Episode 2981 CWSA 10/07/25

A little technical glitch there, so it took me a moment to sign on.

Come on in, grab a seat, grab a beverage.

It's time for your favorite thing of the day.

Well, according to me.

Let me check your stocks first.

Let's see.

Up a little bit.

Tesla's down a little bit.

Nvidia is up.

Wow.

NE is up again 8%.

Wow.

Holy cow.

You guys ready for a show?

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

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

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

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

It's called That's right.

the simultaneous sip.

And it happens now.

Oh Yes, I'm a little bit in a little bit of pain.

All right, just an update.

Uh, yesterday I spent the day in the emergency room for pain, cancer related.

Had a bunch of tests.

The the short version is um it doesn't look like it's a spinal problem.

It looks like it's a bone problem.

So, it's bone cancer problem.

So, my cancer is back all over in my body.

I don't know if it ever went away, but for a while it didn't bother me.

So, I'm sort of back to where I was a few months ago, meaning that my life expectancy would be few months.

That's about it.

Maybe six months if I'm lucky.

But uh there's a newishly approved drug called Pluictto which can remove tumors.

Not every time and it's not a cure, but for some people it just totally removes their tumors.

So um I'm in the process of trying to qualify for that which should be able to do.

Should be no problem.

And uh fairly soon I would imagine I would start that.

It's one of those you have to go to a place and get an IV six times over two months or whatever it is.

And uh there's some chance that that would at least set the pain back a little bit.

We'll see.

We shall see.

Um, so, uh, I don't know how many of you are subscribing to Dilbert on either X or on locals, but you may have noticed that, uh, I also include for free the 10year ago Dilbert that ran on this date, but 10 years ago.

And if you notice that the comic from 10 years ago is consistently exactly like today.

Has anybody noticed that?

So 10 years ago, I started doing all kinds of humanoid robots in the office and it was all about, you know, the co-orker who is a robot and the robot takes over for the boss one day and you everything's about the robot.

But if you look at the 10-year-old comics, you cannot tell that I didn't draw them today.

They're exactly like today.

All the things that you could anticipate would be a problem with robots, it's all there.

Anyway, I thought that was interesting.

Uh Elon Musk says that Grock the AI will soon be able to make a movie that's at least what he says watchable before the end of uh next year.

So before the end of 2026 and he thinks it'll be able to make what he calls a really good movie by 2027.

Does that feel right to you?

Do you think that by the end of next year Grock will be able to make a watchable but not you know best movie in the world but that by the end of the year after that uh it'll be making full movies that you'll want to watch.

Well I don't know now Open AI in a related um related news open AAI says that they're not going to protect your copyright for people like me who own a property like Dilbert.

they're not going to protect it.

You have to specifically ask them to exclude it from their training and from their answers.

So you have to exclude it so it can't be used by other people.

But you have to specify it and you have to specify every character.

So I can't just say all the Dilbert characters.

I have to say Wall-E the world's smartest garbage man, Dilbert, Gert, Rbert.

I got to do them all.

Now, I do plan to do that.

Um, and also with my book, God's Debris.

So, I did see uh Jay did this amazing little uh demonstration of God's debris, the first first few pages of the book, and it's really impressive.

I have to say, it's really impressive.

Um, but I don't know if we have what we could I don't think we have enough to make a full short movie.

I don't think it's quite there yet.

But boy, was it impressive.

Anyway, speaking of uh AI and Elon Musk, um he was doing an interview somewhere where somebody asked him this question.

Uh what is the universe contained in?

Which is a funny question.

The universe exists, but what's it in?

Isn't that a weird question?

The first time I heard it, I thought, wait a minute, it's not in anything because the universe is everything.

But doesn't everything have to be in something?

And I wasn't sure.

But uh here was Elon's answer to the question, what is the universe contained in?

Answer, a computer.

I agree with that.

And uh then I guess Lex Freriedman asked Elon, "What's outside the simulation?" And Elon's answer was um what was his answer?

Uh what's outside this simulation?

Damn it.

Did I not write down that down?

Apparently not.

Um but what's outside this simulation will, you know, would sort of tell you, oh, I'm sorry.

That was the question that Elon wanted to know the answer to.

It wasn't the one he has the answer to.

That's That's where I was going wrong.

I thought I didn't write down his answer, but he doesn't have an answer.

It's the question.

The question is, um, what's outside the simulation?

Is there like somebody in a gamer chair who's running our world?

Maybe.

Maybe.

I'll let you know when I get there.

Um, but here's a uh if you want a little lesson in credibility, here's what credibility buys you.

I gave you a Trump persuasion lesson.

the other day where I said if you're credible in the thing that you're persuading, well, you know, you're halfway done cuz people say, "Oh, you could do that." So, you have to be credible.

Do you know how credible you have to be to be Elon Musk and say that reality is a simulation and have people say, "hm, yeah, maybe it is." Do do you have any idea how much credibility that takes?

That's like the maximum maximum credibility that you would even even for a second you would consider that possibility.

Like who else could do that?

When I have this conversation about the simulation, do you know what kind of response I get?

Not I don't get the one where people believe me because I'm so credible about science and the simulation.

I get sort of dismissed.

It's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

You're really just talking about God.

You're just using different words.

So I always just get dismissed.

So that's where credibility is your superpower.

Elon has it on this topic and others and I don't have it on this topic.

Well, OpenAI is announcing that Chat GPT their app will now work with some other existing apps.

So I think that means it would act like the uh user interface for other apps.

Not that they wouldn't have a user interface, but you'd be able to control them just by talking to your AI.

So that includes so far Booking.com, Expedius, Spotify, Figma, whatever that is, Corsera, Zillow, and Canva.

And they're adding ones all the time.

So, let me uh give you the business take on this.

As a user, wouldn't you love it if you could talk to your AI and you didn't have to open another app to do a thing?

How much would you love booking a trip without opening a booking app?

Oh my god, the booking apps are terrible.

The travel apps, it's not just me, right?

All the travel apps are complete garbage and you don't know which one to use.

And so, but if I could talk to AI and just say, "All right, I'm planning a trip to the Northeast sometime in the autumn when the when the leaves are changing," and then just have it make you up a, you know, a great trip.

That would be amazing.

But do you know what these app makers are not calculating?

They're not calculating that if the user interface becomes AI, AI owns them.

So basically, they're plotting their own uh their own demise.

So if AI can do all these things by working with an app, how long is it going to be able take before AI can do all of those things without the app?

So once you get people used to using AI instead of opening up say Booking.com, how many people are going to open up Booking.com after that?

Nobody.

They're going to open Open AI and then open AI can do stuff like put their own advertisement in it and then Booking.com will be like, "Hey, this is our app.

We we're the ones who should be doing advertising." And OpenAI will say, "No, we're sending them to your app." But after they say the advertisement.

So what I'm suggesting is that these uh small app companies, well they're not that small, um are very quickly going to learn that AI is eating their lunch and there's no way back.

There's no way back.

AI will absorb all these apps.

Anyway, so that's what's happened.

Step one, step one become the user interface.

Step two, replace the apps themselves.

inevitable.

Uh, according to Max Rigo, who's writing for The Hill, there's a new Senate report that says that a 100 million jobs will be lost to AI and automation.

Is that a lot?

100 million?

Well, if it were all in the United States, it would be every employee, wouldn't it?

Isn't that right?

I don't think there are 100 million people who even work.

It's maybe one out of three people work.

That would be everybody.

So I I assume the 100 million is across uh the world, which wouldn't be that much.

100 million in the United States would be the end of everything, but 100 million across the world, well, maybe you wouldn't even notice it that much.

But uh what else they say?

Um so the the types of jobs they think are going to go away would be fast food.

Um, and anybody who works at counter probably.

Um, and what else?

Uh, customer service reps, laborers and freight stock and material movers, secretaries.

There's still secretaries.

What business has a secretary?

When was the last time you even saw or heard of a secretary?

I don't even think they exist.

Do they?

Secretaries.

Maybe.

Maybe for CEOs.

Um, and let's see.

Uh, also executive assistants.

There's no way that AI is going to replace an executive assistant.

That's not going to happen.

So, I think I think that most of these estimates are totally overblown.

Um, I'm going with the people who say, well, it's probably just going to make all those existing people a little more efficient.

it probably isn't going to replace them because the there there's so much of a problem with hallucinations.

Can you imagine a customer service rep being AI and then just hallucinating every time the customer asks it a question and and the customer would just get, you know, more and more mad.

You can't have a customer service rep with this form of AI.

And we we've not invented another form.

There's only one form of AI as far as I know.

I mean, one that you could use in this way and it can't possibly work.

Like, by its design, it can't work because it's designed to hallucinate.

Not intentionally, but that's what the design gives you.

All right.

How many of you saw a story in the news uh that seemed to show an adult policeman putting handcuffs on a toddler?

And the alleged context was I don't know the toddler's family was protesting or maybe they were they were going to be shipped back to some other country.

Did anybody see that?

I didn't see the original story, but I I saw a post by Dr.

Interracial um who's a real good follower.

Dr.

Interracial.

He's in an interracial marriage and has lots of insights from that.

Um, but apparently the uh the thing that people thought was outrageous, somebody putting handcuffs on a toddler, there was somebody putting handcuffs on a toddler.

His father, when they played cops and robbers, it was literally his father playing cops and robbers and the kid was enjoying every minute of it.

He's like, you know, give me your hands.

And he handcuffs them.

Now, so that becomes some big story.

I didn't see it, but apparently people believe that was something else.

Well, yesterday would have been scary if you were flying into Burbank Airport cuz 100% of the air traffic controllers uh left or didn't come to work.

All of them.

There wasn't a single air traffic controller in the entire airport.

And you've got all these planes looking to land and none.

What do you think they did?

Well, apparently they have the ability to somehow work remotely from another airport.

So, I think uh there's a team out of San Diego who somehow could get access to the uh to the, you know, critical stuff at Burbank and they could just run it from offsite.

Now obviously I'm pretty sure that would have some disadvantages to not be on site but but at least they got through it you know just in a emergency sense they did get through it but it's mostly from people calling in sick because of the government shutdown.

So there's that.

Um, I guess the Trump administration is looking into whether the so-called furoughed federal workers, the ones who are not working because of the shutdown, um, are going to be guaranteed back pay.

