Episode 2983 CWSA 10/09/25

Hey everybody, come on in.

Come on in and grab a seat.

Got a few seats left.

It's a special day today.

Big news.

Got a lot to talk about.

Grab a beverage.

You're going to need it in a minute.

I've checked your stocks.

Israel is up.

US is kind of flat, a little bit down, but maybe that will change.

I'm feeling lucky.

All right.

Probably should do a show since you're all getting in here right on time.

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 for that is a cup of mug or a glass of tanker shells inside a canine jugger flask.

A vessel of what kind?

Any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.

The dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called That's right.

The simultaneous sip.

Go.

I think it's more delicious when I sell it harder.

Don't you think?

No.

All right.

Well, I've set up a little trap behind me for the cats who are wandering around.

We're going to do a test to see if the cats like laying on the blankets or in the empty cardboard boxes between them.

So, you can keep an eye on that while I do the show.

Okay.

Watch for cats.

Gee, I wonder if there's any scientific stuff uh that they didn't need to do because they could have just asked me.

Save a little time.

Oh, here's one from uh Anglia Ruskin University.

So, I did some research to find out that you can unlock autobiographical memories about your own life.

That would be the autobiographical part.

Um, by looking at an image of yourself that the computer makes younger.

So, they can take your, you know, your current face and while you're looking at the computer screen, the AI will turn it into a, you know, a young version of you.

And then they claim that by looking at the young version of yourself, it triggers uh better, more extensive memories of your life at that time.

So, did they need to do that research or could they just have asked me, Scott, do you think showing a picture of somebody looking youthful would uh increase their memories of those days?

to which I would say maybe.

But you know what?

It would definitely increase false memories.

Talk to any hypnotist.

If you do this study a 100 times in a row, a hundred times in a row, it will create false memories every time.

Will some of the memories also be true and, you know, richer or deeper than if you hadn't done this?

probably.

Yeah, probably.

So, so it's a combination of Yeah, it probably works, but the part that works would be completely buried and obscured by the fact that you would make up all kinds of fake memories to satisfy the researchers.

That that's that's the If you don't believe that, look into the Mc Martin preschool uh legal case.

Very famous case of false memories.

do a little research on false memories and you'll know that uh that's what's happening here.

Probably probably some real ones if they can figure out which ones are real.

Um here comes the cats.

So, the big news, I usually do the the technology news before the big news, but the big news is so big apparently, and things could change quickly, even even while I'm doing the podcast, there's an agreement between Hamas and it looks like Israel and the United States and all the other Arab countries or Muslim countries in the area.

Um cuz that includes Turkey non non-Arab.

But it looks like we got a deal to release the hostages, all of them.

And it looks like it could happen Monday.

And as part of that deal, the IDF, the Israeli military would pull back to some agreed lines, which I think they're still tweaking where those lines would be.

And then the rest of the, you know, the deal that you would need to have a permanent peace, such as what's going to happen with the remaining Hamas leaders, what's going to happen with their weapons?

Do they get to keep any small weapons or or just give up the big ones?

Are they going to have any role going forward?

And well, we got some cat action.

Uh, and the question is, um, how do we get the other stuff done?

Now, here's the first question you should ask yourself about this.

If it's true, and it does look true, that Hamas has agreed to release all the hostages on Monday in return for just Israel moving its uh line of uh of forces.

Why would Hamas give up their only leverage before they had gotten agreement on the things they care about the most?

Because they don't care about the hostages.

That's just something they were holding for leverage, right?

It's not important to them that they have hostages.

It's only for that purpose to get the other stuff.

So why would they go through all of this and then give back their only leverage without getting agreements on other stuff?

Does anybody understand that?

Like how in the world does that even make sense?

Well, um I would submit to you that when it comes to these uh war related issues that the fog of war never really clears up.

We talk about the fog of war being in, you know, during the middle of the the actual fighting or when the war starts or something like that, but the fog of war never goes away and we're still in it.

So, here's what I suspect, but don't know, just a suspicion, that the only way we would get to the point we're at now where the where it looks like they're giving hostages back for almost nothing in return because the IDF could pull back and then after they get the hostages, you know, and they get some hostages in return, they get like 2,000 hostages in return.

But that's not why they're doing it.

I don't think they care about their hostages that much.

I think they're doing it because they want to get to the end of the war somehow.

My guess without any evidence whatsoever is that there are some secret deals at work and that the secret deals would look something like if you do this, we'll let the current leadership that remains, you know, I don't know what's left.

