Episode 2977 CWSA 10/03/25

Come on in.

Getting ready for the show.

Luckily, I'm still live, but only barely.

I had a little uh excitement this morning.

Um, so I don't know if most of you know that I do a pre-show before I do this every day.

And the pre-show is just me feing the cats and I take a few putts on my putting green and uh play some drums and basically just get ready for the show while while the chatters are talking to each other for the most part.

A lot of people think it's the best part of what I do.

But uh this morning I uh had a little uh problem on my stairs and I fell down the stairs.

Uh I'm not injured.

But my uh my legs are weakened because I've had so much leg pain that I've been sitting and not walking.

So, one of my legs was so weak, my left leg, that the first time I went up the stairs this morning, I thought, hm, that it felt a little uh little shaky.

So, you know, I always make sure I'm holding on the rails.

I'm at that age where you never walk up downstairs without holding the rails.

But I forgot something downstairs.

So, my my i.

Pad.

So, I went back downstairs and uh turned around.

You want to see me uh on live video falling down my own stairs?

So, this is what the live stream audience saw just a few minutes ago.

I just had to get my i.

Pad.

Here I come.

Now, I was only about 10 ft up the stairs.

>> It doesn't hurt.

>> I'm flat on my back on the the bottom floor right now.

>> All right.

You're seeing my reflection now.

Not the >> survived.

Yes.

I did fall down the stairs.

So, that was exciting.

How's the stock market doing?

Little bit up.

Little bit up.

All right, we'll take it.

We'll take it.

Yes, I will get an Apple Watch in case I fall down again.

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

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

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

All you need for that is a copper mar glass attacker chin a canteen jugger flask a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.

The the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

And I will not be stopped.

Go.

Good stuff.

Good stuff.

All right, we got some news.

You want some news today?

Gonna put your comments up here so that I can more easily see them.

Come on, comments.

Get to the feed.

Come on, guys.

There we go.

All right, we're all good to go now.

So, um, according to a Rasmusen poll, 84% of, uh, people are worried that online radicalization might drive more political violence.

Um, 84% are worried that online radicalization will drive more violence.

Where do people think it comes from?

If it doesn't come from online, what do you think it came from your neighbor?

Did your neighbor get you all worked up to do some political violence?

What would it be?

Except for online.

That's the only thing that gets us worked up about anything.

So, yeah, Rasmusen, I believe your poll is correct, if not low.

Should have been 100%.

Here's another one.

Let's Let's see if you knew the answer to this one.

Uh Eric Dolan in Cypost is writing about a new study uh that tries to determine why lesbian couples face a higher divorce risk.

Okay.

Now, the funny part about this topic is that it's literally a famous uh comedy routine about why why lesbians uh have more divorce.

But they looked into things like cohabitation length, prior children, and shared children, and they found out that those were not really very indicative.

So they're they're uh they're not really predictive.

So now they they're conclusion is that it's a mystery why lesbians have the highest divorce rate.

They they couldn't figure out what the source problem was.

It's literally a comedy routine that everybody in the world understands.

So if you if you put two women together because women are usually the ones who are initiate divorces.

If you put the two if you put the gender together that generally initiates the divorce, you get more divorces.

I think they could have just asked me.

I think they could have asked you too.

Nope.

But whatever you do, don't say women are the problem.

All right.

Uh here's another one from a side post.

Karina Petrova.

Again, probably could have saved a little money just by asking me, but they found out did a study to find out that your social status has a surprising, yeah, surprising influence on your biological stress responses.

that the lower your perceived status, the more likely you'll be stressed out because you can't change anything.

Well, I can tell you that uh I had the experience of having no status, you know, as as you do when you're a child, and then I went to having no status as a young adult in my 20s and uh into my 30s, no real status at all.

But then Dilbert hit and I became a you know sort of a minor celebrity and I got some status.

I gotta tell you that having success and you know associated status solves most of your stress.

I I guarantee you that if you ever hit it big, you know, and you become either either well-known andor uh rich or both, it will make you more relaxed.

You know, once you're once you're famous, you can walk into any situation with no no stress whatsoever because people come to you.

Let me give you just the cleanest example.

Um, I get super stressed if I'm late for something.

You probably have that too, right?

Like if there's a meeting and you know people are already in the room.

Oh, that's the worst.

If they're already in the room and you're on the road, you know, you got caught up in traffic.

That's really stressful.

So, before I had status, if I were late, I would think, "Oh god, people are going to hate me more.

Oh, my status, you know, I I'll be, you know, creeping into the meeting late and gh and it would bother me.

Once I became famous, a weird thing happened that if if I showed up late, the people who were already there would apologize for being early or some var variation of that.

In other words, they would never get on me because they usually needed me to approve something or wanted to work with me or something.

So, so I would go from the thing that bothered me the most being potentially late to no problem at all.

It just disappears.

So, yes, the higher your status, it seems like it would be more work and more more pressure.

In some ways, it is, but uh the benefits are just way way better than the than the costs.

Well, according to Cell Press, uh, AI was used to write nearly a quarter of corporate press releases in 2024.

Now, I have been involved with many, many press releases.

And let me tell you how press releases are written.

the whoever's in charge of whatever entity is supposed to do the press release, they look for the lowest uh the lowest uh ranked person in the office who can speak the language and then they say, "Write us up a uh press release and make sure that it's the most boring, you know, looks like it came out of a form factory or something." And uh whatever you do, don't make it interesting cuz that's the last thing you want to do.

So, here's what I know that any of you who have been involved with a lot of press releases can confirm.

A press release always looked like AI wrote it.

It always looked like AI wrote it.

So, to me, it seems like the most natural thing that you would replace with AI cuz it's not going to get worse.

I mean, press releases are just deadly boring.

And they're always, like I said, they're the first draft is always written by the worst writer in the office.

I hate to say it, first draft is always the worst writer.

And then it gets to the boss and the boss doesn't want to rewrite the whole thing, so they just, you know, check the spelling or something.

And then it gets to me.

Let's say the press release is about me and I just don't give a because I know nobody reads a press release.

So, I have approved I can't tell you how many pressed releases about me that I've approved, you know, from publishers, etc., uh, that I didn't even read because it doesn't matter.

Nobody else is going to read it either.

It's it's the most unread document that will ever be created.

So, yeah, quarter of them going to AI makes sense to me.

Um, so OpenAI uh now has a Sora 2 uh app that can generate realistic videos of of people doing things and it's open AI and they decided to model the new ability by showing a realistic looking video of their CEO Sam Alman shoplifting at Target.

and it looks just like him and it sounds like him and it looks like you're shoplifting at Target.

And I'm thinking to myself, now I guess I guess this app is so you can make content for stuff like Meta and Instagram and Tik Tok and stuff.

It's sort of designed for what they call AI slop.

Have you heard that term yet?

AI slop, meaning that people are just generating all kinds of AI stuff and it's not all good.

Yeah, it's not all it's not all sombrero stuff.

Uh, so they call it AI slop.

Anyway, so now we'll have video of every famous person shoplifting and committing crimes.

Step forward, step in the right direction.

And apparently Sorro Sorro can't generate a continuous three minute video from a photo like but uh there's a app called Longot that can.

So I guess 3 minutes might be sort of the current record of how long a video you can make from you know a single prompt.

Um, but and there's another one where you can splice together some shots of like a virtual room and you could splice it together.

So you you walk through a bunch of virtual rooms, but it looks like it takes about six apps to make all that work.

So as far as I can tell based on what I've seen so far, in order to make a movie using AI, you would need all of the skills of a movie maker.

So you'd have to know how to cast the right people even though casting would be digital.

You'd have to still understand scripts and story and you know the the nature of storytelling.

You would have to be um you'd have to be basically a videographer so that you could say oh that's a that's a good look and all that.

So I you'd have to be an editor, you'd have to be a director.

You'd have still have to be a producer.

So, it seems to me that the movie making business will probably no longer be the stupid people.

Don't you worry that movies were made by actors who just wanted a promotion so they sort of turned into directors so they could get kind of a promotion and that they weren't necessarily the smartest people you've ever met.

But it wasn't that hard because if you're a director, you have all these well-trained people who know how to do all the the subtasks, right?

You don't have to be the videographer because you hired one, etc.

You don't have to be the lighting guy because you hire one.

But now you would have to know a whole bunch about AI and how to use it.

you know, probably several different apps and they would be they would be getting updated those apps and they would new ones would be coming online.

They were better.

You'd have to try them all the time and you would have to have all the movie skills, but on top of that in one person because you you couldn't really it'd be hard to build something that you um that you delegated to other humans.

So you could delegate it to the AI, but you wouldn't want to delegate it to humans because then there'd be too many humans doing too many problems with too many AIs.

It would be impossible.

So in order for somebody to make a proper movie, you would have to have the deepest talent stack that I can even imagine.

It would have to go all the way through AI, which is hard enough, but then it would have to include all of the movie making skill.

Who's going to be able to do that?

a few there will be a few people who can do that.

But it went from, you know, you you could randomly pick a hundred people and 80 of them could be a director.

But now if you had a hundred people, probably none of them, if it's only a hundred, probably not one person would have the skill to make a movie with AI even even a few years from now.

That's my guess.

Maybe one in a thousand.

Well, Meta is going to use uh your chat conversations with AI for ad targeting, but according to reclaim the net, Ken Min is writing about that.

And uh I guess we all figure that, right?

If if they can listen to you talking and send you ads based on what you're talking about in your kitchen, I'm not too surprised that they can give you an ad based on what you said on AI.

But uh do you think we're getting close to the point where the AI will directly give you an ad as in AI I need some suggestions where to eat and then the AI the AI says well our our sponsored restaurant is XYZ.

I'll bet it I'll bet that's where it's going.

But they they probably need to hold off on that until we're all hooked on AI to the point where we won't turn it off when it gives us a commercial.

We're not there yet.

Um, this will sound like a little thing, but it might be a big thing.

Um, so this from a post by Constantinos Busmales.

Uh, he showed a video of a robot.

In this case, it was just a robot arm with a must had some vision, but it was an arm.

And it was teaching another arm how to do a task.

So, the one arm knew how to, you know, put a lid on something or take something off a wall.

and then the other one just watched it and then it could learn it by watching it.

Now, if that doesn't seem like a big deal to you, um you haven't been watching the robot space, it's the biggest of big deals.

If if the robot can learn by observation, it's the biggest of big deals.

That's that's as big a deal as you can get.

That that's like that's just everything right there.

Um and it hasn't been able been able to do that.

So this might be the first indication that robots will work.

You know, they would have to learn by watching.

And I suppose if one of them learned by watching, then it can send a video to all the others and say, "Look what I learned by watching." Uh, Perplexity, the AI company has now their comet browser, it's called, is out and it works like an assistant.

So you can give it prompts and it will do a bunch of tasks.

Now that's not the interesting part because there'll be a lot of those.

But the thing that was interesting to me is once AI becomes ubiquitous and every desk jockey has an AI and a AI assistant, which is coming.

I I think it's a 100% chance that we'll all be talking to our AIs to get basic stuff done, right?

There there's no question about that.

uh we'll all be using AI at our desks.

But what happens when people realize that the only the only really efficient way to do it is by voice?

Cuz you're going to get tired typing your super prompts all day long.

But if you could just talk to it, you will.

So does that mean that we'll have to work from home?

Cuz how in the world are we all going to be talking to our AIS in an open office?

Can't do it.

First of all, your AI would be listening to your cubiclemate and whoever walked in would trigger your AI and every other problem.

So, I'm going to make a prediction that AI will drive remote work so that people can talk to their AI and then you're really going to hate it when your partner works at home.

Oh man, you're going to hate that.

But at least it won't be at work.

There's a Gallup poll, Newsmax and others reporting that uh apparently the uh media approval is at a new all-time low.

Um how many people do you Let's do a little test.

I like to test my audience for the new people.

You'll be amazed.

Um, I'm going to see if you know before I tell you what percentage of people pled in the Gallup poll think that the mainstream media uh is doing a good job.

What percentage think the mainstream media is doing a good job?

Oh, look at your guess is so accurate.

You're almost there.

28%.

Yeah.

Yep.

Most of you are betting we're betting 25 or 26, but yeah, 28%.

I'm going to give you full credit for for your guesses.

Now, if you're new, are you wondering how everybody knew the right answer?

It's because we have jokingly but u maybe accurately noted over the years that 20 something like a quarter of all people who answer polls have the dumbest possible answer.

the answer that no living smart human should ever say.

Who in the world trusts the mainstream media?

How in the world could you say, "Oh yeah, got a lot of trust for that mainstream media." You would have to be paying no attention to anything.

And this is another one of those 25enters.

28 to be specific.

Well, did he is supposed to be sentenced today as it happened?

I mean, I'm in a different time zone, but does did he get his sentence?

Could be as long as 10 years.

Prosecutors are asking because they they dropped the worst charges, the RICO and stuff got dropped.

But, uh, defense is asking for, uh, time served, basically, one year.

That would be close to time served.

So, he's either going to be released, time served, or maybe he would get up to 10 years.

So, I guess he's teaching a business class to other uh other inmates so that he can get some, you know, sort of jail credibility.

So, good for him.

At least the teaching part.