Apparently, there's an argument that they shouldn't be.

Now, I don't know if that I don't think that applies to everybody who's furled, but for some of them, um, it looks like the Trump people want to make it, uh, optional.

so that they don't necessarily get back pay.

That doesn't feel like a good idea, does it?

Like, how could you win politically by cutting a little bit on the budget, but doing it on the backs of the people who had nothing to do with the shutdown?

You you don't punish the people who had nothing to do with the shutdown.

So, um I don't know if they're just floating this idea and it won't happen, but looks like a terrible idea, wouldn't you say?

I'd say just terrible idea.

I like saving money but not on the backs of people who just wanted to go to work.

All right.

Um let's see.

Uh so apparently there's a senior prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia who would be in charge of charging uh um New York Attorney General Leticia James for any mortgage um mortgage cheating.

So she's accused of cheating on a mortgage to get a lower rate.

And apparently the senior prosecutor decides not to prosecute.

Um, and the argument for it is that um there's not enough there's no probable cause.

There's no probable cause.

Let's see if I can uh pull some of these, you know, these these facts together.

Let's see.

She's an attorney general.

That means she's a lawyer, right?

She's a trained lawyer.

uh in the comments, how many of you who have been involved in real estate?

If you've never been involved buying any real estate, you can pass on this one.

But if those of you who have had any involvement in real estate, did you not know that you couldn't claim two houses as your primary residence, is there anybody here, lawyer, non-awyer, attorney general, non- attorney general, is there even one person here who didn't know that you're not allowed to do that?

And if you and if you didn't know that, don't you think you'd be able to figure it out by the forms themselves?

As in the form would ask you whether you own it or rent it, and you would say to yourself, "Huh, that must be important because otherwise they wouldn't ask the question why why did they care if you have another house, right?

I mean, as long as you can afford it." Well, the answer is you're only allowed to have one.

That's your primary residence.

Are you telling me that this uh top prosecutor believes that the attorney freaking general is the only person in the world who didn't know you're not supposed to do that?

Claimed two primary residence.

How about the part where she listed allegedly maybe this didn't happen, but allegedly she allegedly she listed her dad as her husband or something to get a better rate.

Do you think she wouldn't know that listing the wrong person on the application would be a problem?

Like she wouldn't know that the attorney general wouldn't know that.

Um, you know, I think Trump needs to or whoever somebody needs to fire this person, the Eastern District of Virginia, you got to fire that person.

There there's just no way that the attorney general wasn't fully aware of what she was doing.

There's just no way.

I I give that a 0% chance.

And by the way, ignorance of the law um is not a defense.

Oh, wait.

According to Grock, it is.

So I went to Grock and said, you know, just to make sure, I said, is there any situation where ignorance of the law would be a legitimate defense?

Because I've always been told that ignorance of the law is no defense at all and that it wouldn't matter what the law was.

You can't just pretend he didn't know.

I mean, that would be its own set of problems.

But there are some cases, according to Grock, where uh not knowing it was illegal would actually be a defense.

So, if the crime requires what Grock calls a willful or knowing violation, let's say a tax evasion, which would be sort of what this mortgage thing is.

In a tax evasion situation, um, apparently if you said, "Oh, I'm g I'm making up my own example here.

This is not from Grock, but I think this is right.

If your if your accountant makes a mistake on your taxes and all you did is sign it, but you know you're not an accountant, so you didn't really check the work.

I feel like that would be a case where there's no evidence of willful violation because it would just look like your accountant got a little too aggressive, but maybe you didn't even know it.

You know, that makes sense to me.

I I don't think you should go to jail if your accountant makes a mistake on your taxes or if it looks like that's what happened.

Here's another one.

If someone relies on official but incorrect advice, so let's say a government official advises them, oh yeah, that's totally legal, and then they do it and they find out it wasn't legal.

That's actually a defense that depending what government official told you, it would have to be somebody in the right the right line of work.

But that's actually a defense.

I didn't know that.

All right.

Um, Kla Harris, as you know, is out there drunken, babbling about her new book and about Trump.

And uh, yesterday she uh, she had a moment that was uh, reminded me of Trump being shot in the ear and jumping up and going fight, fight, fight.

Very inspirational.

except uh instead of being shot in the ear, um she's just uh drunk.

She's just drunk and lying and got up at a recent event and started yelling.

It was the closest the tightest closest presidential election in the 21st century.

He does not have a mandate.

He does not have a mandate.

Did you hear me?

He does not have a mandate.

So that's Kla Harris's uh persuasion.

Which one was better?

Fight, fight, fight with a bullet just just in his ear or ah give me some more vodka.

There's no mandate.

No mandate.

There's no mandate at all.

Well, I'm here to tell you that the answer is it's a tie, unfortunately.

Now, obviously Trump was more inspirational.

There's no doubt about that.

But if you're just looking at can you convince somebody of something that they weren't convinced of before.

Do you know what it takes?

Just repetition.

That's it.

If if Kla Harris just keeps saying this over and over again, and it looks like she will, it will work.

It won't work on any Republicans.

None.

But uh of the lowinformation Democrats, it will work with every one of them.

All they have to do is hear it three times.

They hear it three times, it's a fact the rest of their life.

So, um, that's your persuasion lesson of the day.

If somebody prominent says something more than three times and you hear it, you're probably going to think it's true if they're on your side.

If they're not on your side, you might say, "Hey, I think they're lying." But if they're on your side, you're totally going to believe it.

So, even though you might have thought to yourself, oops, sorry, cat.

Come down here.

Come on, Gary.

Don't step on that.

So, even if you uh Is that Gary?

Oh, no.

It's Roman, my other cat.

So, even if you thought that Kamla was being pathetic and stupid and drunk, it totally works.

And by the way, um she has an argument.

If she didn't have any argument, then maybe it wouldn't work.

But the argument is that if you looked at the number of counties won, it's an overwhelming win for Trump.

If you looked at the uh um electoral college, nice solid win for Trump.

But if you looked at just the total number of people who voted, yeah, you might be within what is it 1 or 2% or something.

So, she's going to argue the overall percentage number and then say, "Well, there you go.

Closest election.

I don't even know if that's true." It doesn't need to be true, by the way.

It only needs to make you think it was really close.

And then you don't need to know the details.

So, totally successful persuasion, even though it's it's at least half Well, the CDC has updated their recommendation for vaccines.

so to so to speak.

And they want you want kids to get the chickenpox vaccine separate from the the big bunch of vaccines that they usually get that usually includes chickenpox.

Um, so apparently there's some new information that says that if you get them separately, that I think you wait a little bit for one, but I can't remember which one.

If you wait for one, um, you avoid some very well-known specific health problems.

So, is that an up upgrade that do you call this a RFK Junior win?

Is that a win for Maha?

I'm going to say yes.

Because there's nothing we want more from RFK Jr.

than to say, can you show us the science?

All right.

Now that you showed us the science, can you make sure that your policies conform to the science?

And what did RFK Jr.

do?

He showed you the science and that he modified the policy to match the science.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we asked for.

That is why you like a President Trump, that he can have the balls to pick an RFK Jr.

This is everything.

This is everything.

Now, you know, is there any chance that later they'll modify it and, you know, there'll be a new study?

Sure.

But this is still what we want them to be doing.

This is right on point for what we hoped they would do.

So, this is all good news.

And then on top of that, they've updated the COVID booster recommendation to um they don't recommend it for all adults now.

So it's only the COVID booster is only recommended for people who are I guess over 65 or have some specific health issue that um they and their doctors decide makes sense.

So it's not even about the CDC now for the for the COVID.

It's very much about you and your doctor.

You know, you can still do what you want, but it's between you and your doctor.

I like that.

Um, Trump is teasing, according to Just the News.

Misty Sei is writing about this.

Trump says he's considering invoking the quote insurrection act in Portland.

Now, as you know, Trump wanted to send in the National Guard to Portland because he thinks there's too much crime happening.

Portland says, "No, there's not too much crime.

There's just the right amount.

We'd like to keep it this way." Or something like that.

And um but one way that Trump could in theory o overrule the uh the local government and send in the national guard would be if it's an emergency.

And an emergency would include something like an insurrection.

You know, if there was a a raging insurrection going on, then it would be totally legal for the federal government to send in troops.

But you would have to say it's an insurrection.

Now Trump says it's not an insurrection.

It's not an emergency.

Um, it's just something that he'd like to do, but he doesn't rule it out.

What What do I tell you about the decisions that Trump makes?

I told you that he's he's brilliant in persuasion and that one of the things he does right all the time, all the time.

is that if there are two ways you could go and one of them would be described as strong as in maybe an authoritarian but the other way would be described as you know weak.

He will always take strong even if weak is a better argument.

That does that make sense?

He will always pick strong even if you think going weak is a better argument.

Here's why.

because the specific argument matters a little.

You know, does he or does he not go into Portland?

That matters.

But what matters way more than that is that he can create a pattern that says, "I'm always going to take the the strong the strong position." Because remember, he's got to convince all the other countries that he's strong.

He's got to convince both sides of this country that he's strong.

So every time you see Trump just reflexively take this strong position, even if you think it's the wrong decision, even if you think it's not entirely constitutional and if he tried it, the Supreme Court would throw it out, it's still the right choice.

And only he can do that.

And well, it's not true.

Not only he, but you would have to be a real special personality to always take the strong side and pull it off and still pull it off.

And he does.

It's It's kind of amazing.

All right.

Well, you won't believe this.

Um, I I would like you to hold your chins because you might get injured.

uh when I read you this news story, your chin is going to drop so far that it might come disconnected and then you know you'd have you'd be hospitalized.

So you don't want that.

So everybody, if you could just just hold your chin when I tell you this shocking and surprising news.

Are you ready?

You won't believe this, but another college president has been accused of plagiarizing and being a huge racist against white people.

Oh.

Oh, hold it.

Hold it.

Hold it.

All right.

All right.

I think the danger has passed.

All right, got it.

Okay, now nobody saw that coming.

Uh, apparently the US federal government's going to take a 10% stake in something called Trilogy Medals according to investing.com.

So, and then give some warrants for some extra percentages.

I guess what they do is uh what do they do?

Um, some kind of metals.

Some kind of rare rare metals.

Which ones?

Um, seems like they should tell us right in this article which rare metals are getting.