We'll let you guys leave.

uh you have to leave the area, but we'll let you leave and you can leave with your stolen billion dollars.

So you can be rich and you can be alive and uh you know and then they would think, "Oh, but I can also secretly reconstitute Hamas once they let me free." Well, they don't have to say that part out loud.

But you could imagine why the Hamas leadership would take a deal that allowed them to go live in exile with a whole bunch of money and then who could really stop them from reconstituting, you know, do it slowly maybe, but still reconstitute Hamas if that's what they want to do.

Maybe from a foreign country, but still doing it.

So, I feel like there's a secret deal or there's a secret blackmail as in uh hello current Hamas leaders.

You know those hostages you have?

We're going to bury all of them and you too.

And we also uh have control of your family and we're going to bury them at the same time.

If one hostage dies, we're gonna bury your family and then send you the we're gonna send you the video of us killing your family.

Something like that.

But there's something going on that we don't know about that's, you know, controlling this deal in a way that we haven't seen before.

Could be anything.

Could be a threat, could be a bribe.

Um, but as long as it works, that would be the great thing.

I just don't see how the rest of this gets negotiated because that was the hard part again unless they've already made a secret deal.

So, um, interestingly, assuming that this goes through and all indications are that it will, some people are sort of mistaking it for like a whole peace deal, but it's not.

It might be the most important part of the peace deal in the end.

might be the it was the hardest part maybe, but uh it's not the whole peace deal for sure.

Uh however, as as fate would have it, the announcements are tomorrow for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now, presumably the Nobel committee has already chosen their peace prize winner and that probably a whole bunch of work has to be done on their side secretly before they announce it.

So, in all likelihood, there's already a Nobel Peace Prize winner and it's in all likelihood not Trump.

So, it's possible that they would they would change all of their plans before tomorrow, but the only situation I could see that happening is if they happened to be MAGA themselves, if the Nobel Peace Prize people were like full MAGA.

Yeah.

Yeah.

They would just delete whoever they had on their list and say, "Well, you know, this is a really good argument.

Uh, it's going to look weird if we bypass Trump now.

So, yeah.

So, otherwise, we'll just give it to Greta.

Yeah, Greta will probably get it.

However, if this works out and it leads to a especially if it leads to an expansion of the Abraham Accords and it looks like Gaza is being rebuilt and everything's on the right track a year from now, it's going to be pretty hard not to give it to him a year from now.

But I would bet against it happening on Friday.

and and the fact that it won't happen on Friday, it's going to be another big news story because even even CNN, MSNBC, ABC, all of Trump's enemies are saying today, "Okay, there's no way Biden could have gotten this done." Do do you realize what a big deal that is?

that all of his biggest critics, everyone I've seen, you know, the ones that you expect to look for whatever is the worst case, you know, Abby Phillip, Dana Bash, all of the I don't want to say anti-Trumpers, but certainly not on his side.

All of them are calling this out as something that Biden couldn't have done and is kind of amazing.

Isn't that weird that that's what it took?

It took this for somebody to give him his due.

And I feel like I feel like the anti-Trumpers have had this building up that, you know, they see the border being closed and they're like, "H, he did close that border." And then they see the tariffs not being a disaster and in in some ways including some I'll tell you about today seeming to work and creating revenue that the government didn't have albeit much of that from citizens but and then they go he did close the border I do like that he is cleaning up crime in these cities.

Uh, I can't say I like it, but of course I like it.

And then, you know, the economy, the tariffs, uh, I have to admit the GDP is looking kind of good.

And he did get a trillion dollars or whatever the number is of investments that no way Biden would have gotten.

And then suddenly you're you're like, "Oh god, there's there's like a lot of weight pushing me away from TDS.

There's a lot of weight, but not enough." And then he does this.

How do you hold that?

At some point, you're just going to have to admit that Biden was 2% of the president that Trump is.

You're just going to have to fold.

Yeah, the the weight is too great.

You cannot carry that much weight on your back as a lying journalist while everybody's watching.

Uh you know that this is the fifth impossible thing he did in a row there.

What do they have in common?

What what are the tariffs and closing the border and getting getting the hostages back?

Maybe the rest of the peace deal.

We hope.

What do they all have in common?

They were all impossible.

They were all impossible.

How many impossible things does one person have to do?

I you know name name one other thing that a president did that was thought to be impossible when he did it.

None.

I can't I don't I can't think of any.

Can you I can think of things where president tried hard things and failed.