Um, how many of you know conservative uh online um investigative reporter type Nick Sor?

Um, I quote him a lot, so he's a good foll.

Apparently, he just got arrested in Portland.

uh attending um as a as a journalist attending to see what was happening at an Antifa event in Portland and I guess they set an American flag on fire and uh allegedly still fog of war so we don't know exactly what happened but allegedly he may have tried to put it out.

Now I don't know how you put out a burning American flag.

Stomp on it.

How how exactly would you put it out?

If if you threw water on it, I would think, well, that's, you know, respectful enough.

Uh, but if you had to stomp on it, I hope he didn't stomp on it.

Seems like that would be making it worse.

But we'll, uh, keep an eye on that.

Um, I'm sure Nick will have an update whenever he's out.

He may be out already.

I don't know if he got really arrested or they just that, you know, I'm going to say, well, I'll just say this.

So, you've heard the alternative.

He might have been arrested because the police are right?

That that's the first thing you think is, "Oh my god, the police are assholes." If they arrested him for that, but if they arrested him because that was the best way to get him out of the situation cuz he might be, you know, beaten to death by Antifa, then that was good police work.

So, one possibility is that they were pretending to arrest him just to get him out of the situation.

If that happened, good job.

Good job.

But we don't know that.

Andy know is uh who's on Newsmax uh reminding us that he's he's well aware of Antifa training events which apparently are happening all over the place and they're used to recruit and network and stuff.

So they have all these organized Antifa training events and yet the Democrats say Antifa doesn't exist because it's, you know, there's no leadership or organization.

Well, apparently it's self-organizing at the very least because they can have all these training events.

So if you're having training events all over the nation, in fact, all over the world, yeah, you're an organization and uh you could get recoed in my opinion.

Well, Politico is writing I I didn't read the article, just the headline because the headline was good enough.

It said half of America doesn't know who Hakee Jeff is.

Uh but he's seizing on the shutdown fight to change that.

Now, uh as many of you know, the political competition between Democrats and Republicans was at one time a fair fight.

Do you remember that?

It's like, wow, those Democrats are putting up a good fight.

They they even won that one.

Oh, they they won that election.

Good fighting.

But now the the Democrat party is in full collapse.

And I can't think of anything that would be worse for the Democrat party than uh than raising the profile of Hakee Jeff, the the most uncarismatic person besides Chuck Schumer.

The two of them are just famously uncarismatic.

Like, oh my god, does the camera hate both of those You You've heard, you know, the camera love some people.

You know, some people just look good on camera and some people don't look good on camera.

It's more of a camera thing.

You know, they might look perfectly normal in person, but both of these guys, like Jeff and Schumer, are terrible on camera.

I mean, just terrible.

And I wouldn't say that about everybody.

You know, the AOC is great on camera.

You know, if you want if you want the alternative, great on camera.

M Dami, he's great on camera.

But they've decided that in the shutdown they're going to put the two least likable Democrats forward.

Oh my god, is Trump winning hard?

Every day that they that the Democrats are branding themselves with Hakee Jeff and his sombrero and uh and Schumer, every day that that goes on, they get weaker because nobody is looking at those two guys and saying, "Oo, lead me.

Lead me." Nobody.

Anyway, um so that's the next biggest mistake they're making.

So apparently uh the House Democrats decided as Jesse Waters was talking about this on Fox.

Uh they decided that they would do this uh live stream that they would keep up for 24 hours.

Uh it would be a 24-hour live stream to just talk about the shutdown so that nobody would, you know, nobody would forget about and they could get their message out.

Um, and apparently uh at one point there were only 36 people watching them and one of them was Fox News just to make fun of it.

And it it was only had a,000 viewers at one point.

It was peaking live stream at 1,000 viewers and they decided to just take it down and give up.

They couldn't even pull off a podcast because Yeah, I saw the uh the setup for the podcast and it was just two guys you didn't want to look at sitting awkwardly in chairs with microphones in front of their faces.

They couldn't even get the basic right.

If you want somebody to look good on a podcast, there are only two ways to do it.

Those people have to just look good.

Now, that's one way.

Then it doesn't matter what they're doing, they just look good.

The other way is you have to put them behind a desk because at least it doesn't show their lower body and at least it doesn't show their bad posture and, you know, their little belly doesn't stick up when they lean back in their chair.

But no, they took two unappealing people and put them in fulllength chairs.

That's just not knowing how to do a podcast.

That's literally just not knowing how anything works.

Now, I I did recently a podcast with Zubie and the uh the two of us had that same setup with a separate chair that you could see the the whole body.

And I'm looking at Zubie and I'm thinking, damn it, if I look like him, I would I'd feel pretty good in a full chair.

But at the moment, I'm not feeling too too great about my physicality.

So when I saw it played back, I thought, you know, I'd look a lot better be on the desk.

But Zubie looked great.

Zubie is great.

Um, so 40 million registered Democrats, but at one point they could get 36 of them to watch that live stream.

They are just so not good at anything.

Well, Homeland Security, according to the Epic Times, uh removed five TSA officials because they were involved in that Biden era thing where they were putting people on the quiet skies.

Uh we're going to follow you around if you try to fly.

Apparently, that entire quiet skies thing caught exactly zero bad guys.

All it did was take away freedom from and privacy from a whole bunch of Americans.

Uh, so do I think that those heads should be fired?

I do.

I do.

Now, they might have been just, you know, following instructions, but you really just can't have that in your government.

So, I'm in favor of those firings.

All right.

Um, so MSNBC is creating some fake news about uh Pegas.

Um, so they're they're doing their usual thing where they take something out of context, which is how, you know, I think most Democrats who are really worked up about the risk and the the badness of Republicans almost entirely get their news out of context.

Have you noticed that if you fa if you could fix that one thing that there would be no out of context news?

It would change everything.

But you know the TV news especially, they could just say stuff and then not put it on anybody else who doubts it and that's the news.

So here's an example.

Do you remember when Pangathth was saying that uh you know he valued women in the military but they would have to meet the same physical standards as men if they were going to be in combat roles.

Does that does that uh say anything?

It doesn't say anything.

It's saying that if you're going to be in a combat role, you have to meet a certain standard and we don't care what your genitalia is.

How do you get more fair than that?

same standard, men and women.

What did MSNBC turn that into?

Uh their words is that he's ruling out women in combat roles.

Well, in effect, it would presumably reduce the number of women in combat roles if they had a higher standard than they've had before.

But it doesn't eliminate them.

It says if you could do the work, you got the job.

That's all it says.

If you can do the work, you're in.

So, but they turned that into something it isn't by removing the context.

Well, you may have seen it already, but uh after uh after three days of winning the meme war, uh Trump with his uh memes of Hakee Jeff with his sombrero is just the funniest thing.

Uh even uh what's the show?

The Daily Show.

Uh, you know, when when John Stewart's not the Daily Show host, I think he does one day a week, but uh who is the Asian-American guy who is the Daily Show host?

He's pretty funny.

But he uh he completely took uh the memes aside.

He he he just couldn't get over how funny the meme was, even though he didn't understand the relevance of like why why does Hakee Jeff have a he he didn't even know why Hakee Jeff was being put in a sombrero in a Mexican mustache.

The reason is that uh allegedly he wants to give uh budget money to undocumented uh people, but you'd have to know that story.

But still the the Daily Show guy said he didn't even know what it had to do with but it but he couldn't stop laughing because it was hilarious because it's hilarious.

And then and then he showed the third one in the series where Trump himself is wearing the sombrero and playing in the mariachi band.

And then he's all confused because is it good or bad to be a mariachi guy with a Mexican hat?

Wait a minute.

If it's bad why' they put Trump in a hat?

Just perfect.

Just perfect.

But this morning, I wake up to a new one.

It's the the mu music of Blue Oyster cult.

Here Comes the Reaper uh with a uh AI generated meme that shows Russ vote and uh Trump looking like reapers and that they're going to come after your uh after your uh Democrat uh employees and fire them because I guess he can do a bunch of firing during the government closeown.

and he's going to shut a bunch of Democrat entities and Democrat functions and fire a bunch of Democrats.

So instead of being koi about it and and instead of trying to lower the temperature, you know, what a what a normal president would do would be like, oh yeah, there might there might be a few few layoffs.

Yeah, we might be, you know, use that time to look at a few things we could adjust and try to minimize it.

No, instead instead of trying to minimize it, Trump goes right at it with a meme of him as the as the reaper getting rid of all these Democrats.

Oh no.

And and then Trump said separately, I can't believe the radical left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity.

They're not stupid people.

So maybe this is their way of wanting to quietly and quickly make America great again.

So now he's speculating that Democrats are pretending to be incompetent so they can get some stuff done without stopping Trump from doing it.

Now, I don't think that's exactly what's happening, but God, that's funny.

That is so funny.

That the fact that he's he's trolling them and beating them at the same time.

I could not enjoy this more.

And and the fact that Trump knows he's entertaining his base while driving crazy his his competition, it just doesn't get any better than this.

How are we ever going to enjoy another president?

This is the most fun any president's ever been.

No, nobody's ever going to match this.

I mean, I I have a lot of confidence in JD Vance if he makes it in.

I think he'll be terrific, but man, you'll never match this.

You will never match this.

This is this is a form of genius what Trump is executing right now.

It's a form of genius like I don't think we'll ever see again because he has that talent stack that you know goes across entertainment you know decades of experience.

Um he just has exactly the right stack of talents to do this.

Nobody else does.

Only him.

Um, so Akeim put on a post and actually says, "We are ready to debate the government funding and the Republican healthc care crisis anytime, any place with the cameras rolling." He says, "Trump vice president, Speaker Johnson, what say you?" And I looked in the comments to his to his aggressive challenge to debate it uh on camera and Michael Malice had a comment right below it in all caps.

He says, "Go back to Mexico." Now, if you don't know who Michael Malice is, it's not as funny.

You would you have to know he's just one of the funniest people in the world.

but that we so don't take him seriously that nobody even cares that he wants to debate it on camera.

We're not even interested.

We're just go back to Mexico where if you didn't know he's not from Mexico, but he has been seen in a sombrero lately.

Go back to Mexico.

It'd be even funnier if Trump agreed to debate, but only with AOC because she's not even in the chain of command for this this topic.

Oh, yeah, I'll do it, but only with AOC.

Anyway, uh the smart people are pretty sure that the only way this uh this shutdown ends is with Democrats giving up.

Do you think that too?

Do you think the only way this ends is with Democrats saying, "All right, all right, all right." You know, we only have to wait seven weeks and then we're back in negotiating the budget, so we could just wait seven weeks.

Uh, I don't see it ending any other way.

Do you?

As far as I can tell, Trump is perfectly happy torturing them with funny memes, keeping them off the job, and cutting all these all this fat that he wanted to cut anyway.

So, it definitely looks like all the cards are in Trump's favor right now.

It looks like it.

So, I can't imagine it would go any direction other than yet another failure.

But during that time that they fail, they get to highlight their two leaders, Hakee Jeff and Chuck Schumer.

That is all bad every day.

Every second that they're on TV, every second makes the Democrats less popular because even the Democrats are not looking at those two guys and saying, "There's my leaders right there." So, I mean they I think if it were AOC things might be going in the right direction, you know, because they might say, "All right, all right, I'll follow her." But they don't.

Uh Nuke Gingrich had a good summary of it.

He says the Democrats just pulled off what he calls a double negative.

Uh he was talking to Jesse Waters about this.

So the double negative is that there are two things that the American people want.

Just two things.

Well, they want more than that, but two things the American people want on this topic.

Number one, do not close the government.

Number two, do not raise spending.

And then new points out, so what do the Democrats do?

They say, I'm going to close the government until you raise spending.

That's a double negative.

To which I say, no, you're wrong.

You're wrong, N.

It's not a double negative because they're doing it by putting forward Schumer and Jeffre.

It's a triple negative.

It's a triple.

It it you can't you cannot discount that they're putting their least charismatic, you know, least likable two people as the face of this problem.

Yeah, that's three things we don't want to do.

We don't want to close the government.

We don't want to raise spending.

and we don't want to spend one more freaking second looking at Hakee Jeff or Schumer on camera.

Can you give us somebody who's got a little bit of charisma?

Just just a little bit.

Somebody interesting.

I'll watch.

Like you said, I'll watch AOC.

Yeah.

It's not about being a Democrat.

It's about being Have a little bit of charisma, please.

Well, Cash Patel was asked a question about whether he thought Nancy Pelosi was behind planning the January 6th event to turn it into a, you know, insurrection narrative.

Now, I will tell you that I am not persuaded by the new news that there were lots of FBI people in the crowd.

I understand what that means.

That it means they could have been ordered to cause trouble.

Definitely could have.

And and certainly it looks like the FBI in in prior leadership, it looks like they were lying to us um about the involvement.

But it doesn't necessarily mean that we have a direct smoking gun that they caused the trouble because there's some people that look like they might have been operatives, you know, breaking windows and stuff like that.

But we don't know.

I mean, they could have been some other kind of operative, not FBI.

So, I'm personally not totally persuaded, but I'm open to it.

definitely definitely open to it because it certainly opens up the extreme possibility that they were involved.

But h don't have that last, you know, whistleblower thing.