It's not, you know, it's it's the good stuff.

So, that would be another 10% maybe 17.5% if if the warrants are used.

And uh so I went to Grock and I said if the US took a 10% equity stake in every company in the US that was involved in rare earth minerals um what would that be worth in 10 years?

Cuz I was wondering is this so valuable these rare earths that even if you just get 10% that if you wait 10 years it's worth you know $5 trillion or something.

Is that possible?

and that it would take an actual bite out of the national debt.

And the answer is unfortunately it's in the tens of billions.

So it's not in the trillions at all.

It's you know you maybe up to a hundred billion, but you're not going to get much more than that.

Still, it's free money.

Do you do you not want to take some free money if the if the federal government can provide a service that it wouldn't necessarily have to do?

Um, it could take some equity because it's not the government taking the equity.

It's me, right?

It's you.

It the government doesn't own it.

It's the people.

So, yeah, give me some damn equity.

All right.

Well, apparently Trump has not ruled out, but nor has he ruled in uh a pardon for Gla Maxwell and he was also asked about did he and uh in the is Trumpian way he did the perfect answer which is he hasn't looked into it.

It sounds like he will look into it but he hasn't looked into it.

Now what would happen if Galain Maxwell got a pardon?

What do you think that would do to the MAGA world?

If Glain Maxwell got a pardon, wouldn't you assume that she's agreed to keep some secrets and that that would be the basis for getting the pardon?

Wouldn't you assume that?

Wouldn't have proof.

I wouldn't have even smoking gun.

But I would kind of assume that somebody made a deal, wouldn't you?

So, if you really want to stir things up and get people talking about this forever, uh, the pardon would do it.

And by the way, I don't have an opinion on whether it should be done or not.

But, um, I would say yes to the pardon if it required her to talk and give up some names that maybe we hadn't heard before.

So, if we could learn something that the victims or the country needs to know, I'm not as concerned about punishing her.

Um, you've been punished a little bit.

Um, I'm not as concerned about that as I am knowing what really happened.

Now, some of you would say the opposite.

You say, "No, punishment is the main the main thing.

You know, even even if we don't find out what happened, you know, you got to punish people for doing what she did." I get it.

I get the argument.

But I put a little bit more weight given that she's been public she's been punished somewhat.

You know, not enough but somewhat.

Um, I would look at what use we could get from her.

And if she could open the vault and tell us all the things that we really care about, really care about, but wouldn't find out any other way, I would uh reluctantly be in favor of a pardon.

Reluctantly.

And I I would never back off reluctant.

But maybe maybe we'd have to see what we got in return.

And if it's only, you know, the government who finds out what we got in return, that's not good enough.

The the people got to know.

We got to know.

If there's a deal made, you got to tell us.

We're not going to put up with we made a secret deal with the PTO.

That's that's not going to happen.

What about Diddy?

It's hard for me to imagine that Trump would pardon Diddy because I don't think Diddy has anything to offer and uh he got a relatively low sentence compared to what it could have been.

and he's young enough that if he gets out in four years or maybe he would get out in two years, you know, time served, good behavior, he's already, you know, so it might be like a 2-year sentence for what looks like pretty bad behavior as far as we can tell.

So, I feel like Trump would say, "You know what?

I feel like you can last two years and then, you know, you've paid your you paid some of your debt and then I'm not in the line for explaining it forever." So, I'm going to say maybe yes on Maxwell, but probably no on Diddy.

That's that's my best guess.

Now, if Diddy is still there in three years, might Trump say, "I'll let you out in six months early before the end of my term." Maybe, maybe he'd he'd have to have an argument.

I don't know what that argument would be, but can't rule out.

Well, Trump was commenting on Greta Tunberg.

Uh she was arrested in Israel trying to uh trying to advocate for the Palestinians and she was part of that flotilla that went over there and they all got picked up.

And this is what Trump said.

Quote, "She's just a troublemaker.

You mean she's no longer into the environment?

She's an anger management problem.

I think she should see a doctor.

If you ever watch her for a young person, she's so angry.

She's so crazy.

No, you can have her.

You can have her.

She's just a troublemaker.

Could that be more perfect?

That That's exactly what I would want Trump to say.

I I I want him to say those exact words.

Yeah.

But here's what I think.

Um I feel like we keep ignoring, although every now and then you'll hear, you know, somebody like Dr.

Drew or uh Jordan Peterson bring it up, uh that there might be a cluster B personality type that seems to be concentrated in the Democrat or at least left-leaning world.

Do you believe that?

So the cluster B are the people who are, you know, narcissists and, you know, they've got they've got the kind of problems that bother other people.

The cluster B's are problems, mental problems that mostly bother other people.

You know, like a narcissist.

The narcissists might be perfectly happy, but they bother other people.

So, and we know that the Democrats at least have massively more mental health problems and massively more often they'll go to therapy and massively more often they'll take uh anti-depressants.

So, it's really sort of a cluster B problem that pretends to be political.

I think the politicians, the elected politicians are not necessarily cluster B.

They're just, you know, looking for power.

But they can't have power unless they treat all the cluster B's like they're serious people.

That's how they get their power.

So, you've got these these Democrat leaders who are pretending that these people who have serious mental health problems are just people with a different opinion.

No, they're not people with a different opinion.

They are legitimately mentally ill.

Uh but that's our politics today.

Representative uh Anna Luna, she was on Danny Jones podcast and she was talking about uh influencers who are being paid to push narratives.

And I thought to myself, I still don't know even one influencer who pushed a narrative for money.

Do you?

Uh, when I hear the names of the influencers, it's always these super young ones that I've never seen even once, and they're usually on the left.

But I don't know, apparently this is a thing.

And I'll tell you again, how in the world did nobody ever offer to pay me for my opinion.

What's going on with that?

And they haven't.

Not not even indirectly, not in any way whatsoever.

Um, not I've not had one conversation.

I've not been in the room with somebody who might have offered just nothing.

And I'm thinking, do they not know how much influence I have?

I don't think they do.

I I feel like the entire right leaning world is somewhat invisible to the left in the same way that their world is invisible to me because when they talk about other influencers, I always say, "Who?

Who?

I never heard of that guy." So, uh, I'm as blind to their side as they are to to our side.

But if they haven't tried to influence me, maybe they should try harder.

And no, I'm not going to take their money.

Don't don't worry, I'm not I'm not soliciting for money there.

There's no way I'd do that.

Not there's not a chance in hell.

But I'm a little bit insulted.

I've not been offered.

It's sort of like being a a straight guy and you know one day you realize that no gay man has ever hit on you.

Have you ever had that experience?

Like one day you'll just say, "Wait a minute.

Not a single gay guy has ever hit on me." Well, maybe I'm not gay, but I kind of like them to want to.

Don't Don't you think it would be cool if they wanted to?

You know, be kind of a compliment.

same thing.

All right.

Um, so here's the question.

Do you think that uh APAC, the American group that lobbies in favor of uh Israel, um, they would say they they're lobbying in favor of the United States?

That's how they get away with the the Pharaoh stuff.

So, what do you think are the rules for uh whether or not you're far, meaning that you have to register as a foreign agent who's trying to influence America?

What do you think the rules are?

Well, um I thought I wrote that down.

I definitely did.

The rules are All right, here's the legal legal basis for uh APAC.

If if Israel were paying uh APAC and then Apac were, you know, giving money to politicians, that would be a far problem because that would be a foreign country using some Americans to influence their uh their fate.

However, if the money doesn't come from Israel, but rather comes from billionaires um and other small donors, uh then as long as they're Americans, it's Americans giving money to an American entity, APAC, and that is not fare because it's Americans doing what Americans want to do.

However, I think we'd all agree that Israel is kind of a special case and that if Americans are giving money to Apac, it's sort of they're doing it for Israel.

You know, now they're doing it for themselves as well because they would legitimately be supporters of Israel.

They're not making it up.

They really are supporters.

But if there but if the purpose of it seems more beneficial to Israel than it does to America, uh that's where it gets a little dicey, but it's still completely legal.

So I guess what matters is where the funding comes from.

So you got that.

Um and that to me that seems that seems like a technicality.

I think most of you would say the same thing.

So there's no direct uh there's also no direct control of APAC by anybody who's an Israeli well anybody who lives in Israel.

I don't know if they're any dual citizens but um so they don't have anybody on the board who's an Israeli um trying to manipulate the board.

So that's important.

So they're not getting money and they're not directly being run by somebody in Israel.

And uh apparently the uh APEC falls better into another category.

So they just registered into this other category called the lobbying disclosure act exemption.

And that allows Apac to disclose expenditures.

I got this from Grock by the way.

Allows APAC to disclose expenditures and contacts with Congress without full FAR as long as it doesn't represent a foreign government directly.

So, it's the directly part that does a lot of work directly.

Well, how about uh if Apac wanted uh the US to help Israel militarily with Gaza?

Do you don't think that would be direct?

That's about as direct as you could get.

But then you might say, well, that's just what everybody wants.

So it's not like, you know, it's not like APEC is the one entity that wants Israel to fight back against Gaza or against Hamas.

So anyway, it gets kind of uh gets kind of murky is what I'm saying.

By the way, today is not only October 7th, the horrible uh anniversary of October 7th, of course, but it is also the Jewish holiday of it's the first day of uh Sukkat.

I don't know if I'm saying that right.

S U K O T, which I've never heard of.

Better known as the feast of tabernacles.

And so a lot of your Jew Jewish co-workers are taking the day off today.

I guess they take the day off generally speaking.

And uh part of the key observance and traditions are that the the sukat is a hut and it has to do with something in their ancient history where they built a hut and lived in it.

So as part of the celebration um many people build a little temporary hut and then they hang out in it and maybe sleep in it overnight.

Kind of cool.

Um, Netanyahu is saying that Iran could soon target the US with its missiles.

Do you think Netanyahu really wants a peace deal?

How many of you think that Netanyahu wants a peace deal that puts Hamas a little bit, you know, having a little bit of influence after it's all done?

I'm going to say no.

I don't think he wants that at all.

So, we'll see how that goes.

Trump says the Gaza peace talks are going quote very well.

So Steve Wickoff and Jared Kushner are there to seal the deal.

As I've told you before, they're both closers.

So those are the best closers you could ever send.