Jimmy Carter with his helicopters in Iran, for example.

I mean, nice try, but it failed.

But but Trump is is dropping precision bombs down Iranian vent holes three times in a row.

I thought that was impossible.

Honestly thought it was impossible.

Now obvious of course you give the credit to the military.

Trump was not in the plane.

But the way it works is the president gets credit.

That's just the way it works.

He would get the blame if it didn't work.

So maybe we give him a little credit when some miracle works.

So yeah, I think it's just getting impossible for the anti-Trumpers to keep up their their their fake narrative because they're just watching him do miracles, like one miracle after another.

Uh ABC News, one of their guys said today, "Make no mistake.

It looks like President Trump has actually pulled off something here that many presidents before him have failed to do." Yeah.

You know how many presidents before him have failed to do it?

All of them.

All of them.

When When MAGA supporters say that Trump is the best president of all time, it's this.

It's this.

That's the best president of all time.

Even ABC is like, "Nobody else could pull that off." Now, some of it is you have to be in the right place at the right time.

So, if the Israelis had not killed allegedly 65,000 people in Gaza, could we get to peace?

No.

If they had not taken out Hezbollah and Iran and weakened Syria and done all of those things that that gave them some purchase, could we get to this point?

No, probably not.

So, you can't beat luck.

And I think Trump I think Trump actually said something like that himself.

you know, having everybody on the same page and having all the right situations so that you could get to this point.

There's luck involved.

But what what is one of the things that we wanted Trump to bring to the office?

I did.

I don't know if any of you had this explicit thought, but when I saw Trump running for president, one of the things I said is, "Would it really be bad to have the luckiest guy in the country as your president?" I mean, just look at his life.

He just looks like the luckiest guy in the world.

I mean, a a good day for young Trump, I think a good day for him would look better than all of your good days put together.

And that would just be one day.

So, don't you want the luckiest person in the entire country to be maybe bringing his luck to us?

Maybe that's what happened because it does look like there's some luck involved, but a whole bunch of skill.

And one of those skills is that he was willing to push Israel as hard as they needed to be pushed.

That probably was the magic is that he was willing to push Israel, not just Hamas.

Had to push both.

I don't know if we had anybody who would do that before or even thought it would work.

Yeah.

Anyway, so I guess Trump has officially proposed that his own face would be in a $250 bill to to commemorate the 250th anniversary in 2026.

Um, now that's a really good troll.

Okay, he's the best troll.

I don't know how much he cares about it.

Probably doesn't care about it.

Probably doesn't think it would necessarily happen.

Although, I suppose if it's his administration, maybe they could just pass it with a simple majority if it even needs a vote.

I don't know if it needs a vote.

Um, but I love that the the the funny thing is, who needs a $250 bill besides drug dealers?

It would only be for drug dealers, but it would have it would have the face of the guy who's going to kill them out.

Hey, cartels.

I've got a I've got an offer for you.

We're going to make it much easier to move money around cash because there'll be a new $250 bill.

So, you know, your your piles of money will be much smaller.

You'll be able to move your money.

So, that's the good news.

What's the bad news?

Uh well, well, the bad news is that the picture on the front of the bill is the guy who's going to kill you.

So, there's that.

That's such a good troll.

I don't care if it happens or not, but if it did happen, I would never stop laughing.

And I would I would immediately run to the bank and get me one.

I would put it on my wall.

It would be the best art worth $250 ever until somebody steals it.

Well, you've heard me uh talk about how the climate models are are all bad, but here here's a followup on that.

Um, so apparently there's a 42page report from the uh president's energy department that was released in July, and we've talked about it before, but I'm going to add something to it.

And there were they showed 36 climate models and then they showed how they're all wildly off of the actual temperatures that we've observed.

36 models.

Now, if you've lived in the the real world or you've been in like a real corporation or if you're just a certain age, what do you know?

If the only thing you know is that there are 36 different models for measuring the weather, what do you know for sure?

Well, what I know for sure is if science had science was sure that they could model things with models, there would be one.

There would be one because it would be the one where the scientists say, "Oh, yeah, that's the one." If you have a 36, what's that telling you?

You know, you lived in the real world.

You're not a scientist, but you've lived in the real world and there are 36 different models.

Well, I'll tell you what it tells me.

It tells me there used to be a hundred and that the ones that didn't come close enough to reality, they just quietly threw away.

So, what you're seeing is the surviving models and they still needed 36 of them.

So all you're seeing is a survivor bias.