You know, by now, by now we would have at least one whistleblower says, "Here's the deal.

I was directly told to go turn this into a riot." Short of that, and I think we would have seen that by now, short of that, I'm going to I'm going to just say fog of war still and could go either way.

But as Cash Patel reminds us, um remember when there was a claim that the National Guard had been offered but declined and apparently Pelosi at the time said that was a lie.

She's I think she was claiming if I have the story right, I believe I do.

She was claiming that that never happened.

there was no declining of the of the help.

Well, later after Cash Patel is in there, they find the documents that were indeed the declination of the help.

So now that's a proven lie that Nancy Pelosi had access to 10 to 20,000 National Guard and only had to say yes.

Only had to say yes.

And she said no in writing.

Now, why would she not say yes to something so obviously um protective?

Why?

Well, secondly, as Cash Patel points out, uh Pelos's daughter was filming a documentary about the events of that day.

What would be the better event?

What would make that documentary really shine?

Well, it wouldn't be if the National Guard came in and made immediate order and prevented people from trespassing.

There would have been What kind of movie would that be?

Oh, a bunch of people pro protested.

It was all very peaceful.

They went home, right?

So, now here's the question.

If you were Nancy Pelosi and you were as clever and as experienced and weasly as she is, do you think that you would be tempted to let trouble happen, including physical danger trouble, in order for your daughter's career to really take off?

And the answer is that's pretty much what politicians do.

They pretty much put other people at risk for their own personal benefit and their family's benefit.

That's the most common thing they do.

So, yes, I do believe that she would put people's lives at risk absolutely to just boost her daughter's career a little bit.

I do think that I can't think of a second reason that would make sense to me why you would decline the National Guard.

Right.

So, I'm going to say that given the given the things that we know for sure, daughter was doing a documentary, it got a lot more interesting when the danger started and that she turned down help that was the obvious help to to give.

And by the way, why would the person who was planning an insurrection offer to put in in place the people who would stop the insurrection?

I mean, the whole narrative was completely ridiculous and and Pelosi was behind the narrative.

So, I'm going to say that she was uh directly the cause of the insurrection and that she knew that she could blame the insurrection on um on Trump supporters, which she did, uh if she made sure that uh there was not enough protection to keep people from getting out of line.

So, I'm going to say my current uh working theory is that the FBI may not have been directly involved, but they wouldn't need to be cuz if you have that many angry people and you you have a no show of force that it looks like they're not in any particular risk cuz there's not enough not enough police there.

That would be enough to guarantee there would be too much trouble.

Now, she she may have uh overplayed her hand, and it may have gotten more dangerous than she imagined it would get, especially dangerous to members of the Congress.

So, she may have been surprised that it got worse than she thought, but I'm going to say this is 100% on her.

I believe January 6 was a op that was not planned, but rather in an opportunistic way.

Pelosi saw a situation forming that they could possibly take on Trump forever, but the risk of it would be some people would get hurt.

And I think that's what she did.

I I believe that she is 100% um behind that hoax and that uh I don't have any more questions.

To me, it's it's asked and answered.

Maybe maybe there was a handful of FBI guys who were in on something, but I don't see it.

You know, you you're going to have to do better if you think that the FBI was involved.

They may have been, but I don't see it.

All I see is numbers, and that's that's completely different.

So, all right.

Apparently, uh, according to Fox News, Fanny May and Freddy Mack, two big, uh, housing giants, are going to leave New York State because it's, uh, too sketchy to be there when the attorney general is Leticia James.

So, you might be aware that Bill PE has been uh uh found some news about uh Leticia James uh and her uh paperwork for housing and alleged mortgage type fraud that's not been proven alleged.

Um, but now this is putting more pressure that, you know, taking two big entities out of the state because it's just too dangerous to be in the state with her there.

And I would say that especially now after those agencies were implicated in implicating her and that we know she's a revenge monster, you have to take your business out of that state.

You can't even stay in the state with that attorney general.

It's too risky.

So PE is right again.

He's right again.

You It would just be dangerous to stay there.

Well, David Saxs and others are criticizing this group called the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, who exists sort of like the ADL does to pretend to be finding bad people and racists, but really they're just a a Democrat, you know, hit entity trying to act like they're something else.

Saxs points out that if you search for Stephen Miller, the first thing that comes up uh on Google search is uh something that uh calls him names.

What did he call him?

Anyway, so so it's something that calls him a some kind of a racist or something.

And uh the SPLC um also has a article about me from 2020 and it says uh it was about u election denial.

So it put me in the election denial category and uh which by the way um I don't believe I'm an election denier.

I have not seen proof that the election was was uh rigged.

But they they seemed to think that I was on that team.

Uh but the refusal to for Trump to concede and said uh then a tweet response that I said, this is what they claim that people have been brainwashed to accept Biden's win and uh and that that's part of the broader far-right rhetoric.

Now, did I say that people are brainwashed to accept Biden's win?

I don't know.

But that's not a claim about the election itself.

That would be a claim about how people come to believe what they believe about the election itself.

So I didn't have any comment about whether the election was rigged.

My comment was that the individuals who believe it wasn't were brainwashed to believe that.

It was not based on any data they could have possibly had access to.

It was based on propaganda.

But anyway, they throw me on the list so that someday my name will be associated with this hate group or the group that finds hate groups.

Great.

So, the SPLC and ADL really need to be uh eliminated from the United States.

There seems to be a lot of energy to get that done now.

So, we'll see.

I'd be I think anybody who donates to either of those groups, they're just asking for trouble because at this point, if somebody found out you donated to either of those groups, you would get boycotted immediately.

Um, and you should be, you know, they're they're despicable, both of them.

Well, I've been listening to an argument that Scott Galloway has been making about how Israel is not allowed to win a war and that there's a double standard there.

Um, and I thought I would just talk about the argument itself.

So, this is less about Israel.

This is just about um is this argument good?

Okay.

So, one of the arguments is that um in World War II, for example, the US um just did horrible things to the uh civilian populations of Germany and Japan.

And nobody called that a genocide.

They just said, "Well, you know, it's a war and if you're going to win the war, you're going to have to win the war and it's going to be really ugly." So, so that would be an example where America was allowed to win a war whereas Israel is being um continuously um continuously persuaded to go light on civilian deaths, but um it's war and the you know, as everybody knows, the civilians are mixed in with the bad guys.

So, it's extra hard to to to spare the civilians in this particular case.

Um, but here's the part where he loses me.

Number one, analogies are a terrible form of argument.

Have I ever said that before?

Like almost every day.

If if you have to use an analogy, it's because you don't have an argument.

Once you see that pattern, you'll never be able to unsee it.

Let me say it again.

If you have to use an analogy, not just if it's a convenience, if it's a convenience for for deriving something that somebody was unfamiliar with, that's perfectly good use of analogy.

I'm just describing a thing.

But if it's your argument that this thing is like this, so they should operate the same, that's that means you don't have an argument because the analogy is never the thing.

It's a different thing.

You can't argue this thing with a different thing.

the fact that something about that thing reminds you of the other thing is no argument.

That's no argument.

So, uh, and to prove my point, was the US allowed to win the war in Afghanistan?

No.

The US could have killed every civilian in Afghanistan and taken full control of the country, but we didn't.

So, we had a constraint.

Did we do everything we could have done in Iraq?

Not really.

I mean, you could say we won the war, but do we run?

Do we own Iraq?

Are they even allies?

Doesn't look like it to me.

I think that we did not have the freedom to destroy enough of Iraq and their civilian base until we owned it, right?

We we just didn't have that.

Um, so I would say that the uh examples are bad.

And I would even say attacking Iran, all we could do is attack something that didn't look like it would have much um civilian casualties.

So, at least not many.

So, I would argue that first of all, the analogies don't work and we're currently in a war with Russia and we're also not killing too many of their civilians, right?

So I would argue that probably what's happening is that in the modern world it's harder to run a war where there are lots of civilian casualties.

It has more to do with social media and the the fact that the news is not completely controlled by governments anymore and that people can find out directly what's happening.

If the more you know about it, the less freedom the military is going to have because there'll always be people say there's no reason to be killing so many people.

But if you're not watching, I mean, if you're not watching, stuff gets done.

So, I think it has more to do with the modern landscape of news and information than it does with a uh uh double standard.

So, that's my first comment.

Analogies don't work as arguments.

The second thing is that Scott Galloway likes to use the argument that if you looked at it as a percentage, the percentage of Israelis that were killed on October 7th, and you applied that percentage to let's say the United States, it would be some big number like 35,000 people.

And I think he used the example of uh the hostages would be like I don't know the size of a whole college or something like that.

And he and he points out if that happened to us, 35,000 people and that many hostages as a percentage that we would uh you know we would basically just turn it into a parking lot that he used Mexico as an example.

He said if Mexico did that to us we would just level Mexico.

You know there wouldn't be any bit left.

Now maybe maybe yes or maybe because it's the modern world and everybody would be watching.

we wouldn't be able to level Mexico because there would be too much push back, too much watching.

Um, however, I would argue that in this domain, percentage is a propaganda number.

That's not that's not an information number.

The information number is the number of people.

Remember, I always tell you that if somebody concentrates on either the the percentage of a thing or the raw number and they try to minimize the other, that's propaganda every time.

If you're not willing to say cleanly and clearly, here's both numbers, you know, let's look at them and see what's important.

In my opinion, the number of people who died is all that matters.

In in what world am I supposed to respect the percentage?

If one person dies anywhere, that's one person dead.

If one American dies, that's a tragedy.

If one Israeli dies, that's a tragedy.

If a 100 Israelis died, that's a tragedy of a 100 people.

If a 100 Americans die, that's a tragedy of exactly the same size.

It's a 100 people.

The only reason you could say that Israel losing um their percentage is somehow worse than if that same number of people died in the United States.

The only way you could say that is if you thought the Israelis were the special people, that their lives were worth more than American lives.

No.

100 dead Israelis is worth a 100 dead Americans because they're all the same in terms of the value of life.

So now, don't give me this about higher percentage.

I mean, I understand it.

I understand how they feel the way they feel.

So, if if the argument is, you know, people would feel worse.

I get that.

But how they feel is not how they should prosecute a war.

That's not that's not the basis upon which you run your business.

So I think uh the ex the analogy is propaganda and I think using that percentage argument is propaganda and neither of those seem to me as reasonable arguments.

Um, speaking of imaginary Democrat problems, Scott Galloway also on his podcast said he thinks that Trump will jin up a fake crisis before 2028 so that you can use that as an example to gain power.

Um, and also, uh, Maline Dean, she's a Democrat from Pennsylvania, she went on CNN recently to claim that Donald Trump is aging and in cognitive decline.

What do those two stories have in common?

They are imaginary problems.

The Democrats are focusing extraordinarily on imaginary problems.

Well, we we imagine there's something wrong with his brain even though we're not seeing any evidence.

We imagine he might try to jin up this problem in the future so they can remain in power, but there's no evidence of that.

So once you realize that the Democrats are focusing on imaginary problems, you realize that the reason they do that is they don't have any solutions for real problems.

That's why do you think that they would focus on imaginary problems if they had any kind of idea what to do about a real problem?

I don't think so.

Anyway, uh Gavin Newsome found a way to make things worse.

So I guess uh Breitbart News is writing about this.

Paul Boyce, um he's found a way to create a new problem where there was none.

So the federal government has provided standards to colleges to say if you sign this contract and you agree to you know this kind of behavior that you you know what Trump would ask for, right?

less DEI and less uh men wearing dresses and sports and stuff like that.

So, you know what Trump is going to ask for.

But if the colleges sign that, then they would have full access to their government funding.

But if they're not willing to, they might have some of their government federal funding withheld.

Well, Governor Nuome uh never one to let a good situation persist, decided that he would withhold uh state funds from colleges if they do sign it.

So now he's created a situation where colleges will definitely lose.

That's that's a Democrat plan.

So the college will lose if it doesn't sign the federal contract.

And now because of uh Newsome, they have a second way to lose, which is if they do sign the contract.

What exactly did the Democrats add to the the world?

They remove the only escape path because it's not as if the colleges couldn't agree to stop discriminating and being anti-semitic.

How hard is it to sign a contract that says, "Yeah, we'll try really hard not to be anti-semitic and we'll stop discriminating." That's not exactly some big problem, but uh Nome turned it into one.

So there's no good news that he can't turn into bad news.

How about that bullet train?

Huh?

So here's a shocker.

You won't believe this.

I mean, this will be the most surprising amazing thing.

Can you believe this?

Hamas military chief has rejected Trump's ceasefire deal.

I was so sure Hamas was going to surrender.

No, I wasn't.

There was no chance that Hamas was ever going to say yes to this deal.

There was no chance.

They're not going to give up the hostages.

They're not going to surrender.

They're not They're not going to essentially commit suicide by surrendering.

They'll either be in jail forever or they'll get hunted down and murdered separately.

And no matter what the agreement is, they're going to get hunted down and murdered.

Do you think that the Hamas military chief would be alive a year after they surrendered, even if Israel said, "All right, we promised you safety.

If we could get our if we could get our hostages back, we won't go after anybody." Do you think that guy's going to be alive in a year?

No.