That doesn't mean it'll get closed, but they're the best closers the the US has probably ever had.

Um so here's what I think.

I've said this before, but it's worth saying again.

Um, if you think that what's happening is negotiating, I think you're wrong.

If it looks like negotiating, and they'll talk about it like negotiating, and all the activities will look like negotiating, but that's not what's happening.

What's happening is the only way this deal gets done because Hamas has basically said yes, but no, and Israel has basically said yes, but no.

And both places in both cases the but no part is the important part.

The yes part isn't even the important part.

It's the but no that's the important part.

So how do you get a deal when both sides have just said but no on the most important things such as does have a you know seat at the table and do they get to keep some weapons?

That's not a small deal.

I that's that's right right in the important part.

Well, um, here's my frame.

I think that Trump, if he negotiates, even with these great closers, Wickoff and Kushner, if he negotiates, he loses and he doesn't get a deal.

But that's not what he's doing.

It only looks like negotiation.

Here's what it really is.

He's changing reality.

He's changing reality.

He's changing how we view reality itself.

He's basically telling us this is going to happen even though all of our common sense and all of our experience says it won't.

If he can convince us that this will happen despite all evidence to the contrary, then he will have reframed reality itself independent of any negotiating.

The negotiating can't get him there.

You can't get there from here because neither side is going to give up the important things.

The only way you can get to a good conclusion is you have to change reality.

In other words, people have to think they woke up in a different reality.

Can he do it?

Yes, he can.

That's the fun part.

Nobody else can.

Steve Jobs could if he w, you know, if he were not dead, he could.

Could Elon Musk do it?

I don't know.

I don't know, maybe.

But Trump can Trump can change reality.

And anything short of reframing reality itself is not going to get you there.

That you can't get there by negotiating.

It you you have to look like you're negotiating, but you got to change reality.

And you got to change it big time.

And I believe that that Trump knows that like like nobody else knows it.

like he he's the one person who completely understands that that the reason he's saying yes we're close even though objectively speaking it doesn't look close to me doesn't look anywhere near close but as long as he keeps doing the Kla Harris thing you know it was the closest election it was the closest election it was the closest election then you're going to start thinking maybe it was a close election and if he says we almost have a deal we're so close we're oh it's just the details We almost have a deal.

We're totally going to get a deal.

I think maybe the Nobel Prize would be in um it's going to look like this and it's going to look like this.

It's so exciting.

We're so close to a deal.

That's redefining reality.

And that's what he's doing right in front of you.

He's redefining reality.

And if he refineses it enough, then the people who are hard know about some of the details, suddenly they wake up in a world where yes is the more rational reason or the more rational thing to do.

So if he pulls this off, like I said, it'll be the the greatest thing a president ever did.

Just ever 50% chance.

All right.

What else?

Um, so I saw a post by uh Jimmy Door.

You all know Jimmy Door, podcaster, stand-up comedian.

Um, he says that Israel will definitely do false flags inside the US to I I assume that means to get us to stay unfriendly to Hamas so that the, you know, the peace doesn't come.

The theory here is that maybe Netanyahu doesn't really want peace, but he has to play along as long as he as long as he can.

So, it doesn't look like he's resisting.

And uh Jimmy's theory is that Israel would do a false flag, which would be an attack on US assets andor people.

Um that would be blamed on Hamas.

And then that would give Netanyahu a way to say, "See, see, you can't do a deal with him." Yep.

You you just have to destroy him.

Now, I went to Grock and I said, "How often does a false flag happen?

Has Israel ever done a false flag?" Well, I thought I knew, but I did not.

So, here's what Grock said.

There were two examples that you might call a false flag.

one was in 1954 called the again this is from Grock so I don't know if it's hallucinating or not um I probably should have looked that up but it's called the Leavon affair um it's and uh Grock says it's quote the only confirmed false flag by Israel targeting US assets it's the only one now what did it do let's see orchestrated bomb attacks remember 1954 uh targeted symbols of Western influence.

Um, blah blah blah.

So, this was uh the bad old days.

Um, but apparently that's a confirmed false flag, but it's also 1954.

So, I'm pretty old and that was before I was born.

Now, now I'm seeing in the comments that you're saying, "Scott, you're forgetting the obvious one, the USS Liberty incident in 1967." Right?

So, I'm looking in the comments and every one of you is saying, "Oh, you're forgetting the big one, the more recent one.

It was the USS Liberty, a US ship that got blown up." However, there are two hypotheses for what happened with that.

and they're not the same.

One hypothesis is that it was always a false flag and that's what it was from the beginning to the end.

It was just a false flag.

The other, according to Grock, which I'd never heard before, is that it might have been a horrible thing that the Israeli military did, but it was to cover up the fact that they made a mistake in attacking the ship.

So, apparently they machine gunned the uh the lifeboats.

They machine gunned the lifeboats.

And the thinking is that that was because they realized after they did the attack that it wasn't the ship that they thought they wanted to attack and that once they realized they'd blown up an American ship that they may have um this is speculative so this is unproven but the the thought is that they might have said just the military not necessarily the government but the military might have said um we're going to have to get rid of the evidence.

So you've got one that's confirmed according to Grock, but it's in 1954.

Nothing since then.

Nothing.

And the one that uh may or may not be true was 1967.

That was pretty long ago as well.

Uh over 50 years ago.

And um so we don't know now.

I believe that if this is like every other thing in the world, the people who have a anti-Israel bent will say, "Scott, you fool.

That's obviously a false flag." And the people who are more pro-Israel are going to likely say, "Oh, I didn't realize it was ambiguous." You know, either way, it's terrible.

So, it's it's not, remember, it's not excusing Israel if the real answer is that they machine gunned the the survivors.

So if you think that there's there's one story that makes them look good but another story that doesn't, that's not happening.

No, there are two stories that make them look like terrible or at least you know the military who happen to be operating in that specific area, not the whole country, of course.

So I don't know.

So you that that's your context.

Do you think uh Jimmy Door is correct that Israel would do a false flag attack given that there's always some chance they get caught?

Because if you're doing any kind of sneaky stuff, you can never really be sure if everybody is on your side that's in on the plot and that nobody's listening to your digital communications.

Can you imagine Israel doing a false flag while Trump is president and getting caught?

So, here's my take.

The the riskreward analysis of doing something while Trump is president, a false flag, and maybe getting caught, no matter how clever you are.

I know MSAD is really good at this, but you'd always have a chance to get it caught.

There's no freaking way that Nanyahu is dumb enough to take that chance.

No way.

Unless you can come up with some kind of false flag that nobody could ever catch, then maybe.

But I'm going to say that seems deeply unlikely.

So I I disagree with the false flag, but we might see something we think is one.

So that's possible.

All right.

Let's talk about some other countries.

Let's see how Australia is doing.

Apparently Deote uh will refund Australian government for their AI hallucinationfilled report or stack that I was writing about this Kyle Orland.

So apparently Deote, you know, the big accounting firm um did this major probably very expensive study, but it was just madeup by AI and they found out it was all hallucinated So they ask for their money back.

Good job, Deote.

H how how could you be a How in the world could you be one of these high-end consultants for Deote and not know that AI hallucinates?

Are you the last person in the world who doesn't know you can't do a report based on this?

I mean, I just did one right in front of you using Grock, but I think Grock is better on historical things.

Uh, I think it's much less better if it can't look it up.

The historical stuff it can just look up.

So, I I feel like it's better, but I would take a fact check on that if that's not the case.

Well, Mexico has got a bill according to reclaim the net Dan Free is writing that Mexico is proposing a bill that would put you in prison for AI memes that mock public figures.

Great.

like I need one more reason not to go to Mexico.

Good luck.

And then Ukraine, of course, said it struck more Russian ammunition plant, an oil terminal, and a weapons depot.

And uh here's what you don't hear.

Number of human casualties.

Have you noticed that?

That the Ukraine war, this major World War III people want to call it, and we don't talk about casualties.

And I think the reason is there are not that many.

It's like a handful per day.

And that all the real work is being done by the drones taking out big infrastructure and facilities.

I think it's turned into the drone the the robot energy war.

It's sort of an energy war and it's sort of a robot war, but it's a robot energy war because the robots will mostly be attacking other robots and energy projects.

So, it's a robot energy war.

And let's say Ukraine now has approved 80 domestically produced drones.

So, Ukraine, just the little country of Ukraine, knows how to make 80 different kinds of drones.

Holy cow.

According to Euromaiden, Oena Mc.

Kina.

Um, and the domestic production has jumped 40%.

You know, I've told you before that whoever can make the the most and best drones is going to rule the future.

So, apparently Ukraine is making a good step to being the future because Ukraine will be better at drones than the US is.

The US can't make that many drones at the moment.

Maybe someday, but I think we're we're way behind.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is all I wanted to talk about today.

Did you have any questions?

Anything I didn't answer?

If you joined late, uh, yesterday I did have to go to the emergency room to get some MRIs and some CT scans.

Got some cancer tumors that were bothering me greatly, but we'll get that under control.

And uh, but I feel good now.

So, at the moment, it doesn't hurt to sit down.

Walking hurts, so I'll try not to walk, but I got better meds, so I can just take some painkillers if it hurts.

So, today is much better than yesterday.

Much much better for me.

All right, everybody.

I'm going to say a few words to my beloved um subscribers on locals.

The rest of you, thank you so much for joining.

I'm glad you could join and I hope I see you tomorrow.

A little technical glitch there, so it

took me a moment to sign on. Come on in,

grab a seat, grab a beverage. It's time

for your favorite thing of the day.

Well, according to me. Let me check your

stocks first.

Let's see. Up a little bit.

Tesla's down a little bit. Nvidia is up.

Wow. NE is up again 8%. Wow. Holy cow.

You guys ready for a show?

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

your experience up to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains, all you need is a

copper mug or a glass of tanker chalice,

a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any

kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee. Oh, and join me now for

the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine

of the day, the thing that makes

everything better. It's called That's

right. the simultaneous sip. And it

happens now.

Oh

Yes, I'm a little bit in a little bit of

pain. All right, just an update. Uh,

yesterday I spent the day in the

emergency room for pain, cancer related.