They started with lots of models.

They they looked at what was really happening.

Some of the models by coincidence were close to reality.

So they said, "Well, these must be the good ones." No, they're not the good ones.

There were a hundred and they were all over the place.

Some of them were going to be close.

There was no science there at all.

It's just, oh, let's keep the ones that were close as if they're scientific.

But do you think in 10 years that those will be kept?

I don't.

I don't.

So, here's the thing I'm going to add.

If you knew that climate change was an existential risk and the biggest problem in the world and then your darn new president, darn him.

He he uh puts his name on a report that says the climate models are all bunk and haven't come anywhere near reality.

What would you do if you knew that the climate models were real and that they represented an existential threat?

It was the most important thing in the world and the government said they were bunk.

What would you do?

Well, if you were CNN or MSNBC or any of the news people, you would immediately put together a panel of the top uh model making experts and you would have them argue how their models are actually good and not Anybody uh see that show?

Anybody uh anybody remember seeing that on MSNBC?

I don't recall seeing it.

Anybody see it on CNN?

I don't have any memory of seeing it.

So, the single most important thing in the whole world.

And as soon as there's a a dissenting government opinion, all the experts go away.

They just they just go silent.

No, they know they got caught.

That they know they got caught.

Other were otherwise you wouldn't you wouldn't see anything else.

If they could have used this to bury Trump as the anti-science idiot that they've been trying to paint him for 10 years.

If this worked in their narrative, they would be all over it.

Instead, it's very quiet.

It's very quiet.

If you wanted to see a climate expert defending these climate models, you'd probably have to invite somebody who didn't work on the models but thinks they know about them.

I'll tell you what you won't get is the person who actually is putting the variables into the model.

Because you know what that person knows?

That person knows models are Not just his or her own model, but all the other ones do.

They all know it.

They if you don't think they know it, oh, they know it.

The reason I know it is because I worked in my corporate life collecting data for various projects.

You know, I would collect data to say, should we do this?

Would this be more expensive than that?

Should we, you know, should we lease or buy?

And what I learned immediately is that none of my data and none of my analyses were anything but that my boss wanted to see.

There's no science to it.

So once you're actually in the work, you can see that it's fake.

But then you're too invested cuz that's your job.

So you do what I did, which is, well, I guess if my boss or the person funding me wants me to do more of this, I guess that's my job.

Anyway, the dogs not barking.

There's not enough push back on the climate models being good for me to have any belief that they're good.

Sam Alman uh is telling us that the touring test probably uh wasn't that important in the in the arc of AI.

The touring test, if you didn't know, not most of you know, um, for many years, it was thought that a computer could not be considered intelligent unless you could put it on the other side of a curtain and have a human being converse with it, not knowing if it's talking to a computer or a human on the other side of the curtain.

If the computer could fool the person on the other side of the curtain consistently, that would be considering passing the Allen Touring test.

Well, that happened.

It happened a while ago, and it didn't make much news.

Here's why I think it didn't make much news.

Because Because AI can only fool stupid people.

Do you think AI could have fooled me?

No, I would just ask it to use some banned words and then that would be the end of it.

There's no way the AI could fool me into thinking it was a human being.

Even even the current best models, no matter how smoothly they talked, no matter whether it was text or voice, there isn't the slightest chance that they could have fooled me that they were human.

Not I mean, I've used the chat bots.

I' I've tried out the the anime uh Grock uh chat.

There's no it's not even close to human.

You're not you're not even in the neighborhood of fooling me that you're human.

Not even anywhere close.

But it did fool some stupid people enough to say we we passed the touring test.

And when I see the uh the AI memes, they're clearly AI created.

and I see how many people repost them and and I look at them, I go, "Well, that's obviously AI.

That's obviously fake." But some large percentage of the public the public looks at it and goes, "Oh, that looks pretty good to me.

That looks real to me." So, the touring test was never super useful because you could always fool dumb people, but maybe there's no way you'll ever fool smart people.

So, I don't know if the touring test allows for that.

But Sam Alman has what I consider a smarter better test for AI.

And he says it's when we see our first AI scientist.

Meaning that the AI will discover and invent things scientifically that humans just couldn't or didn't.

And once it can become like a peer of, hey, I just invented a new thing or discovered a new thing.

um then that would be a better test than the touring test.

I agree with him completely.

Uh also, interestingly, I have a I have a dog in this race because my current strategy for survival is that I've got one more scan I have to do to see if I can qualify for a uh drug treatment.