The the only way he stays alive is if he stays in his little tunnel or wherever the hell he is.

and uh keeps trying to be relevant.

Otherwise, he'll be very dead and very not not relevant.

So, of course, he's not going to take the deal.

However, that would be a giant win for Israel because Israel will look like they made a legitimate offer and it was pretty legitimate.

I I would say it was close enough to legitimate that maybe they could have tweaked it a little bit, but the Hamas is not in the tweaking mode.

They're just turning it down.

So that's going to give uh Israel a free pass to do whatever they need now.

So it looks like they'll just clear out Gaza and you can call it whatever you want to call it.

Well, Tucker Carlson is uh made a video which was quite provocative and his point was that um that Israel's has too much uh impact on American leadership and American policy.

And he wanted four things changed that he thinks would make the situation better.

Now, I'm just going to say this is Tucker's argument.

All right?

So, don't associate it with me.

I'm just telling you an interesting news story that a major a major voice in the media um is saying something that's kind of risky, kind of provocative, but uh he makes a point.

I'll see if I can summarize it.

It's pretty long video uh but actually worth watching the whole thing.

Uh cuz his argument is interesting.

There are places where I would have said too far or maybe you should have put that in context better.

But that's not the point.

The point is not whether I agree with him or not.

The point today is he's making the argument at all.

Uh so that's what I'm going to be talking about this just the bravery and the risk it takes to make this argument.

Uh his bigger point is that Israel is a tiny little country of 9 million people with a economy less than New Jersey and a physical size less than New Jersey and that we should not consider it our most important um thing and that we act as though um nothing's more important than Israel.

and he is trying to put that back in context and say um actually they don't matter to us at all.

Now I know what you're going to say but yes Scott they do matter.

Why didn't he why didn't he mention that uh there are they give us a they give us a you know um some purchase in the Middle East and uh it allows us to fight them over there before you know the bad guys come and fighting over here and all that.

So everybody knows the other argument and he downplayed those.

That would be fair to say he was making his uh points and when you make your point you have that documentary effect where the whole point is that you know if you listen to a 91 minute video it's pretty long.

Um it's not going to be both sides and when you're done you're going to be pretty persuaded because you listen to one point of view for a long period of time.

That's the the documentary problem.

So be aware of the documentary problem on that.

But um but you should be aware of the argument.

So he doesn't want the US to be ordered around by a client state.

He's heard stories of uh Mossad marching into the Pentagon and giving orders to the American military.

I don't know if I believe those stories.

That sounds exaggerated to me.

Here's here's what seems more likely true.

So that the story is that MSAD could just walk into the Pentagon and walk into a meeting and tell people what to do.

That feels like a little bit of a narrative.

It does seem to me that if the the topic was a war in which Israel was the main player, that the people who are the main players would have the most information and the most uh incentive to talk to the right people and also the confidence to say you have to do this.

You you're just going to have to do this.

Let me explain.

We know everything about the area.

You you're going to have to be with us.

You're gonna have to do this.

Now, we might disagree.

Maybe we don't have to do that.

Maybe that's not necessary.

Maybe that's not in our best interest.

But it it certainly makes sense that the people were closest to it and feel that it's an existential risk, which it was for Israel.

Israel is dealing with an existential risk.

So, yeah, they're going to be a little bit insistent that they do what they need to survive, right?

So, if they're a little bit arrogant, a little bit pushy, um, you have every right not to like that, but I certainly understand it, right?

If you were Israel and and you thought it was an existential risk, it was that important, you'd push.

You would push until somebody was really unhappy how hard you were pushing.

So, does that bother me?

Well, I don't know enough about, you know, I think you'd have to be in the room to know if they push too hard, but I don't mind that there's a little bit of a a little bit of push back.

That seems healthy.

You can't obviously you can't let Israel run the Pentagon, but in the in the case where they know the most and have the most at stake, Yeah.

Yeah.

Of course, you're going to listen to them.

So anyway, uh let's see.

And then um Tucker says that we should adjust our theological view of Israel because a lot of a lot of Christians believe that God favors certain people in certain real estate.

And uh Tucker says, "No, God doesn't do that.

That's the opposite of what God does.

Everybody's equal.

There's no chosen people." uh he thinks Tucker thinks Apac should be registered as a foreign uh agent.

It's the one of the few that is not.

There's some technical reason why they're not.

Um I think the technical reason, well, it's not even technical.

Uh it's a direct reason.

The reason Apac is not registered is because it's a bunch of Americans doing things for America.

I don't know.

That doesn't even make sense.

Uh I've heard an argument why they're the exception and I can't remember it now which makes me think it's not a very good argument.

So uh there might be a technical reason they're not but I would agree with the um the idea that anybody who's influencing the US in that way you would want them to be part of FRA.

But I don't see how it make any difference.

What difference would it make if they registered to be a FAR entity?

Isn't that just paperwork?

Wouldn't they do exactly the same things they're doing?

I don't know how that makes a difference.

Somebody will tell me.

And then Tucker said he doesn't like dual citizenship, but not limited to Israel, but limited to um any anybody.

So there apparently there are a number of dual citizenship people in Congress.

So he's talking about Congress specifically.

He doesn't like people in Congress having dual citizenship.

What do you think about that?

Do you think people in Congress should have dual citizenship?

I say no.

Yeah.

No.

This has nothing to do with Israel.

Um I mean it does have to do with Israel, but not because of Israel.

I I don't want anybody in Congress with dual citizenship.

I don't want to have to worry about um any dual loyalties.

I'm not blame.

I'm not criticizing anybody, but you shouldn't even have the appearance, you know, you should you should manage the appearance of it as much as the actuality.

So, yeah, I don't I'm not in favor of dual citizenship for people in Congress.

Um, he says we should be more America first and uh um I guess that's it.

So, the brave part about this is that Tucker is being accused of being anti-Semitic because he doesn't he doesn't spend as much time uh talking in a pro-Israel way as he talks in a negative Israel way.

But I would argue that the the pro-Israel argument is so completely obvious that you don't need to talk about it.

Is anybody in favor of Hamas, you know, massacring people?

I mean, do you do you have to mention that every time you talk about it?

Not really, because everybody's on the same side.

Um, do you have to say that we don't want radical extremist Islamic people to take over Israel?

Of course we don't.

Of course we don't.

Tucker doesn't.

Of nobody does.

So, I'm not sure how much you even need to say that stuff.

Um, but you might have to say some other stuff.

Anyway, so I put my own comment on uh post on it and here's what I said causing some trouble myself.

I said, "As a rule, I don't criticize Israel because that would be a career death wish as literally everyone knows.

I don't expect Tucker to survive this unscathed career-wise career-wise.

I don't expect him to be unscathed, which will prove his point.

That will prove his point if he can't even talk about it with free speech.

Um, so what do you think happened when I said I won't criticize Israel?

I was attacked by pro-Israel people for saying that I won't criticize Israel.

That that actually happened.

So uh so you get attacked for being a racist for saying that you don't want to take the risk of attacking Israel because if you do with any crit criticism at all, you'll be called a racist.

And to prove me wrong, people called me a racist.

To prove me wrong, that's what I said would be the problem.

So to prove me wrong, they proved me right.

What else do I need to say?

Right.

Um, and then they were also so dumb that they didn't know that I just gave the ultimate criticism to Israel by saying that I wasn't allowed to criticize them.

Wake up, people.

Wake the up.

All right.

The Israeli Navy Navy also intercepted uh the Global Simude flotilla there with the uh that's the Greta Tunberg flotilla.

Greta did a little video saying that she'd been captured by the Israeli Navy.

Uh Grock tells us that uh most of the flotillaa has been rounded up by the Israelis.

But because it caused a uh I guess a disruption in the Israeli Navy to go, you know, deal with these people, it allowed the local fishermen to fish the coastal areas for the first time in years.

uh and they got this substantial fish catch.

So, they're worried about starving and apparently they're banned from fishing in their own waters.

So, I'm sure there's a another side to that story.

Um because you got to you got to make sure that the water is not being used, you know, to ship in a bunch of weapons, which they would.

If fishing were allowed, I'm sure that the it would take 10 seconds for somebody to put some illegal weapons on a fishing boat and, you know, try to try to get that in.

Um, so Greta's Greta is captured.

And yesterday I told you there was allegedly a story that the flotilla had been uh funded by some Hamas entities.

I don't know if that's proven or not.

All right.

Um, in other news, FBI did a nationwide crackdown this year and they've got uh 8,000 arrests in three months according to just the news.

Misty Sei is writing and I wondered is that enough that we would see a difference?

They got they seized 2,200 guns and have 8,600 arrests in three months.

is 8,600 arrests of presumably these are some of the worst of the bad guys because the FBI was involved.

Will we notice that?

Is that enough?

What you you don't think Israel is pertinent to the US?

Somebody in the comments is saying it's embarrassing that I can't find uh USbased stories to talk about.

You You don't think Israel is a US-based story?

I think you're missing a lot.

That's a US-based story.

That's It's about as US-based as you can get.

Anyway, so let's hope that's a lot of bad guys that got caught.

Uh there's a uh startup called Ark.

They've got a spaceship and their plan is to have their spaceship uh their spaceships orbiting the earth so that they can deliver what you need within an hour to any place.

Uh primarily for military stuff at first.

Um I don't know what kind of stuff you would put in space just in case you needed it in a military sense, but it's kind of an interesting idea.

I don't know.

I don't know what their potential is on that, but it's kind of interesting that they would use space as their delivery um delivery highway, I guess.

All right.

Um MIT has developed a better concrete battery.

So, I guess they can mix some carbon cement super capacitor stuff into the uh into your concrete and you could store enough to uh take care of a house with, you know, one wall of concrete basically.

Um, so that would be cool.

Imagine if every house could be built with a concrete basement and the concrete basement was a perpetual battery.

like it would never never need to be changed and it would uh be enough of a battery for your whole house and presumably that would be a safe battery.

I'm worried about I'm worried about these standard batteries that you put on the outside of your house cuz sometimes they can catch on fire, but I can't imagine concrete catching on fire even if it had some um electrical qualities.

Maybe I'm wrong, but seems like this could have a lot of potential.

Well, Taiwan has rejected the US proposal.

CNBC is saying that that we were going to go 50.

No, we wanted uh Taiwan to make 50% of their chips in the US and they said no way.

So, this is part of the tariff negotiations, I guess.

But the idea was that uh you know we would want we would be safer in terms of our chip supply if at least some of them remain in the United States.

But Taiwan says no way.

And my question is what leverage does Taiwan have?

Doesn't Taiwan need the US military to protect them?

Can they really say no to we want you to make 50% of it in the US?

you know, not right away, but that would be the plan.

I don't know.

Pretty gussy of Taiwan to negotiate, but if uh if Trump gets tough, he will literally say, "I'm going to withdraw my uh withdraw my military support." Now, I don't think he can because we can't really risk losing those chips.

So probably we can't do that in reality, but he could he could certainly threaten it and that that should send them into a tizzy.

Well, Trump is floating the idea.

Just News is reporting of doing uh rebate checks based on some of the some but not all the tariff revenue coming in.

He's thinking of a,000 to 2,000.

I'm generally opposed to that um because I think we should be paying down the debt instead, but it would be stimulative and it um things are so tight at the moment that it probably would be a godsend to quite a few families.

So given the bad economic um the tightness of people's budgets at the lower income level, I'm I'm softening to this.

it it might be a way to give people just a little bit of a safety net without doing too much.

Um, it won't look like it's a budget buster, but uh I wouldn't go too big, but I would say I'm open to that where I was definitely not open to it before, but I'm open to it because the the budgets of ordinary people are just getting worse just so fast.

And I think we have to do something, you know, otherwise people are just literally going to be starving pretty soon.

All right, that's all I got for you today.

I'll try not to fall down any more stairs today.

I promise I'll use the elevator.

And thanks for joining.

Um, everybody, I'm going to say a few words privately to my beloved subscribers on Locals.

In 30 seconds, I'll be private with them and the rest of you.

I always appreciate you coming.

Come on in. Getting ready for the show.

Luckily, I'm still live, but only

barely.

I had a little uh excitement this

morning.

Um, so I don't know if most of you know

that I do a pre-show before I do this

every day. And the pre-show is just me

feing the cats and I take a few putts on

my putting green and uh play some drums

and basically just get ready for the

show while while the chatters are

talking to each other for the most part.

A lot of people think it's the best part

of what I do.

But uh this morning

I uh had a little uh problem on my

stairs and I fell down the stairs. Uh

I'm not injured.

But my uh my legs are weakened because

I've had so much leg pain that I've been

sitting and not walking. So, one of my

legs was so weak, my left leg, that the

first time I went up the stairs this

morning, I thought, hm,

that it felt a little uh little shaky.

So, you know, I always make sure I'm

holding on the rails. I'm at that age

where you never walk up downstairs

without holding the rails. But I forgot

something downstairs. So, my my iPad.

So, I went back downstairs and uh turned

around. You want to see me uh on live

video falling down my own stairs?

So, this is what the live stream

audience saw just a few minutes ago.

I just had to get my iPad.

Here I come.

Now, I was only about 10 ft up the

stairs.

>> It doesn't hurt.

>> I'm flat on my back on the the bottom

floor right now.

