having no um, power by power lines. So,

it's got destroyed by uh, Russia.

Newsmax World is reporting on this. So,

they're they're keeping the plant from

melting down by running a diesel backup

generators. Now, they do have enough

fuel, and they do have enough backup

generators to prevent it from melting

down, unless something happened to the

fuel or something happened to the backup

generators.

And who knows how dependable those

backup generators are. So apparently

they're very close to the edge of a

major uh nuclear meltdown.

So we'll keep an eye on that. And I

guess there's a $90 billion arms

agreement with the US, which I hope

means that the uh the money will come

from Europe to the US and then the US

will sell those weapons to Ukraine. I

believe

so. If that's what's happening, Trump

gets the win for making $90 billion for

America,

uh, and paying nothing. If that's what

it is.

Uh, according to Defense Blog, Ukraine

has a new generation of robots, uh, that

look like little tanks, you know, so

they're groundbased robots, and

apparently they can do all kinds of

stuff. They can attack and they can move

logistics. um they can move stuff back

and forth. But what I'd like to know

is do we have a sense of the ratio of

robots to human fighters on the front

line? Because that ratio is going to

change every day to more robots, fewer

humans, if only because the humans are

dying. So what do you what do you

think's the ratio? If you have to guess,

how many robots

to humans are there? I I imagine we're

getting close to the point where the

robots outnumber the humans and then the

humans will continue to decrease and the

robots will continue to get more um AI

self-guided

and uh then it will be an all robot war.

So, we're getting closer and closer to

the all robot war. I've been telling you

is coming.

Well, uh, Pavl Durov, you may have heard

of him. He's the founder and CEO of the

Telegram app. So, which in theory would

be an encrypted app. In reality, of

course, has ways to get in, but he tells

this story. I'm just going to read it.

So, this is in his own words.

He said, "About a year ago, I was stuck

in Paris. remember when the French

picked him up and they were holding him

and we didn't know why, but obviously

they were twisting his arm over

something. He said, "While I was stuck

in Paris," which is an interesting way

to word it, "Stuck in Paris, picked up

by the authorities, not allowed to

leave." Yeah, stuck in Paris. He said,

"The French intelligence services

reached out to me through an

intermediary asking me to help the

Muldoven government censor certain

telegraph channels." And he goes on to

say that they looked at him and they

were in fact violating the standards of

telegram. So no problem. Uh they were

banned. And uh then

um and then they said that in exchange

for this cooperation,

French intelligence would quote say good

things about him to the judge who had

ordered his arrests.

Okay.

Um, and he said this was unacceptable on

several levels. If the agency did in

fact approach the judge, it constituted

an attempt to interfere in the judicial

process. Well, I don't think that's too

unusual. If it did not, and merely

claimed to have done so, then it was

exploiting my legal situation in France

to influence political developments in

Eastern Europe. A pattern uh we have

also observed in Romania. I don't know

what the Romania story is. Um but then

got worse. He says shortly thereafter

the telegram team received a second list

of so-called problematic Muldoven

channels. Unlike the first, nearly all

of these channels were legitimate and

fully compliant with their rules. Their

only commonality was that they voiced

political positions disliked by the

French and Muldoven governments. We

refuse to act on this request.

Well, if you wondered what the real

world is like, you know, what's

happening in the real world, like behind

the curtains, this stuff. Yeah. Th this

is what the real world looks like. Just

like this.

Meanwhile, I guess the president of

Colombia was in the US recently and he

picked up a bullhorn on the streets of

New York and started talking to

protesters and uh and urged US soldiers

to disobey orders and uh he was

apparently inciting violence.

And so uh Rubio and the State Department

decided you have no visa anymore. So

they yanked his visa. So, he will not be

visiting the United States again anytime

soon. He got his visa yanked. All right,

went a little long, but I think it was

totally worth it because you enjoy

Sundays. All right, I'm going to run and

say hi to the locals people, my beloved

local subscribers. Everybody else,

thanks for joining. Come back again.

All right, we'll be p