That's a new one that was only approved in the US in the spring.

But you have to uh be the right kind of cancer.

I have the right kind of cancer, I think.

And you have to have uh gone through certain things that didn't work, which is now the case.

The uh testosterone blockers worked for a little bit, but they they kind of stopped working as as was anticipated.

We just didn't know how long it would take.

Didn't take long before it stopped working.

So now I'm riddled once again with tumors.

But this new drug is called Pluictto.

And for some people, but not all, it can remove actually just remove all your tumors.

Not for most people, but for some.

It's like most things.

Everybody's different.

All the cancers are a little bit different.

The people are a little bit different.

But there's a really good chance, you know, maybe if I had to put a number on it, 30%.

Something like that.

30% chance it could remove the tumors which would not remove the cancer.

So I still have the cancer which means that at some rate it would return but you know maybe I could knock it back again in a few years or whatever I needed to do.

So, the the treatments are you go to a place and you get a UV or I an IV, not a UV, you get an IV.

Uh you go home, there's not much side effects and you do it, you know, like four to six times depending on your situation.

Um so, it's fairly civilized.

You know, it's not like chemo where I'm I'm going to wish I hadn't done it.

Um, however, it's not a cure.

But if I can get this one extra scan done, it's a special scan that puts some juice in you just to find out if the plto can get to the tumors.

You can't get to everything.

But if it can or it can get to the tumors that matter the most, have the most lifestyle effect, then I can stall until AI gets up to speed.

I do think that AI is going to cure most cancers.

I do think so.

Maybe not in six months, maybe not in a year, maybe in two to five.

So, so my uh you know my my Hail Mary is if I can figure out how to use current technology to stay alive two years, I might, no guarantees, I might be able to bridge it to something closer to an AR treatment or um AI treatment or an AI cure.

So that that's my current plan.

So I have a nonzero chance of making a several years.

If if none of that works, if I can't get on the plto, maybe six year uh maybe six months left, my guess 6 months to a year at most, but we'll see.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is looking to start an AI um healthcare service.

So they're they not only are part owner of OpenAI and Chat GBT, but they don't want to be reliant on Chat.

Gpt apparently for everything.

So they're building their own version that they'll work into their co-pilot program and essentially try to turn it into as much of a doctor as they can.

So everybody's got their own private AI doctor.

Here's the problem.

They want to build this thing based on the Harvard Health Publishing Arm.

Um, and maybe that's also where they're getting their their um I guess their most reliable healthc care information.

But according to everything that I've seen about scientific studies lately, correct me if I'm wrong, but if AI trained itself on scientific studies, both both existing ones that have informed what drugs are available, but also new ones that would tell us what's coming up, wouldn't it be wrong up to 50% of the time?

How do you train AI to be smarter than humans when you're training it on studies that we know a full half of them are fraudulent, but we don't always know which half?

Would AI know which half?

Not really, because AI is only going to look at the published studies.

It's not going to look into the data.

It's not going to find out if the publisher is a crook.

Uh, all that stuff.

So, how does Microsoft get to or anybody get to an AI doctor when it's being trained on 50% incorrect data and it doesn't know which half is incorrect?

It's the same problem with humans.

So, maybe it's no worse than humans.

Might be better than humans, but I don't see how you get to AI when you're being trained on dumb a dumb AI.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk got another $20 billion of funding led by Nvidia.

So, Nvidia's going in on a lot of the uh AI companies because they want them to succeed so they can sell them more chips.

Um, and Elon Musk was saying something on X that uh the the winner in the AI race will be I'll paraphrase him, but it's basically whoever builds the biggest data centers and buys the most chips and puts the most cash into it uh will be the winner.

Now, there will be more than one winner in the AI domain.

I'm pretty sure.

I mean, I hope so.

Uh but there won't be that many and it will definitely make a difference if you're the number one winner or the number three winner.

So he's trying to be number one.

I like his chances.

Um but what I wondered is if AI as a business is unique in that there's no way to put a moat around it.

You know, Facebook has its own moat because once everybody gets on there, there's there's a network effect.

And even if somebody built the Facebook competitor, which of course they tried, your friends wouldn't be there.

So that's like a moat that protects Facebook just by getting there first.

And the other social media, too.

Now, um there are lots of other big tech that you could say the same thing.

It's like, whoa, once they got there, nobody could really catch up.

Like nobody really made a search engine as good as Google, you know?

Although it looks like that's happening with AI.