>> All right.

You're seeing my reflection now. Not the

>> survived.

Yes. I did fall down the stairs.

So, that was exciting. How's the stock

market doing?

Little bit up. Little bit up. All right,

we'll take it.

We'll take it.

Yes, I will get an Apple Watch in case I

fall down again.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

your experience to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains. All you need for

that is a copper mar glass attacker chin

a canteen jugger flask a vessel of any

kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure. The the dopamine

of the day, the thing that makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip. And I will not be

stopped. Go.

Good stuff.

Good stuff. All right, we got some news.

You want some news today? Gonna put your

comments up here so that I can more

easily see them.

Come on, comments.

Get to the feed.

Come on, guys. There we go.

All right, we're all good to go now. So,

um, according to a Rasmusen poll, 84%

of, uh, people are worried that online

radicalization might drive more

political violence.

Um,

84% are worried that online

radicalization will drive more violence.

Where do people think it comes from? If

it doesn't come from online, what do you

think it came from your neighbor? Did

your neighbor get you all worked up to

do some political violence?

What would it be? Except for online.

That's the only thing that gets us

worked up about anything. So, yeah,

Rasmusen, I believe your poll is

correct, if not low. Should have been

100%.

Here's another one. Let's Let's see if

you knew the answer to this one. Uh Eric

Dolan in Cypost

is writing about a new study uh that

tries to determine why lesbian couples

face a higher divorce risk.

Okay. Now, the funny part about this

topic is that it's literally a famous uh

comedy routine about why why lesbians uh

have more divorce. But they looked into

things like cohabitation length, prior

children, and shared children, and they

found out that those were not really

very indicative. So they're they're uh

they're not really predictive. So now

they

they're conclusion is that it's a

mystery why lesbians have the highest

divorce rate.

They they couldn't figure out what the

source problem was.

It's literally a comedy routine that

everybody in the world understands. So

if you if you put two women together

because women are usually the ones who

are initiate divorces. If you put the

two if you put the gender together that

generally initiates the divorce, you get

more divorces.

I think they could have just asked me. I

think they could have asked you too.

Nope. But whatever you do, don't say

women are the problem.

All right. Uh here's another one from a

side post. Karina Petrova. Again,

probably could have saved a little money

just by asking me, but they found out

did a study to find out that your social

status has a surprising, yeah,

surprising influence on your biological

stress responses. that the lower your

perceived status, the more likely you'll

be stressed out because you can't change

anything. Well, I can tell you that uh I

had the experience of having no status,

you know, as as you do when you're a

child, and then I went to having no

status as a young adult in my 20s and uh

into my 30s, no real status at all. But

then Dilbert hit and I became a you know

sort of a minor celebrity and I got some

status. I gotta tell you that having

success and you know associated status

solves most of your stress.

I I guarantee you that if you ever hit

it big, you know, and you become either

either well-known andor uh rich or both,

it will make you more relaxed.

You know, once you're once you're

famous, you can walk into any situation

with no no stress whatsoever because

people come to you. Let me give you just

the cleanest example. Um, I get super

stressed if I'm late for something. You

probably have that too, right? Like if

there's a meeting and you know people

are already in the room. Oh, that's the

worst. If they're already in the room

and you're on the road, you know, you

got caught up in traffic. That's really

stressful. So, before I had status, if I

were late, I would think, "Oh god,

people are going to hate me more. Oh, my

status, you know, I I'll be, you know,

creeping into the meeting late and gh

and it would bother me. Once I became

famous, a weird thing happened that if

if I showed up late, the people who were

already there would apologize for being

early or some var variation of that. In

other words, they would never get on me

because they usually needed me to

approve something or wanted to work with

me or something. So, so I would go from

the thing that bothered me the most

being potentially late to no problem at

all. It just disappears.

So, yes, the higher your status, it

seems like it would be more work and

more more pressure. In some ways, it is,

but uh the benefits are just way way

better than the than the costs.

Well, according to Cell Press, uh, AI

was used to write nearly a quarter of

corporate press releases in 2024.

Now, I have been involved with many,

many press releases.

And let me tell you how press releases

are written. the whoever's in charge of

whatever entity is supposed to do the

press release, they look for the lowest

uh the lowest uh ranked person in the

office who can speak the language and

then they say, "Write us up a uh press

release and make sure that it's the most

boring, you know, looks like it came out

of a form factory or something." And uh

whatever you do, don't make it

interesting cuz that's the last thing

you want to do. So, here's what I know

that any of you who have been involved

with a lot of press releases can

confirm. A press release always looked

like AI wrote it. It always looked like

AI wrote it. So, to me, it seems like

the most natural thing that you would

replace with AI cuz it's not going to

get worse. I mean, press releases are

just deadly boring. And they're always,

like I said, they're the first draft is

always written by the worst writer in

the office. I hate to say it, first

draft is always the worst writer. And

then it gets to the boss and the boss

doesn't want to rewrite the whole thing,

so they just, you know, check the

spelling or something. And then it gets

to me. Let's say the press release is

about me and I just don't give a

because I know nobody reads a press

release.

So, I have approved I can't tell you how

many pressed releases about me that I've

approved, you know, from publishers,

etc., uh, that I didn't even read

because it doesn't matter. Nobody else

is going to read it either. It's it's

the most unread document that will ever

be created. So, yeah, quarter of them

going to AI makes sense to me.

Um, so OpenAI

uh now has a Sora 2 uh app that can

generate realistic videos of of people

doing things and it's open AI and they

decided to model the new ability by

showing a realistic looking video of

their CEO Sam Alman shoplifting at

Target.

and it looks just like him and it sounds

like him and it looks like you're

shoplifting at Target. And I'm thinking

to myself, now I guess I guess this app

is so you can make content for stuff

like Meta and Instagram and Tik Tok and

stuff. It's sort of designed for what

they call AI slop. Have you heard that

term yet? AI slop, meaning that people

are just generating all kinds of AI

stuff and it's not all good. Yeah, it's

not all it's not all sombrero stuff. Uh,

so they call it AI slop. Anyway, so now

we'll have video of every famous person

shoplifting and committing crimes. Step

forward,

step in the right direction.

And apparently Sorro Sorro can't

generate a continuous three minute video

from a photo like but uh there's a app

called Longot that can. So I guess 3

minutes might be sort of the current

record of how long a video you can make

from you know a single prompt. Um, but

and there's another one where you can

splice together some shots of like a

virtual room and you could splice it

together. So you you walk through a

bunch of virtual rooms, but it looks

like it takes about six apps to make all

that work. So as far as I can tell based

on what I've seen so far, in order to

make a movie using AI, you would need

all of the skills of a movie maker. So

you'd have to know how to cast the right

people even though casting would be

digital. You'd have to still understand

scripts and story and you know the the

nature of storytelling. You would have

to be um you'd have to be basically a

videographer so that you could say oh

that's a that's a good look and all

that. So I you'd have to be an editor,

you'd have to be a director. You'd have

still have to be a producer. So, it

seems to me that the movie making

business will probably no longer be the

stupid people.

Don't you worry that movies were made by

actors who just wanted a promotion so

they sort of turned into directors so

they could get kind of a promotion and

that they weren't necessarily the

smartest people you've ever met.

But it wasn't that hard because if

you're a director, you have all these

well-trained people who know how to do

all the the subtasks, right? You don't

have to be the videographer because you

hired one, etc. You don't have to be the

lighting guy because you hire one. But

now you would have to know a whole bunch

about AI and how to use it. you know,

probably several different apps and they

would be they would be getting updated

those apps and they would new ones would

be coming online. They were better.

You'd have to try them all the time and

you would have to have all the movie

skills, but on top of that in one person

because you you couldn't really it'd be

hard to build something that you um that

you delegated to other humans. So you

could delegate it to the AI,

but you wouldn't want to delegate it to

humans because then there'd be too many

humans doing too many problems with too

many AIs. It would be impossible. So in

order for somebody to make a proper

movie, you would have to have the

deepest talent stack that I can even

imagine. It would have to go all the way

through AI, which is hard enough, but

then it would have to include all of the

movie making skill.

Who's going to be able to do that? a few

there will be a few people who can do

that. But it went from, you know, you

you could randomly pick a hundred people

and 80 of them could be a director.

But now if you had a hundred people,

probably none of them, if it's only a

hundred, probably not one person would

have the skill to make a movie with AI

even even a few years from now. That's

my guess. Maybe one in a thousand.

Well, Meta is going to use uh your chat

conversations with AI for ad targeting,

but according to reclaim the net, Ken

Min is writing about that. And uh I

guess we all figure that, right? If if

they can listen to you talking and send

you ads based on what you're talking

about in your kitchen, I'm not too

surprised that they can give you an ad

based on what you said on AI. But uh do

you think we're getting close to the

point where the AI will directly give

you an ad as in AI I need some

suggestions where to eat and then the AI

the AI says well our our sponsored

restaurant is XYZ.

I'll bet it I'll bet that's where it's

going. But they they probably need to

hold off on that until we're all hooked

on AI to the point where we won't turn

it off when it gives us a commercial.

We're not there yet.

Um, this will sound like a little thing,

but it might be a big thing. Um, so this

from a post by Constantinos Busmales.

Uh, he showed a video of a robot. In

this case, it was just a robot arm with

a must had some vision, but it was an

arm. And it was teaching another arm how

to do a task. So, the one arm knew how

to, you know, put a lid on something or

take something off a wall. and then the

other one just watched it and then it

could learn it by watching it. Now, if

that doesn't seem like a big deal to

you, um you haven't been watching the

robot space, it's the biggest of big

deals. If if the robot can learn by

observation,

it's the biggest of big deals. That's

that's as big a deal as you can get.

That that's like that's just everything

right there. Um and it hasn't been able

been able to do that. So this might be

the first indication that robots will

work. You know, they would have to learn

by watching.

And I suppose if one of them learned by

watching, then it can send a video to

all the others and say, "Look what I

learned by watching."

Uh, Perplexity, the AI company has now

their comet browser, it's called, is out

and it works like an assistant. So you

can give it prompts and it will do a

bunch of tasks. Now that's not the

interesting part because there'll be a

lot of those. But the thing that was

interesting to me is once AI becomes

ubiquitous and every desk jockey has an

AI and a AI assistant, which is coming.

I I think it's a 100% chance that we'll

all be talking to our AIs to get basic

stuff done, right? There there's no

question about that. uh we'll all be

using AI at our desks. But what happens

when people realize that the only the

only really efficient way to do it is by

voice? Cuz you're going to get tired

typing your super prompts all day long.

But if you could just talk to it, you

will. So does that mean that we'll have

to work from home? Cuz how in the world

are we all going to be talking to our

AIS in an open office?

Can't do it. First of all, your AI would

be listening to your cubiclemate and

whoever walked in would trigger your AI

and every other problem. So, I'm going

to make a prediction that AI will drive

remote work so that people can talk to

their AI

and then you're really going to hate it

when your partner works at home. Oh man,

you're going to hate that.

But at least it won't be at work.

There's a Gallup poll, Newsmax and

others reporting that uh apparently the

uh media approval is at a new all-time

low. Um how many people do you Let's do

a little test. I like to test my

audience for the new people. You'll be

amazed. Um, I'm going to see if you know

before I tell you what percentage of

people pled in the Gallup poll think

that the mainstream media uh is doing a

good job.

What percentage think the mainstream

media is doing a good job?

Oh, look at your guess is so accurate.

You're almost there. 28%.

Yeah. Yep. Most of you are betting we're

betting 25 or 26, but yeah, 28%. I'm

going to give you full credit for for

your guesses. Now, if you're new, are

you wondering how everybody knew the

right answer?

It's because

we have jokingly but u maybe accurately

noted over the years that 20 something

like a quarter of all people who answer

polls have the dumbest possible answer.

the answer that no living smart human

should ever say. Who in the world trusts

the mainstream media?

How in the world could you say, "Oh

yeah, got a lot of trust for that

mainstream media." You would have to be

paying no attention to anything. And

this is another one of those 25enters.

28 to be specific.

Well, did he is supposed to be sentenced

today as it happened? I mean, I'm in a

different time zone, but does did he get

his sentence? Could be as long as 10

years. Prosecutors are asking because

they they dropped the worst charges, the

RICO and stuff got dropped. But, uh,

defense is asking for, uh, time served,

basically, one year. That would be close

to time served. So, he's either going to

be released,

time served, or maybe he would get up to

10 years. So, I guess he's teaching a

business class to other uh other inmates

so that he can get some, you know, sort

of jail credibility.

So, good for him. At least the teaching

part.

Um, how many of you know conservative uh

online

um investigative reporter type Nick Sor?

Um, I quote him a lot, so he's a good

foll. Apparently, he just got arrested

in Portland.

uh attending um as a as a journalist

attending to see what was happening at

an Antifa event in Portland and I guess

they set an American flag on fire and uh

allegedly still fog of war so we don't

know exactly what happened but allegedly

he may have tried to put it out.

Now I don't know how you put out a

burning American flag.