Had a bunch of tests. The the short

version is um it doesn't look like it's

a spinal problem. It looks like it's a

bone problem. So, it's bone cancer

problem. So, my cancer is back all over

in my body. I don't know if it ever went

away, but for a while it didn't bother

me. So, I'm sort of back to where I was

a few months ago, meaning that my life

expectancy would be few months. That's

about it. Maybe six months if I'm lucky.

But uh there's a newishly approved drug

called Pluictto

which can remove tumors. Not every time

and it's not a cure, but for some people

it just totally removes their tumors. So

um I'm in the process of trying to

qualify for that which should be able to

do. Should be no problem. And uh fairly

soon I would imagine I would start that.

It's one of those you have to go to a

place and get an IV six times over two

months or whatever it is. And uh there's

some chance that that would at least set

the pain back a little bit.

We'll see. We shall see. Um,

so, uh, I don't know how many of you are

subscribing to Dilbert on either X or on

locals, but you may have noticed that,

uh, I also include for free the 10year

ago Dilbert that ran on this date, but

10 years ago. And if you notice that the

comic from 10 years ago is consistently

exactly like today. Has anybody noticed

that? So 10 years ago, I started doing

all kinds of humanoid robots in the

office and it was all about, you know,

the co-orker who is a robot and the

robot takes over for the boss one day

and you everything's about the robot.

But if you look at the 10-year-old

comics, you cannot tell that I didn't

draw them today. They're exactly like

today. All the things that you could

anticipate would be a problem with

robots, it's all there.

Anyway, I thought that was interesting.

Uh Elon Musk says that Grock the AI will

soon be able to make a movie that's at

least what he says watchable before the

end of uh next year. So before the end

of 2026 and he thinks it'll be able to

make what he calls a really good movie

by 2027.

Does that feel right to you? Do you

think that by the end of next year Grock

will be able to make a watchable but not

you know best movie in the world but

that by the end of the year after that

uh it'll be making full movies that

you'll want to watch. Well I don't know

now Open AI in a related um related news

open AAI says that they're not going to

protect your copyright for people like

me who own a property like Dilbert.

they're not going to protect it. You

have to specifically ask them to exclude

it from their training and from their

answers. So you have to exclude it so it

can't be used by other people. But you

have to specify it and you have to

specify every character. So I can't just

say all the Dilbert characters. I have

to say Wall-E the world's smartest

garbage man, Dilbert, Gert, Rbert. I got

to do them all. Now, I do plan to do

that. Um, and also with my book, God's

Debris. So, I did see uh Jay did this

amazing little uh demonstration of God's

debris, the first first few pages of the

book, and it's really impressive. I have

to say, it's really impressive. Um, but

I don't know if we have what we could I

don't think we have enough to make a

full short movie. I don't think it's

quite there yet. But boy, was it

impressive. Anyway,

speaking of uh AI and Elon Musk, um he

was doing an interview somewhere where

somebody asked him this question. Uh

what is the universe contained in?

Which is a funny question. The universe

exists,

but what's it in?

Isn't that a weird question? The first

time I heard it, I thought, wait a

minute, it's not in anything because the

universe is everything.

But doesn't everything have to be in

something?

And I wasn't sure. But uh here was

Elon's answer to the question, what is

the universe contained in? Answer, a

computer.

I agree with that. And uh then I guess

Lex Freriedman asked Elon, "What's

outside the simulation?"

And Elon's answer was um

what was his answer?

Uh what's outside this simulation? Damn

it. Did I not write down that down?

Apparently not. Um

but what's outside this simulation will,

you know, would sort of tell you, oh,

I'm sorry. That was the question that

Elon wanted to know the answer to. It

wasn't the one he has the answer to.

That's That's where I was going wrong. I

thought I didn't write down his answer,

but he doesn't have an answer. It's the

question. The question is, um, what's

outside the simulation? Is there like

somebody in a gamer chair who's running

our world? Maybe. Maybe. I'll let you

know when I get there. Um, but here's a

uh if you want a little lesson in

credibility,

here's what credibility buys you. I gave

you a Trump persuasion lesson. the other

day where I said if you're credible in

the thing that you're persuading, well,

you know, you're halfway done cuz people

say, "Oh, you could do that." So, you

have to be credible.

Do you know how credible you have to be

to be Elon Musk and say that reality is

a simulation

and have people say, "hm, yeah, maybe it

is." Do do you have any idea how much

credibility that takes? That's like the

maximum maximum credibility that you

would even even for a second you would

consider that possibility. Like who else

could do that? When I have this

conversation about the simulation, do

you know what kind of response I get?

Not I don't get the one where people

believe me because I'm so credible about

science and the simulation. I get sort

of dismissed. It's like, yeah, yeah,

yeah, yeah. You're really just talking

about God. You're just using different

words. So I always just get dismissed.

So that's where credibility is your

superpower. Elon has it on this topic

and others and I don't have it on this

topic.

Well, OpenAI is announcing that Chat GPT

their app will now work with some other

existing apps. So I think that means it

would act like the uh user interface for

other apps. Not that they wouldn't have

a user interface, but you'd be able to

control them just by talking to your AI.

So that includes so far Booking.com,

Expedius, Spotify, Figma, whatever that

is, Corsera, Zillow, and Canva. And

they're adding ones all the time. So,

let me uh give you the business take on

this. As a user, wouldn't you love it if

you could talk to your AI and you didn't

have to open another app to do a thing?

How much would you love booking a trip

without opening a booking app? Oh my

god, the booking apps are terrible. The

travel apps, it's not just me, right?

All the travel apps are complete garbage

and you don't know which one to use. And

so, but if I could talk to AI and just

say, "All right, I'm planning a trip to

the Northeast sometime in the autumn

when the when the leaves are changing,"

and then just have it make you up a, you

know, a great trip. That would be

amazing. But do you know what these app

makers are not calculating?

They're not calculating that if the user

interface becomes AI, AI owns them. So

basically, they're plotting their own uh

their own demise.

So if AI can do all these things by

working with an app, how long is it

going to be able take before AI can do

all of those things without the app?

So once you get people used to using AI

instead of opening up say Booking.com,

how many people are going to open up

Booking.com after that? Nobody. They're

going to open Open AI and then open AI

can do stuff like put their own

advertisement in it and then Booking.com

will be like, "Hey, this is our app. We

we're the ones who should be doing

advertising." And OpenAI will say, "No,

we're sending them to your app." But

after they say the advertisement. So

what I'm suggesting is that these uh

small app companies, well they're not

that small, um are very quickly going to

learn that AI is eating their lunch and

there's no way back. There's no way

back. AI will absorb all these apps.

Anyway, so that's what's happened. Step

one, step one become the user interface.

Step two, replace the apps themselves.

inevitable.

Uh, according to Max Rigo, who's writing

for The Hill, there's a new Senate

report that says that a 100 million jobs

will be lost to AI and automation. Is

that a lot? 100 million? Well, if it

were all in the United States, it would

be every employee, wouldn't it?

Isn't that right? I don't think there

are 100 million people who even work.

It's maybe one out of three people work.

That would be everybody. So I I assume

the 100 million is across uh the world,

which wouldn't be that much. 100 million

in the United States would be the end of

everything, but 100 million across the

world, well, maybe you wouldn't even

notice it that much. But uh what else

they say? Um so the the types of jobs

they think are going to go away would be

fast food. Um, and anybody who works at

counter probably. Um,

and what else? Uh, customer service

reps, laborers and freight stock and

material movers, secretaries. There's

still secretaries.

What business has a secretary? When was

the last time you even saw or heard of a

secretary?

I don't even think they exist. Do they?

Secretaries. Maybe. Maybe for CEOs.

Um, and let's see. Uh, also executive

assistants. There's no way that AI is

going to replace an executive assistant.

That's not going to happen. So, I think

I think that most of these estimates are

totally overblown. Um, I'm going with

the people who say, well, it's probably

just going to make all those existing

people a little more efficient. it

probably isn't going to replace them

because the there there's so much of a

problem with hallucinations. Can you

imagine a customer service rep being AI

and then just hallucinating every time

the customer asks it a question and and

the customer would just get, you know,

more and more mad.

You can't have a customer service rep

with this form of AI. And we we've not

invented another form. There's only one

form of AI as far as I know. I mean, one

that you could use in this way and it

can't possibly work. Like, by its

design, it can't work because it's

designed to hallucinate. Not

intentionally, but that's what the

design gives you.

All right. How many of you saw a story

in the news uh that seemed to show an

adult policeman putting handcuffs on a

toddler? And the alleged context was I

don't know the toddler's family was

protesting or maybe they were they were

going to be shipped back to some other

country. Did anybody see that? I didn't

see the original story, but I I saw a

post by Dr. Interracial

um who's a real good follower. Dr.

Interracial. He's in an interracial

marriage and has lots of insights from

that. Um, but apparently the uh the

thing that people thought was

outrageous, somebody putting handcuffs

on a toddler, there was somebody putting

handcuffs on a toddler. His father, when

they played cops and robbers, it was

literally his father playing cops and

robbers and the kid was enjoying every

minute of it. He's like, you know, give

me your hands. And he handcuffs them.

Now, so that becomes some big story. I

didn't see it, but apparently people

believe that was something else.

Well, yesterday would have been scary if

you were flying into Burbank Airport cuz

100% of the air traffic controllers uh

left or didn't come to work. All of

them. There wasn't a single air traffic

controller in the entire airport. And

you've got all these planes looking to

land and none. What do you think they

did? Well, apparently they have the

ability to somehow work remotely from

another airport. So, I think uh there's

a team out of San Diego who somehow

could get access to the uh to the, you

know, critical stuff at Burbank and they

could just run it from offsite. Now

obviously I'm pretty sure that would

have some disadvantages to not be on

site but but at least they got through

it you know just in a emergency sense

they did get through it but it's mostly

from people calling in sick because of

the government shutdown.

So there's that.

Um, I guess the Trump administration is

looking into whether the so-called

furoughed federal workers, the ones who

are not working because of the shutdown,

um, are going to be guaranteed back pay.

Apparently, there's an argument that

they shouldn't be. Now, I don't know if

that I don't think that applies to

everybody who's furled, but for some of

them,

um, it looks like the Trump people want

to make it, uh, optional.

so that they don't necessarily get back

pay. That doesn't feel like a good idea,

does it? Like, how could you win

politically

by cutting a little bit on the budget,

but doing it on the backs of the people

who had nothing to do with the shutdown?