So my question is, is it possible, I'm just speculating here, that AI would be the first mega giant civilization changing technology that could never be moed.

And the reason I think it could never be moed is because uh startups will also have AI.

and the startups.

Somebody, this is my prediction, somebody fairly soon, maybe in the next five years, will spend $1 billion to recreate what it took Elon and Chad GBT a trillion dollars to get to.

Anybody want to take the other side of that bet?

Within 5 years, an AI startup will match the biggest AI spending $1 billion to get there where the big AIs have put down 1 trillion and are figuring some way to monetize it.

1 billion to1 trillion.

That's my that's my prediction.

So, if that's true, and we don't know that that's true, how would the big companies ever protect themselves?

Is it just owning the biggest data center?

Because if the small company figures out a way to do it with a small data center, how do they compete with the big data center?

I don't know.

I guess they buy that little company and put them out of business.

Oh yeah, that would work.

I just realized that the big AI companies would just buy the billiondoll startup and put it out of business and steal their tech.

Anyway, so maybe there is a moat.

According to Rasmusen poll, only 48% of adults under 30 have a full-time job.

According to Michael Schneider, who's writing the economic collapse?

Does that sound like a problem to you that only 48% of people under 30 have a full-time job?

Well, first you would have to subtract the people in college, right?

The people in college almost never have full-time jobs, but a lot of them have part-time jobs.

So, but that's the people in college under 30 would be I don't know 10% of them.

So, that that that's not most of them.

Um, but I do wonder if the time in history is sort of weirdly perfect that uh there are a lot of unemployed young people for reasons that probably have nothing to do with AI, but AI is going to make a lot of people maybe undermployed.

Uh maybe part-time work is what we all want and then AI fills in for the rest.

Would would you be happy if you had no job?

Some of you would.

I wouldn't be happy with no job.

I you know even if let's say I lost you know my current career completely and but I but AI was giving me enough money to live and I had a house and everything.

I would do a part-time job and I would I would be happy that I had it and and it could be working at Starbucks or something.

But I'm definitely going to have to get out of the house.

I'm going to have to do something.

I mean, I'm not going to sit around and pet my cats and wait for my, you know, universal uh payment check to come in and the robots to clean my house.

What kind of life is that?

So, I feel like uh we're moving toward almost everybody will have a part-time job because the AI will do the other part of the job.

China is uh allegedly tightening up on their sales of rare earth materials.

Um this might be preparing for a meeting with Trump so they have more leverage.

Haha, you can't get our rare earth materials.

So they're doing a number of things to make it harder for anybody to cheat and send out any rare earth materials from China that they don't know about.

Um given that that seems to be China's primary leverage over us more so than almost everything else is this rare earth material stuff.

Uh whatever we're doing to uh take that leverage away.

We really need to do that quickly.

What whatever we think is our biggest problem in the world.

It might be this.

It might be the biggest problem in the world that China has us by the rare earth materials if you know what I mean.

So I do see the government doing what looks like a lot of stuff to open up mines and get past regulations and partner with companies and you know that need a little help and all that.

So, I do think they're putting a lot of effort into it, but it seems like the right amount of effort would be just, you know, all hands on deck kind of thing.

So, I don't know if we're up up to that challenge yet, but we're probably heading there.

Well, I saw a meme that I was so impressed with.

Um, I've told you before you should follow a user called Maze.

M A Z.

If you're looking for his account, it's Maze Moore.

M A Z E M O O R E all one word.

And he found and I don't know how he did this exactly.

There must be some kind of video search engine I don't know about.

But he found uh I think there were like eight different interviews in which Rob Reiner was saying uh let's see several years ago he said in an interview we've got 241 years of self-ruule that basically depends on keeping Trump out of office.

So he was saying 241 years of self-ruule in the United States and Trump's going to take it all away.

And then the year after he said, "We only have 242 years of self-ruule and Trump's going to take it away." And the next year he said, "We got 243 years of self-ruule, but this Trump's going to take it away." And then the next year he said, well, he got all the way up to 249 years.

And then the last one was teasing was teasing that I don't know if we'll make it to 250 years.

Now it gets funnier as you go along.

When you read the first one, you're like, I don't why are you even doing this?

Then the second one is incremented by one year.

You go, okay, is this what I think?

Then the third one is incremented by one year.

And then you start laughing.

And then every time it goes up a year, you laugh harder.

And you realize that for 10 years, he's been saying that we're going to lose our freedom any minute now.

for 10 years in a row and basically nothing's different.