Stomp on it. How how exactly would you

put it out? If if you threw water on it,

I would think, well, that's, you know,

respectful enough. Uh, but if you had to

stomp on it, I hope he didn't stomp on

it. Seems like that would be making it

worse. But we'll, uh, keep an eye on

that. Um, I'm sure Nick will have an

update whenever he's out. He may be out

already. I don't know if he got really

arrested or they just that, you know,

I'm going to say,

well, I'll just say this. So, you've

heard the alternative. He might have

been arrested because the police are

right? That that's the first thing you

think is, "Oh my god, the police are

assholes." If they arrested him for

that, but if they arrested him because

that was the best way to get him out of

the situation cuz he might be, you know,

beaten to death by Antifa, then that was

good police work. So, one possibility is

that they were pretending to arrest him

just to get him out of the situation. If

that happened, good job. Good job. But

we don't know that.

Andy know is uh who's on Newsmax uh

reminding us that he's he's well aware

of Antifa training events which

apparently are happening all over the

place and they're used to recruit and

network and stuff. So they have all

these organized Antifa training events

and yet the Democrats say Antifa doesn't

exist because it's, you know, there's no

leadership or organization. Well,

apparently it's self-organizing at the

very least because they can have all

these training events. So if you're

having training events all over the

nation, in fact, all over the world,

yeah, you're an organization

and uh you could get recoed in my

opinion.

Well, Politico is writing I I didn't

read the article, just the headline

because the headline was good enough. It

said half of America doesn't know who

Hakee Jeff is. Uh but he's seizing on

the shutdown fight to change that.

Now, uh as many of you know, the

political competition between Democrats

and Republicans was at one time a fair

fight. Do you remember that? It's like,

wow, those Democrats are putting up a

good fight. They they even won that one.

Oh, they they won that election. Good

fighting. But now the the Democrat party

is in full collapse. And I can't think

of anything that would be worse for the

Democrat party than uh than raising the

profile of Hakee Jeff, the the most

uncarismatic person besides Chuck

Schumer. The two of them are just

famously uncarismatic. Like, oh my god,

does the camera hate both of those

You You've heard, you know, the camera

love some people. You know, some people

just look good on camera and some people

don't look good on camera. It's more of

a camera thing. You know, they might

look perfectly normal in person, but

both of these guys, like Jeff and

Schumer, are terrible on camera. I mean,

just terrible. And I wouldn't say that

about everybody. You know, the AOC is

great on camera. You know, if you want

if you want the alternative, great on

camera. M Dami, he's great on camera.

But they've decided that in the shutdown

they're going to put the two least

likable Democrats forward. Oh my god, is

Trump winning hard?

Every day that they that the Democrats

are branding themselves with Hakee Jeff

and his sombrero and uh and Schumer,

every day that that goes on, they get

weaker because nobody is looking at

those two guys and saying, "Oo, lead me.

Lead me." Nobody.

Anyway, um so that's the next biggest

mistake they're making. So apparently uh

the House Democrats decided as Jesse

Waters was talking about this on Fox. Uh

they decided that they would do this uh

live stream that they would keep up for

24 hours. Uh it would be a 24-hour live

stream to just talk about the shutdown

so that nobody would, you know, nobody

would forget about and they could get

their message out. Um, and apparently uh

at one point there were only 36 people

watching them and one of them was Fox

News

just to make fun of it. And it it was

only had a,000 viewers at one point. It

was peaking live stream at 1,000 viewers

and they decided to just take it down

and give up. They couldn't even pull off

a podcast because Yeah, I saw the uh the

setup for the podcast and it was just

two guys you didn't want to look at

sitting awkwardly in chairs with

microphones in front of their faces.

They couldn't even get the basic right.

If you want somebody to look good on a

podcast,

there are only two ways to do it. Those

people have to just look good. Now,

that's one way. Then it doesn't matter

what they're doing, they just look good.

The other way is you have to put them

behind a desk because at least it

doesn't show their lower body and at

least it doesn't show their bad posture

and, you know, their little belly

doesn't stick up when they lean back in

their chair.

But no, they took two unappealing people

and put them in fulllength chairs.

That's just not knowing how to do a

podcast. That's literally just not

knowing how anything works. Now, I I did

recently a podcast with Zubie and the uh

the two of us had that same setup with a

separate chair that you could see the

the whole body. And I'm looking at Zubie

and I'm thinking, damn it, if I look

like him, I would I'd feel pretty good

in a full chair. But at the moment, I'm

not feeling too too great about my

physicality. So when I saw it played

back, I thought, you know, I'd look a

lot better be on the desk. But Zubie

looked great. Zubie is great.

Um, so 40 million registered Democrats,

but at one point they could get 36 of

them to watch that live stream. They are

just so not good at anything.

Well, Homeland Security, according to

the Epic Times, uh removed five TSA

officials because they were involved in

that Biden era thing where they were

putting people on the quiet skies. Uh

we're going to follow you around if you

try to fly. Apparently, that entire

quiet skies thing caught exactly zero

bad guys. All it did was take away

freedom from and privacy from a whole

bunch of Americans. Uh, so do I think

that those heads should be fired? I do.

I do. Now, they might have been just,

you know, following instructions,

but

you really just can't have that in your

government. So, I'm in favor of those

firings.

All right.

Um,

so MSNBC is creating some fake news

about uh Pegas. Um, so they're they're

doing their usual thing where they take

something out of context, which is how,

you know, I think most Democrats who are

really worked up about the risk and the

the badness of Republicans almost

entirely get their news out of context.

Have you noticed that if you fa if you

could fix that one thing that there

would be no out of context news? It

would change everything. But you know

the TV news especially, they could just

say stuff and then not put it on anybody

else who doubts it and that's the news.

So here's an example. Do you remember

when Pangathth was saying that uh you

know he valued women in the military but

they would have to meet the same

physical standards as men if they were

going to be in combat roles.

Does that does that uh say anything? It

doesn't say anything. It's saying that

if you're going to be in a combat role,

you have to meet a certain standard and

we don't care what your genitalia is.

How do you get more fair than that? same

standard, men and women. What did MSNBC

turn that into? Uh their words is that

he's ruling out women in combat roles.

Well, in effect, it would presumably

reduce the number of women in combat

roles if they had a higher standard than

they've had before. But it doesn't

eliminate them. It says if you could do

the work, you got the job.

That's all it says. If you can do the

work, you're in. So, but they turned

that into something it isn't by removing

the context.

Well, you may have seen it already, but

uh after uh after three days of winning

the meme war, uh Trump with his uh memes

of Hakee Jeff with his sombrero is just

the funniest thing. Uh even uh what's

the show? The Daily Show. Uh, you know,

when when John Stewart's not the Daily

Show host, I think he does one day a

week, but uh who is the Asian-American

guy who is the Daily Show host? He's

pretty funny. But he uh he completely

took

uh the memes aside.

He he he just couldn't get over how

funny the meme was, even though he

didn't understand the relevance of like

why why does Hakee Jeff have a he he

didn't even know why Hakee Jeff was

being put in a sombrero in a Mexican

mustache. The reason is that uh

allegedly he wants to give uh budget

money to undocumented

uh people,

but you'd have to know that story. But

still the the Daily Show guy said he

didn't even know what it had to do with

but it but he couldn't stop laughing

because it was hilarious because it's

hilarious. And then and then he showed

the third one in the series where Trump

himself is wearing the sombrero and

playing in the mariachi band. And then

he's all confused because is it good or

bad to be a mariachi guy with a Mexican

hat? Wait a minute. If it's bad why'

they put Trump in a hat?

Just perfect. Just perfect. But this

morning, I wake up to a new one. It's

the the mu music of Blue Oyster cult.

Here Comes the Reaper uh with a uh AI

generated meme that shows Russ vote and

uh Trump looking like reapers and that

they're going to come after your uh

after your uh Democrat uh employees and

fire them because I guess he can do a

bunch of firing during the government

closeown. and he's going to shut a bunch

of Democrat entities and Democrat

functions and fire a bunch of Democrats.

So instead of being koi about it and and

instead of trying to lower the

temperature, you know, what a what a

normal president would do would be like,

oh yeah, there might there might be a

few few layoffs. Yeah, we might be, you

know, use that time to look at a few

things we could adjust and try to

minimize it. No, instead instead of

trying to minimize it, Trump goes right

at it with a meme of him as the as the

reaper getting rid of all these

Democrats.

Oh no. And and then Trump said

separately, I can't believe the radical

left Democrats gave me this

unprecedented opportunity. They're not

stupid people. So maybe this is their

way of wanting to quietly and quickly

make America great again.

So now he's speculating that Democrats

are pretending to be incompetent so they

can get some stuff done without stopping

Trump from doing it.

Now, I don't think that's exactly what's

happening, but God, that's funny. That

is so funny. That the fact that he's

he's trolling them and beating them at

the same time. I could not enjoy this

more. And and the fact that Trump knows

he's entertaining his base while driving

crazy his his competition, it just

doesn't get any better than this. How

are we ever going to enjoy another

president? This is the most fun any

president's ever been. No, nobody's ever

going to match this. I mean, I I have a

lot of confidence in JD Vance if he

makes it in. I think he'll be terrific,

but man, you'll never match this. You

will never match this. This is this is a

form of genius

what Trump is executing right now. It's

a form of genius like I don't think

we'll ever see again because he has that

talent stack that you know goes across

entertainment

you know decades of experience. Um he

just has exactly the right stack of

talents to do this. Nobody else does.

Only him.

Um, so Akeim put on a post and actually

says, "We are ready to debate the

government funding and the Republican

healthc care crisis anytime, any place

with the cameras rolling."

He says, "Trump vice president, Speaker

Johnson, what say you?" And I looked in

the comments to his

to his aggressive challenge to debate it

uh on camera and Michael Malice had a

comment right below it in all caps. He

says, "Go back to Mexico."

Now, if you don't know who Michael

Malice is, it's not as funny. You would

you have to know he's just one of the

funniest people in the world. but

that we so don't take him seriously that

nobody even cares that he wants to

debate it on camera. We're not even

interested. We're just go back to Mexico

where if you didn't know he's not from

Mexico, but he has been seen in a

sombrero lately. Go back to Mexico.

It'd be even funnier if Trump agreed to

debate, but only with AOC

because she's not even in the chain of

command for this this topic. Oh, yeah,

I'll do it, but only with AOC.

Anyway,

uh the smart people are pretty sure that

the only way this uh this shutdown ends

is with Democrats giving up. Do you

think that too? Do you think the only

way this ends is with Democrats saying,

"All right, all right, all right." You

know, we only have to wait seven weeks

and then we're back in negotiating the

budget, so we could just wait seven

weeks. Uh, I don't see it ending any

other way. Do you? As far as I can tell,

Trump is perfectly happy torturing them

with funny memes, keeping them off the

job, and cutting all these all this fat

that he wanted to cut anyway. So, it

definitely looks like all the cards are

in Trump's favor right now. It looks

like it. So, I can't imagine it would go

any direction other than yet another

failure. But during that time that they

fail, they get to highlight their two

leaders, Hakee Jeff and Chuck Schumer.

That is all bad every day. Every second

that they're on TV, every second makes

the Democrats less popular because even

the Democrats are not looking at those

two guys and saying, "There's

my leaders right there."

So, I mean they I think if it were AOC

things might be going in the right

direction, you know, because they might

say, "All right, all right, I'll follow

her."

But they don't.

Uh Nuke Gingrich had a good summary of

it. He says the Democrats just pulled

off what he calls a double negative. Uh

he was talking to Jesse Waters about

this. So the double negative is that

there are two things that the American

people want.

Just two things. Well, they want more

than that, but two things the American

people want on this topic. Number one,

do not close the government. Number two,

do not raise spending. And then new

points out, so what do the Democrats do?

They say, I'm going to close the

government until you raise spending.

That's a double negative.

To which I say, no, you're wrong. You're

wrong, N. It's not a double negative

because they're doing it by putting

forward Schumer and Jeffre. It's a

triple negative. It's a triple. It it

you can't you cannot discount that

they're putting their least charismatic,

you know, least likable two people as

the face of this problem. Yeah, that's

three things we don't want to do. We

don't want to close the government. We

don't want to raise spending. and we

don't want to spend one more freaking

second looking at Hakee Jeff or Schumer

on camera. Can you give us somebody

who's got a little bit of charisma? Just

just a little bit. Somebody interesting.

I'll watch. Like you said, I'll watch

AOC.

Yeah. It's not about being a Democrat.

It's about being Have a little bit of

charisma, please.

Well, Cash Patel was asked a question

about whether he thought Nancy Pelosi

was behind planning the January 6th

event to turn it into a, you know,

insurrection narrative. Now, I will tell

you that I am not persuaded by the new

news that there were lots of FBI people

in the crowd.

I understand what that means. That it

means they could have been ordered to

cause trouble. Definitely could have.

And and certainly it looks like the FBI

in in prior leadership, it looks like

they were lying to us um about the

involvement. But it doesn't necessarily

mean that we have a direct smoking gun

that they caused the trouble because

there's some people that look like they

might have been operatives, you know,

breaking windows and stuff like that.