You you don't punish the people who had

nothing to do with the shutdown.

So, um I don't know if they're just

floating this idea and it won't happen,

but looks like a terrible idea, wouldn't

you say? I'd say just terrible idea. I

like saving money but not on the backs

of people who just wanted to go to work.

All right.

Um

let's see. Uh

so apparently there's a senior

prosecutor in the Eastern District of

Virginia who would be in charge of

charging uh um New York Attorney General

Leticia James for any mortgage um

mortgage cheating. So she's accused of

cheating on a mortgage to get a lower

rate. And apparently the senior

prosecutor decides not to prosecute. Um,

and the argument for it is that

um there's not enough there's no

probable cause.

There's no probable cause.

Let's see if I can uh pull some of

these, you know, these these facts

together. Let's see. She's an attorney

general.

That means she's a lawyer, right? She's

a trained lawyer.

uh in the comments, how many of you who

have been involved in real estate? If

you've never been involved buying any

real estate, you can pass on this one.

But if those of you who have had any

involvement in real estate, did you not

know that you couldn't claim two houses

as your primary residence, is there

anybody here, lawyer, non-awyer,

attorney general, non- attorney general,

is there even one person here who didn't

know that you're not allowed to do that?

And if you and if you didn't know that,

don't you think you'd be able to figure

it out by the forms themselves? As in

the form would ask you whether you own

it or rent it, and you would say to

yourself, "Huh, that must be important

because otherwise they wouldn't ask the

question why why did they care if you

have another house, right? I mean, as

long as you can afford it." Well, the

answer is you're only allowed to have

one. That's your primary residence. Are

you telling me that this uh top

prosecutor believes that the attorney

freaking general is the only person in

the world who didn't know you're not

supposed to do that? Claimed two primary

residence. How about the part where she

listed allegedly maybe this didn't

happen, but allegedly she allegedly she

listed her dad as her husband or

something to get a better rate. Do you

think she wouldn't know that listing the

wrong person on the application would be

a problem? Like she wouldn't know that

the attorney general wouldn't know that.

Um, you know, I think Trump needs to or

whoever somebody needs to fire this

person, the Eastern District of

Virginia,

you got to fire that person. There

there's just no way that the attorney

general wasn't fully aware of what she

was doing. There's just no way. I I give

that a 0% chance.

And by the way, ignorance of the law um

is not a defense. Oh, wait. According to

Grock, it is. So I went to Grock and

said, you know, just to make sure, I

said, is there any situation where

ignorance of the law would be a

legitimate defense? Because I've always

been told that ignorance of the law is

no defense at all and that it wouldn't

matter what the law was. You can't just

pretend he didn't know. I mean, that

would be its own set of problems. But

there are some cases, according to

Grock, where uh not knowing it was

illegal would actually be a defense. So,

if the crime requires what Grock calls a

willful or knowing violation, let's say

a tax evasion, which would be sort of

what this mortgage thing is. In a tax

evasion situation, um, apparently if you

said, "Oh, I'm g I'm making up my own

example here. This is not from Grock,

but I think this is right. If your if

your accountant makes a mistake on your

taxes and all you did is sign it, but

you know you're not an accountant, so

you didn't really check the work. I feel

like that would be a case where there's

no evidence of willful violation because

it would just look like your accountant

got a little too aggressive, but maybe

you didn't even know it.

You know, that makes sense to me. I I

don't think you should go to jail if

your accountant makes a mistake on your

taxes or if it looks like that's what

happened. Here's another one.

If someone relies on official but

incorrect advice, so let's say a

government official advises them, oh

yeah, that's totally legal, and then

they do it and they find out it wasn't

legal. That's actually a defense that

depending what government official told

you, it would have to be somebody in the

right the right line of work. But that's

actually a defense. I didn't know that.

All right. Um, Kla Harris, as you know,

is out there drunken, babbling about her

new book and about Trump. And uh,

yesterday she uh, she had a moment

that was uh, reminded me of Trump being

shot in the ear and jumping up and going

fight, fight, fight. Very inspirational.

except uh instead of being shot in the

ear, um she's just uh drunk.

She's just drunk and lying and got up at

a recent event and started yelling. It

was the closest the tightest closest

presidential election in the 21st

century. He does not have a mandate. He

does not have a mandate. Did you hear

me? He does not have a mandate.

So that's Kla Harris's uh persuasion.

Which one was better? Fight, fight,

fight with a bullet just just in his ear

or ah give me some more vodka. There's

no mandate. No mandate. There's no

mandate at all. Well, I'm here to tell

you that the answer is it's a tie,

unfortunately.

Now, obviously Trump was more

inspirational. There's no doubt about

that. But if you're just looking at can

you convince somebody of something that

they weren't convinced of before. Do you

know what it takes? Just repetition.

That's it. If if Kla Harris just keeps

saying this over and over again, and it

looks like she will, it will work. It

won't work on any Republicans. None. But

uh of the lowinformation Democrats, it

will work with every one of them. All

they have to do is hear it three times.

They hear it three times, it's a fact

the rest of their life. So, um, that's

your persuasion lesson of the day. If

somebody prominent

says something more than three times and

you hear it, you're probably going to

think it's true if they're on your side.

If they're not on your side, you might

say, "Hey, I think they're lying." But

if they're on your side, you're totally

going to believe it. So, even though you

might have thought to yourself,

oops, sorry, cat. Come down here. Come

on, Gary. Don't step on that.

So, even if you uh Is that Gary? Oh, no.

It's Roman, my other cat.

So, even if you thought that Kamla was

being pathetic and stupid and drunk, it

totally works. And by the way, um she

has an argument. If she didn't have any

argument, then maybe it wouldn't work.

But the argument is that if you looked

at the number of counties won, it's an

overwhelming win for Trump. If you

looked at the uh um electoral college,

nice solid win for Trump. But if you

looked at just the total number of

people who voted, yeah, you might be

within what is it 1 or 2% or something.

So, she's going to argue the overall

percentage number and then say, "Well,

there you go. Closest election. I don't

even know if that's true." It doesn't

need to be true, by the way. It only

needs to make you think it was really

close. And then you don't need to know

the details. So, totally successful

persuasion, even though it's

it's at least half

Well, the CDC has updated their

recommendation for vaccines. so to so to

speak. And they want you want kids to

get the chickenpox vaccine separate from

the the big bunch of vaccines that they

usually get

that usually includes chickenpox.

Um, so apparently there's some new

information that says that if you get

them separately, that I think you wait a

little bit for one, but I can't remember

which one. If you wait for one, um, you

avoid some very well-known specific

health problems. So, is that an up

upgrade that do you call this a RFK

Junior win? Is that a win for Maha?

I'm going to say yes. Because there's

nothing we want more from RFK Jr. than

to say, can you show us the science? All

right. Now that you showed us the

science, can you make sure that your

policies conform to the science? And

what did RFK Jr. do? He showed you the

science and that he modified the policy

to match the science. That, ladies and

gentlemen, is what we asked for. That is

why you like a President Trump, that he

can have the balls to pick an RFK Jr.

This is everything. This is everything.

Now, you know, is there any chance that

later they'll modify it and, you know,

there'll be a new study? Sure. But this

is still what we want them to be doing.

This is right on point for what we hoped

they would do. So, this is all good

news.

And then on top of that, they've updated

the COVID booster recommendation to um

they don't recommend it for all adults

now. So it's only the COVID booster is

only recommended

for people who are I guess over 65 or

have some specific health issue that um

they and their doctors decide makes

sense. So it's not even about the CDC

now for the for the COVID. It's very

much about you and your doctor. You

know, you can still do what you want,

but it's between you and your doctor. I

like that.

Um, Trump is teasing, according to Just

the News. Misty Sei is writing about

this. Trump says he's considering

invoking the quote insurrection act in

Portland. Now, as you know, Trump wanted

to send in the National Guard to

Portland because he thinks there's too

much crime happening. Portland says,

"No, there's not too much crime. There's

just the right amount. We'd like to keep

it this way." Or something like that.

And um but one way that Trump could in

theory o overrule the uh the local

government and send in the national

guard would be if it's an emergency. And

an emergency would include something

like an insurrection. You know, if there

was a a raging insurrection going on,

then it would be totally legal for the

federal government to send in troops.

But you would have to say it's an

insurrection. Now Trump says it's not an

insurrection. It's not an emergency. Um,

it's just something that he'd like to

do, but he doesn't rule it out. What

What do I tell you about the decisions

that Trump makes? I told you that he's

he's brilliant in persuasion and that

one of the things he does right all the

time, all the time. is that if there are

two ways you could go and one of them

would be described as strong as in maybe

an authoritarian but the other way would

be described as you know weak.

He will always take strong even if weak

is a better argument.

That does that make sense? He will

always pick strong even if you think

going weak is a better argument. Here's

why. because the specific argument

matters a little. You know, does he or

does he not go into Portland? That

matters. But what matters way more than

that is that he can create a pattern

that says, "I'm always going to take the

the strong the strong position." Because

remember, he's got to convince all the

other countries that he's strong. He's

got to convince both sides of this

country that he's strong. So every time

you see Trump just reflexively take this

strong position, even if you think it's

the wrong decision, even if you think

it's not entirely constitutional and if

he tried it, the Supreme Court would

throw it out, it's still the right

choice. And only he can do that. And

well, it's not true. Not only he, but

you would have to be a real special

personality to always take the strong

side and pull it off and still pull it

off. And he does. It's It's kind of

amazing.

All right.

Well, you won't believe this. Um, I I

would like you to hold your chins

because you might get injured. uh when I

read you this news story, your chin is

going to drop so far that it might come

disconnected and then you know you'd

have you'd be hospitalized. So you don't

want that. So everybody, if you could

just just hold your chin when I tell you

this shocking and surprising news. Are

you ready? You won't believe this, but

another college president has been

accused of plagiarizing and being a huge

racist against white people. Oh. Oh,

hold it. Hold it. Hold it.

All right. All right. I think the danger

has passed. All right, got it. Okay, now

nobody saw that coming.

Uh, apparently the US federal

government's going to take a 10% stake

in something called Trilogy Medals

according to investing.com.

So, and then give some warrants for some

extra percentages. I guess what they do

is uh what do they do? Um, some kind of

metals.

Some kind of rare rare metals. Which

ones?