You we think now he says we only have a year to correct our 250 year experiment.

Well, what's going to happen if we don't correct it?

Will the border get closed and the GDP be 3.7 and uh will there be peace in uh Gaza?

Is that what he's worried about?

Poor stupid bastard.

Uh, and then yeah, there there's definitely something happening here.

Uh, John Stewart, who of course is, you know, no friend to Mega, but to his credit, he's also a pretty straight shooter, like, you know, he he is willing to say things unpopular if if they ring as true.

So he is a special kind of character somewhat like Bill Maher that uh they're you know braver than most people uh who would identify more with the left than the right but uh he's going after Chuck Schumer.

He he's made fun of Chuck Schumer being a you know bad uh face of the Democrats because he has to be a Democrat.

Uh Okay.

Um, but now, uh, John Stewart just did a piece where he called Chuck Schumer, quote, "A human flat tire." Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be to be a, you know, real serious Democrat and then watch the face of your movement be uh, Chuck Schumer?

How would that feel to you?

And this has nothing to do with policies or anything else.

Would you want that guy to be the face of your party?

I mean, seriously, even John Stewart is saying, "Ah, we got to do better than this.

We got to do better than this." Anyway, in other news, uh, former FBI director James Comey has pled not guilty um on charges of making false statements to Congress.

He did not get a burp walk.

His home was not invaded at 6:00 a.m.

Nobody handcuffed him, as far as I know.

So, it's kind of a quiet news story that doesn't have much of a visual element to it.

Um, I'm I'm expecting him not to be guilty.

What do you think?

Or maybe the case will even be thrown out for, you know, lack of lack of something.

I don't think there's really any chance that he's going to get convicted.

I don't know.

Um maybe.

I mean, it's not impossible.

I I just don't think the world works that way.

I I think even if they have him dead to rights, they're just going to say, "Ah." And there'll be at least one juror who said, "Ah, you know, I'm not going to convict him just for that.

Everybody lies." All you need is one one juror who says, "Everybody lies.

And that's it.

Trump lies.

Why isn't he in jail?

All these other people lied.

Why aren't they in jail?

So, I'm just going to put this one guy in jail.

The one guy.

Everybody's lying to Congress all the time, but I'm going to put this one guy in jail.

Honestly, if you put me on the jury, I don't know that I would convict him, even if I thought he was guilty.

I'm being honest because I like to live in a world where where there's at least some consistency, right?

And and if if I knew that tons of famous people on both sides had lied to Congress for years and years, would I care that uh somebody like Navaro or Bannon went to jail for not talking to Congress or uh I guess they went for not talking, not for lying.

That's different.

Um, I don't know.

I I feel like as a juror, I might just say, "Go screw yourself.

If you're just going to put this one guy in jail, that looks like lawfare to me.

I'm not in favor of that." Now, that would be if I'm a juror, but I'm not a juror.

So, I get to sort of look at it with my dispassionate, not my responsibility kind of public opinion.

My public opinion is that you can lawfare the lawfarers but not anybody else.

All right.

I don't want to see anybody getting lawfared because you don't like their politics.

No way.

That's Yeah.

It wouldn't matter if they had a technical violation.

No way.

I'd find him guilty if it was just lawfaring.

But if you're lawfairing the person who tried to lawfare you literally out of office as the presidency and into jail, yeah, lawfare him as much as you want.

I I call that fair.

I don't know if I'd call it fair if I'm on the jury.

But from my current perspective, yeah, lawfare the laws.

Absolutely.

Dana Bash was uh talking to Nancy Pelosi and uh her last name sounded right.

She actually bashed her.

So uh Dana Bash points out that the Republicans um I'll just read it.

Republicans are voting yes to open the government.

All right, this is CNN Dana Bash.

She's saying to Pelosi, Republicans are voting yes to open the government.

Democrats are voting no.

So how are they shutting down the government?

Republicans.

It's a pretty good question, right?

So the the the yes would be on the continuing resolution that just keeps things the way they are funded for 7 weeks until they start arguing about the new budget on the schedule that they plan to argue about it.

So, so yes, all the all the Democrats would have to do is sign the thing that says, "Oh, we'll just pay everybody for another seven weeks, then everybody gets their Obamacare subsidies.

Nobody loses anything.

Everybody gets a paycheck." That's what the Republicans want.

And the Democrats are keeping it shut.

So, was that a fair question from CNN?

Yeah.

Yeah, that's a fair question.