But we don't know. I mean, they could

have been some other kind of operative,

not FBI. So, I'm personally not totally

persuaded, but I'm open to it.

definitely definitely open to it because

it certainly opens up the extreme

possibility that they were involved. But

h don't have that last, you know,

whistleblower thing. You know, by now,

by now we would have at least one

whistleblower says, "Here's the deal. I

was directly told to go turn this into a

riot." Short of that, and I think we

would have seen that by now, short of

that,

I'm going to I'm going to just say fog

of war still and could go either way.

But as Cash Patel reminds us, um

remember when there was a claim that the

National Guard had been offered but

declined and apparently Pelosi at the

time said that was a lie. She's I think

she was claiming if I have the story

right, I believe I do. She was claiming

that that never happened. there was no

declining of the of the help. Well,

later after Cash Patel is in there, they

find the documents that were indeed the

declination of the help. So now that's a

proven lie that Nancy Pelosi had access

to 10 to 20,000 National Guard and only

had to say yes. Only had to say yes. And

she said no in writing.

Now, why would she not say yes to

something so obviously

um protective?

Why? Well, secondly, as Cash Patel

points out, uh Pelos's daughter was

filming a documentary about the events

of that day. What would be the better

event? What would make that documentary

really shine? Well, it wouldn't be if

the National Guard came in and

made immediate order and prevented

people from trespassing.

There would have been What kind of movie

would that be? Oh, a bunch of people pro

protested. It was all very peaceful.

They went home, right? So, now here's

the question. If you were Nancy Pelosi

and you were as clever and as

experienced and weasly as she is, do you

think that you would be tempted to let

trouble happen, including physical

danger trouble, in order for your

daughter's career to really take off?

And the answer is that's pretty much

what politicians do. They pretty much

put other people at risk for their own

personal benefit and their family's

benefit. That's the most common thing

they do. So, yes,

I do believe that she would put people's

lives at risk absolutely to just boost

her daughter's career a little bit. I do

think that I can't think of a second

reason that would make sense to me why

you would decline the National Guard.

Right. So, I'm going to say that given

the given the things that we know for

sure, daughter was doing a documentary,

it got a lot more interesting when the

danger started and that she turned down

help that was the obvious help to to

give. And by the way, why would the

person who was planning an insurrection

offer to put in in place the people who

would stop the insurrection?

I mean, the whole narrative was

completely ridiculous and and Pelosi was

behind the narrative. So, I'm going to

say that she was uh directly the cause

of the insurrection and that she knew

that she could blame the insurrection on

um on Trump supporters, which she did,

uh if she made sure that uh there was

not enough protection to keep people

from getting out of line.

So, I'm going to say my current uh

working theory is that the FBI may not

have been directly involved, but they

wouldn't need to be cuz if you have that

many angry people and you you have a no

show of force that it looks like they're

not in any particular risk cuz there's

not enough not enough police there. That

would be enough to guarantee there would

be too much trouble. Now, she she may

have uh overplayed her hand, and it may

have gotten more dangerous than she

imagined it would get, especially

dangerous to members of the Congress.

So, she may have been surprised that it

got worse than she thought, but I'm

going to say this is 100% on her. I

believe January 6 was a op that was not

planned, but rather in an opportunistic

way. Pelosi saw a situation forming that

they could possibly take on Trump

forever, but the risk of it would be

some people would get hurt. And I think

that's what she did. I I believe that

she is 100% um behind that hoax and that

uh I don't have any more questions.

To me, it's it's asked and answered.

Maybe maybe there was a handful of FBI

guys who were in on something, but I

don't see it. You know, you you're going

to have to do better if you think that

the FBI was involved. They may have

been, but I don't see it. All I see is

numbers, and that's that's completely

different.

So, all right.

Apparently, uh, according to Fox News,

Fanny May and Freddy Mack, two big, uh,

housing giants, are going to leave New

York State because it's, uh, too sketchy

to be there when the attorney general is

Leticia James.

So, you might be aware

that Bill PE has been uh uh found some

news about uh Leticia James uh and her

uh paperwork for housing and alleged

mortgage type fraud that's not been

proven alleged.

Um, but now this is putting more

pressure that, you know, taking two big

entities out of the state because it's

just too dangerous to be in the state

with her there. And I would say that

especially now after those agencies were

implicated in implicating her and that

we know she's a revenge monster, you

have to take your business out of that

state. You can't even stay in the state

with that attorney general. It's too

risky. So PE is right again. He's right

again. You It would just be dangerous to

stay there.

Well, David Saxs and others are

criticizing this group called the SPLC,

the Southern Poverty Law Center, who

exists sort of like the ADL does to

pretend to be finding bad people and

racists, but really they're just a a

Democrat, you know, hit entity trying to

act like they're something else.

Saxs points out that if you search for

Stephen Miller, the first thing that

comes up uh on Google search is uh

something that uh calls him names. What

did he call him?

Anyway, so so it's something that calls

him a some kind of a racist or

something. And uh the SPLC

um also has a article about me from 2020

and it says uh it was about u election

denial. So it put me in the election

denial category and uh which by the way

um I don't believe I'm an election

denier. I have not seen proof that the

election was was uh rigged. But they

they seemed to think that I was on that

team. Uh but the refusal to for Trump to

concede and said uh then a tweet

response that I said, this is what they

claim that people have been brainwashed

to accept Biden's win

and uh and that that's part of the

broader far-right rhetoric. Now, did I

say that people are brainwashed to

accept Biden's win? I don't know. But

that's not a claim about the election

itself. That would be a claim about how

people come to believe what they believe

about the election itself. So I didn't

have any comment about whether the

election was rigged. My comment was that

the individuals who believe it wasn't

were brainwashed to believe that. It was

not based on any data they could have

possibly had access to. It was based on

propaganda.

But anyway, they throw me on the list so

that someday my name will be associated

with this hate group or the group that

finds hate groups. Great. So, the SPLC

and ADL really need to be uh eliminated

from the United States. There seems to

be a lot of energy to get that done now.

So, we'll see. I'd be I think anybody

who donates to either of those groups,

they're just asking for trouble

because at this point, if somebody found

out you donated to either of those

groups, you would get boycotted

immediately. Um, and you should be, you

know, they're they're despicable, both

of them.

Well, I've been listening to an argument

that Scott Galloway has been making

about how Israel is not allowed to win a

war and that there's a double standard

there. Um, and I thought I would just

talk about the argument itself. So, this

is less about Israel. This is just about

um is this argument good? Okay. So, one

of the arguments is that um in World War

II, for example, the US um just did

horrible things to the uh civilian

populations of Germany and Japan. And

nobody called that a genocide. They just

said, "Well, you know, it's a war and if

you're going to win the war, you're

going to have to win the war and it's

going to be really ugly." So, so that

would be an example where America was

allowed to win a war whereas Israel is

being um continuously

um continuously persuaded to go light on

civilian deaths, but

um it's war and the you know, as

everybody knows, the civilians are mixed

in with the bad guys. So, it's extra

hard to to to spare the civilians in

this particular case. Um, but here's the

part where he loses me. Number one,

analogies are a terrible form of

argument. Have I ever said that before?

Like almost every day. If if you have to

use an analogy, it's because you don't

have an argument.

Once you see that pattern, you'll never

be able to unsee it. Let me say it

again. If you have to use an analogy,

not just if it's a convenience, if it's

a convenience for for deriving something

that somebody was unfamiliar with,

that's perfectly good use of analogy.

I'm just describing a thing. But if it's

your argument that this thing is like

this, so they should operate the same,

that's that means you don't have an

argument because the analogy is never

the thing. It's a different thing. You

can't argue this thing with a different

thing.

the fact that something about that thing

reminds you of the other thing is no

argument. That's no argument.

So,

uh, and to prove my point, was the US

allowed to win the war in Afghanistan?

No. The US could have killed every

civilian in Afghanistan and taken full

control of the country, but we didn't.

So, we had a constraint. Did we do

everything we could have done in Iraq?

Not really. I mean, you could say we won

the war, but do we run? Do we own Iraq?

Are they even allies? Doesn't look like

it to me. I think that we did not have

the freedom to destroy enough of Iraq

and their civilian base until we owned

it, right? We we just didn't have that.

Um, so I would say that the uh examples

are bad. And I would even say attacking

Iran, all we could do is attack

something that didn't look like it would

have much um civilian casualties.

So, at least not many.

So, I would argue that first of all, the

analogies don't work and we're currently

in a war with Russia and we're also not

killing too many of their civilians,

right? So I would argue that probably

what's happening is that in the modern

world it's harder to run a war where

there are lots of civilian casualties.

It has more to do with social media and

the the fact that the news is not

completely controlled by governments

anymore and that people can find out

directly what's happening. If the more

you know about it, the less freedom the

military is going to have because

there'll always be people say there's no

reason to be killing so many people. But

if you're not watching, I mean, if

you're not watching, stuff gets done.

So, I think it has more to do with the

modern landscape of news and information

than it does with a uh uh double

standard. So, that's my first comment.

Analogies don't work as arguments. The

second thing is that Scott Galloway

likes to use the argument that if you

looked at it as a percentage, the

percentage of Israelis that were killed

on October 7th, and you applied that

percentage to let's say the United

States, it would be some big number like

35,000 people. And I think he used the

example of uh the hostages would be like

I don't know the size of a whole college

or something like that. And he and he

points out if that happened to us,

35,000 people and that many hostages as

a percentage that we would uh you know

we would basically just turn it into a

parking lot that he used Mexico as an

example. He said if Mexico did that to

us we would just level Mexico. You know

there wouldn't be any bit left. Now

maybe maybe yes or maybe because it's

the modern world and everybody would be

watching. we wouldn't be able to level

Mexico because there would be too much

push back, too much watching. Um,

however, I would argue that in this

domain, percentage is a propaganda

number.

That's not that's not an information

number. The information number is the

number of people. Remember, I always

tell you that if somebody concentrates

on either the the percentage of a thing

or the raw number and they try to

minimize the other, that's propaganda

every time. If you're not willing to say

cleanly and clearly, here's both

numbers, you know, let's look at them

and see what's important. In my opinion,

the number of people who died is all

that matters.

In in what world am I supposed to

respect the percentage?

If one person dies anywhere, that's one

person dead. If one American dies,

that's a tragedy. If one Israeli dies,

that's a tragedy.

If a 100 Israelis died, that's a tragedy

of a 100 people. If a 100 Americans die,

that's a tragedy of exactly the same

size. It's a 100 people. The

only reason you could say that Israel

losing um their percentage is somehow

worse than if that same number of people

died in the United States. The only way

you could say that is if you thought the

Israelis were the special people, that

their lives were worth more than

American lives. No. 100 dead Israelis is

worth a 100 dead Americans because

they're all the same in terms of the

value of life. So now, don't give me

this about higher percentage. I

mean, I understand it. I understand how

they feel the way they feel. So, if if

the argument is, you know, people would

feel worse.

I get that. But how they feel is not how

they should prosecute a war. That's not

that's not the basis upon which you run

your business.

So I think uh the ex the analogy is

propaganda and I think using that

percentage argument is propaganda and

neither of those seem to me as

reasonable arguments.

Um,

speaking of imaginary Democrat problems,

Scott Galloway also on his podcast said

he thinks that Trump will jin up a fake

crisis before 2028 so that you can use

that as an example to gain power. Um,

and also, uh, Maline Dean, she's a

Democrat from Pennsylvania, she went on

CNN recently to claim that Donald Trump

is aging and in cognitive decline. What

do those two stories have in common?

They are imaginary problems.

The Democrats are focusing

extraordinarily on imaginary problems.

Well, we we imagine there's something

wrong with his brain even though we're

not seeing any evidence. We imagine he

might try to jin up this problem in the

future so they can remain in power, but

there's no evidence of that.

So once you realize that the Democrats

are focusing on imaginary problems, you

realize that the reason they do that

is they don't have any solutions for

real problems.

That's why do you think that they would

focus on imaginary problems if they had

any kind of idea what to do about a real

problem?

I don't think so. Anyway,

uh Gavin Newsome found a way to make

things worse. So I guess uh Breitbart

News is writing about this. Paul Boyce,

um he's found a way to create a new

problem where there was none. So the

federal government has provided

standards to colleges to say if you sign

this contract and you agree to you know

this kind of behavior that you you know

what Trump would ask for, right? less

DEI and less uh men wearing dresses and

sports and stuff like that. So, you know

what Trump is going to ask for. But if

the colleges sign that, then they would

have full access to their government

funding. But if they're not willing to,

they might have some of their government

federal funding withheld. Well, Governor

Nuome uh never one to let a good

situation

persist,

decided that he would withhold

uh state funds from colleges if they do

sign it. So now he's created a situation

where colleges will definitely lose.

That's that's a Democrat plan. So the

college will lose if it doesn't sign the

federal contract.

And now because of uh Newsome, they have

a second way to lose, which is if they

do sign the contract.

What exactly did the Democrats add to

the the world? They remove the only

escape path because it's not as if the

colleges couldn't agree to stop

discriminating and being anti-semitic.

How hard is it to sign a contract that

says, "Yeah, we'll try really hard not

to be anti-semitic and we'll stop

discriminating."

That's not exactly

some big problem, but uh Nome turned it

into one. So there's no good news that

he can't turn into bad news. How about

that bullet train? Huh?

So here's a shocker. You won't believe

this. I mean, this will be the most

surprising amazing thing. Can you

believe this? Hamas military chief has

rejected Trump's ceasefire deal.