Um, seems like they should tell us right

in this article which rare metals are

getting. It's not, you know, it's it's

the good stuff. So, that would be

another 10% maybe 17.5% if if the

warrants are used. And uh so I went to

Grock

and I said if the US took a 10% equity

stake in every company in the US that

was involved in rare earth minerals

um what would that be worth in 10 years?

Cuz I was wondering is this so valuable

these rare earths that even if you just

get 10% that if you wait 10 years it's

worth you know $5 trillion or something.

Is that possible? and that it would take

an actual bite out of the national debt.

And the answer is unfortunately it's in

the tens of billions.

So it's not in the trillions at all.

It's you know you maybe up to a hundred

billion, but you're not going to get

much more than that. Still, it's free

money. Do you do you not want to take

some free money if the if the federal

government can provide a service that it

wouldn't necessarily have to do? Um, it

could take some equity because it's not

the government taking the equity. It's

me, right? It's you. It the government

doesn't own it. It's the people. So,

yeah, give me some damn equity. All

right.

Well, apparently Trump has not ruled

out, but nor has he ruled in uh a pardon

for Gla Maxwell and he was also asked

about did he and uh in the is Trumpian

way he did the perfect answer which is

he hasn't looked into it.

It sounds like he will look into it but

he hasn't looked into it. Now what would

happen if Galain Maxwell got a pardon?

What do you think that would do to the

MAGA world?

If Glain Maxwell got a pardon, wouldn't

you assume that she's agreed to keep

some secrets and that that would be the

basis for getting the pardon? Wouldn't

you assume that? Wouldn't have proof. I

wouldn't have even smoking gun. But I

would kind of assume

that somebody made a deal, wouldn't you?

So, if you really want to stir things up

and get people talking about this

forever, uh, the pardon would do it. And

by the way, I don't have an opinion on

whether it should be done or not. But,

um, I would say yes to the pardon if it

required her to talk and give up some

names that maybe we hadn't heard before.

So, if we could learn something that the

victims or the country needs to know,

I'm not as concerned about punishing

her. Um, you've been punished a little

bit. Um, I'm not as concerned about that

as I am knowing what really happened.

Now, some of you would say the opposite.

You say, "No, punishment is the main the

main thing. You know, even even if we

don't find out what happened, you know,

you got to punish people for doing what

she did." I get it. I get the argument.

But I put a little bit more weight given

that she's been public she's been

punished somewhat. You know, not enough

but somewhat. Um, I would look at what

use we could get from her. And if she

could open the vault and tell us all the

things that we really care about, really

care about, but wouldn't find out any

other way,

I would uh reluctantly be in favor of a

pardon. Reluctantly. And I I would never

back off reluctant.

But maybe maybe we'd have to see what we

got in return. And if it's only, you

know, the government who finds out what

we got in return, that's not good

enough. The the people got to know. We

got to know. If there's a deal made, you

got to tell us. We're not going to put

up with we made a secret deal with the

PTO. That's that's not going to happen.

What about Diddy? It's hard for me to

imagine that Trump would pardon Diddy

because I don't think Diddy has anything

to offer

and uh he got a relatively low sentence

compared to what it could have been. and

he's young enough that if he gets out in

four years or maybe he would get out in

two years, you know, time served, good

behavior, he's already, you know, so it

might be like a 2-year sentence for what

looks like pretty bad behavior as far as

we can tell. So, I feel like Trump would

say, "You know what? I feel like you can

last two years and then, you know,

you've paid your you paid some of your

debt and then I'm not in the line for

explaining it forever." So, I'm going to

say maybe yes on Maxwell, but probably

no on Diddy. That's that's my best

guess. Now, if Diddy is still there in

three years,

might Trump say, "I'll let you out in

six months early before the end of my

term." Maybe, maybe he'd he'd have to

have an argument. I don't know what that

argument would be, but can't rule out.

Well, Trump was commenting on Greta

Tunberg. Uh she was arrested in Israel

trying to uh trying to advocate for the

Palestinians and she was part of that

flotilla that went over there and they

all got picked up. And this is what

Trump said. Quote, "She's just a

troublemaker. You mean she's no longer

into the environment? She's an anger

management problem. I think she should

see a doctor. If you ever watch her for

a young person, she's so angry. She's so

crazy. No, you can have her. You can

have her. She's just a troublemaker.

Could that be more perfect? That That's

exactly what I would want Trump to say.

I I I want him to say those exact words.

Yeah. But here's what I think. Um I feel

like we keep ignoring, although every

now and then you'll hear, you know,

somebody like Dr. Drew or uh Jordan

Peterson bring it up, uh that there

might be a cluster B personality type

that seems to be concentrated in the

Democrat or at least left-leaning world.

Do you believe that? So the cluster B

are the people who are, you know,

narcissists and, you know, they've got

they've got the kind of problems that

bother other people. The cluster B's are

problems, mental problems that mostly

bother other people. You know, like a

narcissist. The narcissists might be

perfectly happy, but they bother other

people. So,

and we know that the Democrats at least

have massively more mental health

problems and massively more often

they'll go to therapy and massively more

often they'll take uh anti-depressants.

So,

it's really sort of a cluster B problem

that pretends to be political. I think

the politicians, the elected politicians

are not necessarily cluster B. They're

just, you know, looking for power. But

they can't have power unless they treat

all the cluster B's like they're serious

people. That's how they get their power.

So, you've got these these Democrat

leaders who are pretending that these

people who have serious mental health

problems are just people with a

different opinion.

No, they're not people with a different

opinion. They are legitimately mentally

ill.

Uh but that's our politics today.

Representative uh Anna Luna, she was on

Danny Jones podcast and she was talking

about uh influencers who are being paid

to push narratives. And I thought to

myself, I still don't know even one

influencer who pushed a narrative for

money. Do you? Uh, when I hear the names

of the influencers, it's always these

super young ones that I've never seen

even once, and they're usually on the

left. But I don't know, apparently this

is a thing. And I'll tell you again, how

in the world did nobody ever offer to

pay me for my opinion. What's going on

with that? And they haven't. Not not

even indirectly, not in any way

whatsoever. Um, not I've not had one

conversation. I've not been in the room

with somebody who might have offered

just nothing. And I'm thinking, do they

not know how much influence I have?

I don't think they do. I I feel like the

entire right leaning world is somewhat

invisible to the left in the same way

that their world is invisible to me

because when they talk about other

influencers, I always say, "Who? Who? I

never heard of that guy." So, uh, I'm as

blind to their side as they are to to

our side. But if they haven't tried to

influence me,

maybe they should try harder. And no,

I'm not going to take their money. Don't

don't worry, I'm not I'm not soliciting

for money there. There's no way I'd do

that. Not there's not a chance in hell.

But I'm a little bit insulted. I've not

been offered. It's sort of like being a

a straight guy and you know one day you

realize that no gay man has ever hit on

you. Have you ever had that experience?

Like one day you'll just say, "Wait a

minute. Not a single gay guy has ever

hit on me." Well, maybe I'm not gay, but

I kind of like them to want to.

Don't Don't you think it would be cool

if they wanted to? You know, be kind of

a compliment.

same thing. All right. Um,

so here's the question. Do you think

that uh APAC,

the American group that lobbies in favor

of uh Israel,

um, they would say they they're lobbying

in favor of the United States? That's

how they get away with the the Pharaoh

stuff. So, what do you think are the

rules

for uh whether or not you're far,

meaning that you have to register as a

foreign agent who's trying to influence

America? What do you think the rules

are?

Well, um

I thought I wrote that down. I

definitely did.

The rules are

All right, here's the legal legal basis

for uh APAC.

If if Israel were paying uh APAC

and then Apac were, you know, giving

money to politicians, that would be a

far problem because that would be a

foreign country using some Americans to

influence their uh their fate. However,

if the money doesn't come from Israel,

but rather comes from billionaires

um and other small donors,

uh then as long as they're Americans,

it's Americans giving money to an

American entity, APAC, and that is not

fare because it's Americans doing what

Americans want to do. However,

I think we'd all agree that Israel is

kind of a special case and that if

Americans are giving money to Apac, it's

sort of they're doing it for Israel. You

know, now they're doing it for

themselves as well because they would

legitimately be supporters of Israel.

They're not making it up. They really

are supporters.

But if there but if the purpose of it

seems more beneficial to Israel than it

does to America,

uh that's where it gets a little dicey,

but it's still completely legal.

So I guess what matters is where the

funding comes from. So you got that. Um

and that to me that seems that seems

like a technicality. I think most of you

would say the same thing. So there's no

direct uh there's also no direct control

of APAC by anybody who's an Israeli

well anybody who lives in Israel. I

don't know if they're any dual citizens

but um so they don't have anybody on the

board who's an Israeli um trying to

manipulate the board. So that's

important. So they're not getting money

and they're not directly being run by

somebody in Israel. And uh apparently

the uh APEC falls better into another

category. So they just registered into

this other category called the lobbying

disclosure act exemption.

And that allows Apac to disclose

expenditures. I got this from Grock by

the way. Allows APAC to disclose

expenditures and contacts with Congress

without full FAR as long as it doesn't

represent a foreign government directly.

So, it's the directly part

that does a lot of work directly.

Well, how about uh if Apac wanted uh the

US to help Israel militarily with Gaza?

Do you don't think that would be direct?

That's about as direct as you could get.

But then you might say, well, that's

just what everybody wants. So it's not

like, you know, it's not like APEC is

the one entity that wants Israel to

fight back against Gaza or against

Hamas.

So anyway, it gets kind of uh gets kind

of murky

is what I'm saying.

By the way, today is not only October

7th, the horrible uh anniversary of

October 7th, of course, but it is also

the Jewish holiday of it's the first day

of uh Sukkat. I don't know if I'm saying

that right. S U K O T, which I've never

heard of. Better known as the feast of

tabernacles.

And so a lot of your Jew Jewish

co-workers are taking the day off today.

I guess they take the day off generally

speaking. And uh part of the key

observance and traditions are that the

the sukat

is a hut and it has to do with something

in their ancient history where they

built a hut and lived in it. So as part

of the celebration um many people build

a little temporary hut and then they

hang out in it and maybe sleep in it

overnight.

Kind of cool.

Um, Netanyahu is saying that Iran could

soon target the US with its missiles.

Do you think Netanyahu really wants a

peace deal?

How many of you think that Netanyahu

wants a peace deal that puts Hamas a

little bit, you know, having a little

bit of influence after it's all done?

I'm going to say no. I don't think he

wants that at all. So,

we'll see how that goes. Trump says the

Gaza peace talks are going quote very

well. So Steve Wickoff and Jared Kushner

are there to seal the deal. As I've told

you before, they're both closers. So

those are the best closers you could

ever send. That doesn't mean it'll get

closed, but they're the best closers

the the US has probably ever had. Um

so here's what I think. I've said this

before, but it's worth saying again.

Um, if you think that what's happening

is negotiating, I think you're wrong.

If it looks like negotiating, and

they'll talk about it like negotiating,

and all the activities will look like

negotiating, but that's not what's

happening. What's happening is the only

way this deal gets done because Hamas

has basically said yes, but no, and

Israel has basically said yes, but no.

And both places in both cases the but no

part is the important part.

The yes part isn't even the important

part. It's the but no that's the

important part. So how do you get a deal

when both sides have just said but no on

the most important things such as does

have a you know seat at the table and do

they get to keep some weapons? That's

not a small deal. I that's that's right

right in the important part.

Well, um, here's my frame. I think that

Trump, if he negotiates, even with these

great closers, Wickoff and Kushner, if

he negotiates, he loses and he doesn't

get a deal.

But that's not what he's doing. It only

looks like negotiation. Here's what it

really is. He's changing reality.

He's changing reality. He's changing how

we view reality itself. He's basically

telling us this is going to happen even

though all of our common sense and all

of our experience says it won't. If he

can convince us that this will happen

despite all evidence to the contrary,

then he will have reframed reality

itself independent of any negotiating.

The negotiating can't get him there. You

can't get there from here because

neither side is going to give up the

important things. The only way you can

get to a good conclusion is you have to

change reality.

In other words, people have to think

they woke up in a different reality. Can

he do it? Yes, he can.

That's the fun part. Nobody else can.

Steve Jobs could if he w, you know, if

he were not dead, he could. Could Elon

Musk do it? I don't know. I don't know,

maybe. But Trump can Trump can change

reality. And anything short of reframing

reality itself is not going to get you

there. That you can't get there by

negotiating. It you you have to look

like you're negotiating, but you got to

change reality. And you got to change it

big time. And I believe

that that Trump knows that like like

nobody else knows it. like he he's the

one person who completely understands

that that the reason he's saying yes

we're close even though objectively

speaking it doesn't look close to me

doesn't look anywhere near close but as

long as he keeps doing the Kla Harris

thing you know it was the closest

election it was the closest election it

was the closest election then you're

going to start thinking maybe it was a

close election and if he says we almost

have a deal we're so close we're oh it's

just the details We almost have a deal.

We're totally going to get a deal. I

think maybe the Nobel Prize would be in

um it's going to look like this and it's

going to look like this. It's so

exciting. We're so close to a deal.

That's redefining reality.

And that's what he's doing right in

front of you. He's redefining reality.

And if he refineses it enough, then the

people who are hard know about some of

the details, suddenly they wake up in a

world where

yes is the more rational reason or the

more rational thing to do. So if he

pulls this off, like I said, it'll be

the the greatest thing a president ever

did. Just ever

50% chance.

All right. What else?

Um,

so I saw a post by uh Jimmy Door. You

all know Jimmy Door, podcaster,

stand-up comedian.

Um, he says that Israel will definitely

do false flags inside the US to I I

assume that means to get us to stay

unfriendly to Hamas so that the, you

know, the peace doesn't come. The theory

here is that maybe Netanyahu doesn't

really want peace, but he has to play

along as long as he as long as he can.

So, it doesn't look like he's resisting.

And uh Jimmy's theory is that Israel

would do a false flag, which would be an

attack on US assets andor people. Um

that would be blamed on Hamas.

And then that would give Netanyahu a way

to say, "See, see, you can't do a deal

with him." Yep. You you just have to

destroy him. Now, I went to Grock and I

said, "How often does a false flag

happen?

Has Israel ever done a false flag?"

Well, I thought I knew, but I did not.

So, here's what Grock said. There were

two examples that you might call a false

flag. one was in 1954

called the again this is from Grock so I

don't know if it's hallucinating or not

um I probably should have looked that up

but it's called the Leavon affair

um it's and uh Grock says it's quote the

only confirmed false flag by Israel

targeting US assets it's the only one

now what did it do let's see

orchestrated bomb attacks remember 1954

uh targeted symbols of Western

influence. Um, blah blah blah. So, this

was uh the bad old days. Um, but

apparently that's a confirmed false

flag, but it's also 1954.

So, I'm pretty old and that was before I

was born.

Now, now I'm seeing in the comments that

you're saying, "Scott, you're forgetting

the obvious one, the USS Liberty

incident in 1967."

Right? So, I'm looking in the comments

and every one of you is saying, "Oh,

you're forgetting the big one, the more

recent one. It was the USS Liberty, a US

ship that got blown up."

However, there are two hypotheses for

what happened with that. and they're not

the same. One hypothesis is that it was

always a false flag and that's what it

was from the beginning to the end. It

was just a false flag. The other,

according to Grock, which I'd never

heard before, is that it might have been

a horrible thing that the Israeli

military did, but it was to cover up the

fact that they made a mistake in

attacking the ship. So, apparently they

machine gunned the uh the lifeboats.

They machine gunned the lifeboats.

And the thinking is that that was

because they realized after they did the

attack that it wasn't the ship that they

thought they wanted to attack and that

once they realized they'd blown up an

American ship that they may have um this

is speculative so this is unproven but

the the thought is that they might have

said just the military not necessarily

the government but the military might

have said um we're going to have to get

rid of the evidence.

So you've got one that's confirmed

according to Grock, but it's in 1954.

Nothing since then.

Nothing. And the one that uh may or may

not be true was 1967. That was pretty

long ago as well. Uh over 50 years ago.

And

um so we don't know

now. I believe that if this is like

every other thing in the world, the

people who have a anti-Israel bent will

say, "Scott, you fool. That's obviously

a false flag." And the people who are

more pro-Israel are going to likely say,

"Oh, I didn't realize it was ambiguous."

You know, either way, it's terrible. So,

it's it's not, remember, it's not

excusing

Israel if the real answer is that they

machine gunned the the survivors.

So if you think that there's there's one

story that makes them look good but

another story that doesn't, that's not

happening. No, there are two stories

that make them look like terrible or at

least you know the military who happen

to be operating in that specific area,

not the whole country, of course.

So I don't know. So you that that's your

context. Do you think uh Jimmy Door is

correct that Israel would do a false

flag attack given that there's always

some chance they get caught? Because if

you're doing any kind of sneaky stuff,

you can never really be sure if

everybody is on your side that's in on

the plot and that nobody's listening to

your digital communications. Can you

imagine Israel doing a false flag while

Trump is president

and getting caught?

So, here's my take. The the riskreward

analysis of doing something while Trump

is president, a false flag, and maybe

getting caught, no matter how clever you

are. I know MSAD is really good at this,

but you'd always have a chance to get it

caught.

There's no freaking way that Nanyahu is

dumb enough to take that chance.

No way. Unless you can come up with some

kind of false flag that nobody could

ever catch,

then maybe. But I'm going to say that

seems deeply unlikely. So I I disagree

with the false flag, but we might see

something we think is one.

So that's possible.

All right. Let's talk about some other

countries. Let's see how Australia is

doing. Apparently Deote

uh will refund Australian government for

their AI hallucinationfilled report

or stack that I was writing about this

Kyle Orland. So apparently Deote, you

know, the big accounting firm um did

this major probably very expensive

study, but it was just madeup by AI

and they found out it was all

hallucinated So they ask for

their money back.

Good job, Deote.

H how how could you be a How in the

world could you be one of these high-end

consultants for Deote and not know that

AI hallucinates? Are you the last person

in the world who doesn't know you can't

do a report based on this? I mean, I

just did one right in front of you using

Grock, but I think Grock is better on

historical things.

Uh, I think it's much less better if it

can't look it up. The historical stuff

it can just look up. So, I I feel like

it's better, but I would take a fact

check on that if that's not the case.

Well, Mexico has got a bill according to

reclaim the net Dan Free is writing that

Mexico is proposing a bill that would

put you in prison for AI memes that mock

public figures.

Great. like I need one more reason not

to go to Mexico.

Good luck. And then Ukraine, of course,

said it struck more Russian ammunition

plant, an oil terminal, and a weapons

depot. And uh here's what you don't

hear. Number of human casualties.

Have you noticed that? That the Ukraine

war, this major World War III people

want to call it, and we don't talk about

casualties.

And I think the reason is there are not

that many. It's like a handful per day.

And that all the real work is being done

by the drones taking out big

infrastructure and facilities. I think

it's turned into the drone the the robot

energy war. It's sort of an energy war

and it's sort of a robot war, but it's a

robot energy war because the robots will

mostly be attacking other robots and

energy projects. So, it's a robot energy

war.

And let's say Ukraine now has approved

80 domestically produced drones. So,

Ukraine, just the little country of

Ukraine, knows how to make 80 different

kinds of drones. Holy cow. According to

Euromaiden, Oena McKina.

Um, and the domestic production has

jumped 40%. You know, I've told you

before that whoever can make the the

most and best drones

is going to rule the future. So,

apparently Ukraine

is making a good step to being the

future because Ukraine will be better at

drones than the US is. The US can't make

that many drones at the moment. Maybe

someday, but I think we're we're way

behind. All right, ladies and gentlemen,

that is all I wanted to talk about

today. Did you have any questions?

Anything I didn't answer? If you joined

late, uh, yesterday I did have to go to

the emergency room to get some MRIs and

some CT scans. Got some cancer tumors

that were bothering me greatly, but

we'll get that under control. And uh,

but I feel good now. So, at the moment,

it doesn't hurt to sit down. Walking

hurts,

so I'll try not to walk, but I got

better meds, so I can just take some

painkillers if it hurts.

So, today is much better than yesterday.

Much much better for me. All right,

everybody. I'm going to say a few words

to my beloved

um subscribers on locals. The rest of

you, thank you so much for joining. I'm

glad you could join and I hope I see you

tomorrow.