I was so sure Hamas was going to

surrender.

No, I wasn't. There was no chance that

Hamas was ever going to say yes to this

deal. There was no chance. They're not

going to give up the hostages. They're

not going to surrender. They're not

They're not going to essentially commit

suicide by surrendering. They'll either

be in jail forever or they'll get hunted

down and murdered separately. And no

matter what the agreement is, they're

going to get hunted down and murdered.

Do you think that the Hamas military

chief would be alive a year after they

surrendered, even if Israel said, "All

right, we promised you safety. If we

could get our if we could get our

hostages back,

we won't go after anybody." Do you think

that guy's going to be alive in a year?

No. The the only way he stays alive is

if he stays in his little tunnel or

wherever the hell he is. and uh keeps

trying to be relevant. Otherwise, he'll

be very dead and very not not relevant.

So, of course, he's not going to take

the deal.

However, that would be a giant win for

Israel because Israel will look like

they made a legitimate offer and it was

pretty legitimate.

I I would say it was close enough to

legitimate that maybe they could have

tweaked it a little bit, but the Hamas

is not in the tweaking mode. They're

just turning it down. So that's going to

give uh Israel a free pass to do

whatever they need now. So it looks like

they'll just clear out Gaza and you can

call it whatever you want to call it.

Well, Tucker Carlson is uh made a video

which was quite provocative and his

point was that um that Israel's has too

much uh impact on American leadership

and American policy. And he wanted four

things changed that he thinks would make

the situation better. Now, I'm just

going to say this is Tucker's argument.

All right? So, don't associate it with

me. I'm just telling you an interesting

news story that a major a major voice in

the media um is saying something that's

kind of risky, kind of provocative, but

uh he makes a point. I'll see if I can

summarize it. It's pretty long video uh

but actually worth watching the whole

thing. Uh cuz his argument is

interesting. There are places where I

would have said too far or maybe you

should have put that in context better.

But that's not the point. The point is

not whether I agree with him or not. The

point today is he's making the argument

at all. Uh so that's what I'm going to

be talking about this just the bravery

and the risk it takes to make this

argument. Uh his bigger point is that

Israel is a tiny little country of 9

million people with a economy less than

New Jersey and a physical size less than

New Jersey and that we should not

consider it our most important um

thing and that we act as though um

nothing's more important than Israel.

and he is trying to put that back in

context and say um actually they don't

matter to us at all. Now I know what

you're going to say but yes Scott they

do matter. Why didn't he why didn't he

mention that uh there are

they give us a they give us a you know

um some purchase in the Middle East and

uh it allows us to fight them over there

before you know the bad guys come and

fighting over here and all that. So

everybody knows the other argument and

he downplayed those.

That would be fair to say he was making

his uh points and when you make your

point you have that documentary effect

where the whole point is that you know

if you listen to a 91 minute video it's

pretty long. Um it's not going to be

both sides and when you're done you're

going to be pretty persuaded because you

listen to one point of view for a long

period of time. That's the the

documentary problem. So be aware of the

documentary problem on that. But um but

you should be aware of the argument.

So he doesn't want the US to be ordered

around by a client state. He's heard

stories of uh Mossad marching into the

Pentagon and giving orders to the

American military. I don't know if I

believe those stories. That sounds

exaggerated to me. Here's here's what

seems more likely true. So that the

story is that MSAD could just walk into

the Pentagon and walk into a meeting and

tell people what to do. That feels like

a little bit of a narrative.

It does seem to me that if the the topic

was a war in which Israel was the main

player, that the people who are the main

players would have the most information

and the most uh incentive to talk to the

right people and also the confidence to

say you have to do this. You you're just

going to have to do this. Let me

explain. We know everything about the

area. You you're going to have to be

with us. You're gonna have to do this.

Now, we might disagree. Maybe we don't

have to do that. Maybe that's not

necessary. Maybe that's not in our best

interest. But it it certainly makes

sense that the people were closest to it

and feel that it's an existential risk,

which it was for Israel. Israel is

dealing with an existential risk. So,

yeah, they're going to be a little bit

insistent that they do what they need to

survive, right? So, if they're a little

bit arrogant, a little bit pushy, um,

you have every right not to like that,

but I certainly understand it, right?

If you were Israel and and you thought

it was an existential risk, it was that

important, you'd push. You would push

until somebody was really unhappy how

hard you were pushing. So, does that

bother me? Well, I don't know enough

about, you know, I think you'd have to

be in the room to know if they push too

hard, but I don't mind that there's a

little bit of a a little bit of push

back. That seems healthy. You can't

obviously you can't let Israel run the

Pentagon, but in the in the case where

they know the most and have the most at

stake,

Yeah. Yeah. Of course, you're going to

listen to them.

So

anyway, uh let's see. And then um Tucker

says that we should adjust our

theological view of Israel because a lot

of a lot of Christians believe that God

favors certain people in certain real

estate. And uh Tucker says, "No, God

doesn't do that. That's the opposite of

what God does. Everybody's equal.

There's no chosen people."

uh he thinks Tucker thinks Apac should

be registered as a foreign uh agent.

It's the one of the few that is not.

There's some technical reason why

they're not. Um I think the technical

reason, well, it's not even technical.

Uh it's a direct reason. The reason Apac

is not registered is because it's a

bunch of Americans

doing things for America. I don't know.

That doesn't even make sense. Uh I've

heard an argument why they're the

exception and I can't remember it now

which makes me think it's not a very

good argument. So uh there might be a

technical reason they're not but I would

agree with the um the idea that anybody

who's influencing the US in that way you

would want them to be part of FRA. But I

don't see how it make any difference.

What difference would it make if they

registered to be a FAR entity? Isn't

that just paperwork?

Wouldn't they do exactly the same things

they're doing? I don't know how that

makes a difference.

Somebody will tell me.

And then Tucker said he doesn't like

dual citizenship, but not limited to

Israel, but limited to um any anybody.

So there apparently there are a number

of dual citizenship people in Congress.

So he's talking about Congress

specifically. He doesn't like people in

Congress having dual citizenship. What

do you think about that? Do you think

people in Congress should have dual

citizenship?

I say no.

Yeah. No. This has nothing to do with

Israel. Um I mean it does have to do

with Israel, but not because of Israel.

I I don't want anybody in Congress with

dual citizenship. I don't want to have

to worry about um any dual loyalties.

I'm not blame. I'm not criticizing

anybody, but you shouldn't even have the

appearance, you know, you should you

should manage the appearance of it as

much as the actuality. So, yeah, I don't

I'm not in favor of dual citizenship for

people in Congress. Um, he says we

should be more America first and uh

um I guess that's it.

So, the brave part about this is that

Tucker is being accused of being

anti-Semitic because he doesn't he

doesn't spend as much time uh talking in

a pro-Israel way as he talks in a

negative Israel way. But I would argue

that the the pro-Israel argument is so

completely obvious that you don't need

to talk about it. Is anybody in favor of

Hamas,

you know, massacring people? I mean, do

you do you have to mention that every

time you talk about it? Not really,

because everybody's on the same side.

Um, do you have to say that we don't

want radical extremist Islamic people to

take over Israel? Of course we don't. Of

course we don't. Tucker doesn't. Of

nobody does. So, I'm not sure how much

you even need to say that stuff. Um, but

you might have to say some other stuff.

Anyway, so I put my own comment on uh

post on it and here's what I said

causing some trouble myself. I said, "As

a rule, I don't criticize Israel because

that would be a career death wish as

literally everyone knows. I don't expect

Tucker to survive this unscathed

career-wise career-wise. I don't expect

him to be unscathed, which will prove

his point. That will prove his point if

he can't even talk about it with free

speech.

Um, so what do you think happened when I

said I won't criticize Israel?

I was attacked by pro-Israel people for

saying that I won't criticize Israel.

That that actually happened.

So uh so you get attacked for being a

racist for saying that you don't want to

take the risk of attacking Israel

because if you do with any crit

criticism at all, you'll be called a

racist. And to prove me wrong, people

called me a racist. To prove me wrong,

that's what I said would be the problem.

So to prove me wrong, they proved me

right.

What else do I need to say? Right.

Um, and then they were also so

dumb that they didn't know that I just

gave the ultimate criticism to Israel by

saying that I wasn't allowed to

criticize them. Wake up, people.

Wake the up. All right. The Israeli

Navy Navy also intercepted uh the Global

Simude flotilla there with the uh that's

the Greta Tunberg flotilla. Greta did a

little video saying that she'd been

captured

by the Israeli Navy. Uh Grock tells us

that uh most of the flotillaa has been

rounded up by the Israelis. But because

it caused a uh I guess a disruption in

the Israeli Navy to go, you know, deal

with these people, it allowed the local

fishermen to fish the coastal areas for

the first time in years. uh and they got

this substantial fish catch. So, they're

worried about starving and apparently

they're banned from fishing in their own

waters. So, I'm sure there's a another

side to that story. Um because you got

to you got to make sure that the water

is not being used, you know, to ship in

a bunch of weapons, which they would. If

fishing were allowed, I'm sure that the

it would take 10 seconds for somebody to

put some illegal weapons on a fishing

boat and, you know, try to try to get

that in. Um,

so Greta's Greta is captured.

And yesterday I told you there was

allegedly a story that the flotilla had

been uh funded by some Hamas entities. I

don't know if that's proven or not.

All right. Um, in other news, FBI did a

nationwide crackdown this year and

they've got uh 8,000 arrests in three

months according to just the news. Misty

Sei is writing and I wondered is that

enough that we would see a difference?

They got they seized 2,200 guns and have

8,600 arrests in three months. is 8,600

arrests of presumably these are some of

the worst of the bad guys because the

FBI was involved. Will we notice that?

Is that enough?

What you you don't think Israel is

pertinent to the US?

Somebody in the comments is saying it's

embarrassing that I can't find uh

USbased stories to talk about. You You

don't think Israel is a US-based story?

I think you're missing a lot. That's a

US-based story. That's It's about as

US-based as you can get.

Anyway, so let's hope that's a lot of

bad guys that got caught. Uh there's a

uh startup called Ark. They've got a

spaceship and their plan is to have

their spaceship uh their spaceships

orbiting the earth so that they can

deliver what you need within an hour to

any place. Uh primarily for military

stuff at first. Um

I don't know what kind of stuff you

would put in space just in case you

needed it in a military sense, but it's

kind of an interesting idea. I don't

know. I don't know what their potential

is on that, but it's kind of interesting

that they would use space as their

delivery um delivery highway, I guess.

All right. Um MIT has developed a better

concrete battery. So, I guess they can

mix some carbon cement super capacitor

stuff into the uh into your concrete and

you could store enough to uh take care

of a house with, you know, one wall of

concrete basically. Um, so that would be

cool. Imagine if every house could be

built with a concrete basement and the

concrete basement was a perpetual

battery. like it would never never need

to be changed and it would uh be enough

of a battery for your whole house and

presumably that would be a safe battery.

I'm worried about I'm worried about

these standard batteries that you put on

the outside of your house cuz sometimes

they can catch on fire, but I can't

imagine concrete catching on fire even

if it had some um electrical qualities.

Maybe I'm wrong, but seems like this

could have a lot of potential.

Well, Taiwan has rejected the US

proposal. CNBC is saying that that we

were going to go 50. No, we wanted uh

Taiwan to make 50% of their chips in the

US and they said no way. So, this is

part of the tariff negotiations, I

guess. But the idea was that uh you know

we would want we would be safer in terms

of our chip supply if at least some of

them remain in the United States. But

Taiwan says no way. And my question is

what leverage does Taiwan have?

Doesn't Taiwan need the US military to

protect them? Can they really say no to

we want you to make 50% of it in the US?

you know, not right away, but that would

be the plan. I don't know. Pretty gussy

of Taiwan to negotiate, but if uh if

Trump gets tough, he will literally say,

"I'm going to withdraw my uh withdraw my

military support." Now, I don't think he

can because we can't really risk losing

those chips. So probably we can't do

that in reality, but he could he could

certainly threaten it and that that

should send them into a tizzy.

Well, Trump is floating the idea. Just

News is reporting of doing uh rebate

checks based on some of the some but not

all the tariff revenue coming in. He's

thinking of a,000 to 2,000. I'm

generally opposed to that

um because I think we should be paying

down the debt instead, but it would be

stimulative and it um things are so

tight at the moment that it probably

would be a godsend to quite a few

families. So given the bad economic um

the tightness of people's budgets at the

lower income level, I'm I'm softening to

this. it it might be a way to give

people just a little bit of a safety net

without doing too much. Um, it won't

look like it's a budget buster, but uh I

wouldn't go too big, but I would say I'm

open to that where I was definitely not

open to it before, but I'm open to it

because the the budgets of ordinary

people are just getting worse just so

fast. And I think we have to do

something, you know, otherwise people

are just literally going to be starving

pretty soon. All right, that's all I got

for you today.

I'll try not to fall down any more

stairs today. I promise I'll use the

elevator.

And thanks for joining. Um, everybody,

I'm going to say a few words privately

to my beloved subscribers on Locals. In

30 seconds, I'll be private with them

and the rest of you. I always appreciate

you coming.