How are you saying that the Democrats are shutting it down when all the Democrats have to do is sign this document that keeps everything exactly the same, which is what they're asking for at least 7 weeks until you can work out the details.

And what did Pelosi say when challenged with that?

She said, "It's not a clean CR.

A clean one means all it does is say we're going to continue the way we were." A non-clean one would be adding things.

But the whole point of the CR is that it doesn't add things.

That is what it is.

It's a thing that doesn't add things.

That's exactly what it is.

A clean CR.

Nothing added.

The Republicans know they can't add and get away with it.

Of course, there's nothing added.

And they're also smart enough to know that if they give the Democrats what they're asking for, they'll still say no.

And they did.

And even CNN isn't going to let Pelosi get away with that.

So So Bash says, "What's not clean about the CR?

What do you think Pelosi said?" I quote, "The point is, would you like me to repeat that again?" Pelosy's answer was the point is end quote destroyed.

That's what I call getting Dana bashed.

In other news, the White House says if the government doesn't reopen that it will use maybe tariff money to pay for some of the nutritional programs that are very important that are being cut.

So the so the White House will be able to say, "Well, we're not monsters." So we're going to make sure that, you know, people are eating.

Um, and we can do that with some tariff revenue because I'm so darn smart.

I've got all these tariffs and it created this money that's not spoken for.

And why don't we just use that to plug the gap?

I mean, better better would be you sign the clean CR and then everybody gets what they want right away.

That's better.

But if you Democrats are going to starve people, well, we'll we'll feed them.

And we we found a clever way to do it that only Trump could do.

Tariff money.

It's pretty good.

That's pretty good politicking right there.

Anyway, in other news, the Palisades fire starting bastard has been caught.

It's a 26 year old or 28 or something.

young guy with long hair looks to have mental problems would be my guess.

U based on that on the fact that he speaks French.

No, I'm just kidding.

I'm just kidding.

But he does speak French.

I don't know what that means.

But uh anyway, this uh young man set the fire on I guess it was the first of the year, but it was spotted and the fire department uh put it out before it injured any structures.

had burned a lot of grass, but they got it all out.

Well, not all out, but they thought they put it out and then they monitored it for a while because that's that's the uh protocol.

They know that sometimes the fire will have some underground smoldering things that they can't detect.

So, they hang around a little while just to make sure the smoldering doesn't take off.

However, uh depending who you talk to, which fire experts, they will tell you that the fire department did not stay there long enough.

Now, some would say that you need to stay there, I don't know, 36 hours.

Some would say, "No, that's not even close.

You might need to stay there for two weeks." I think that was the other estimate.

So, they definitely didn't stay there for two weeks, but they did stay there, you know, more than more than just putting out the fire.

So, nobody has been found uh let's say guilty in any kind of a lawsuit, but I think some of them might still be pending.

So, the LA Fire Department probably has some some questions to answer because there there does seem to be some alleged certainty by the at least by the police that they definitely got the guy.

He definitely set the fire.

It definitely was put out and it definitely recurred, you know, some days later.

So, is that enough for the fire department to get sued?

I don't know.

Guess we'll find out.

Somebody sent me a uh a clip yesterday that uh it cut out the mention of my name, but it was about me in one part.

There was a a comic Dave Smith talking to provocative Nick Fuentes.

Both of them are provocative I guess.

And uh so Dave Smith mentioned me and uh a story about he he saw what I shockingly said to get cancelled in 2023 and his first reaction was oh man you you know went too far.

So his his first reaction was like most people's you know some form of disgust and shock and condemnation but but then he said I wasn't expecting this he said that a minute later he realized that uh what I had advised which is to get away from people who say they don't like you which seemed like just reasonably good advice in all situations to stay away from people who say who say they don't like you.

Not people you suspect, but if there's a, you know, 30 or 40% of some group that you know says, "I don't even think you should exist or there's something wrong with you," you should stay away from them.

Doesn't matter who it is.

Doesn't matter at all who it is, you should just always take that advice.

So, uh, anyway, Dave Smith said, "A minute later, I realized that that's what I had done." Meaning what he had done.

And then he tells the story of looking for a a place to move with his wife and I guess children.

And they were looking for a good school.

And he humorously tells the story of looking at uh I guess a school they ended up picking.

And it was a I'm paraphrasing so this is not exactly what he said, but it was stuff like okay their uh their college acceptance A+, you know, their their math teaching A+, their their English teaching A+.

And then it got to the bottom of the list.

It was like they got a grade for diversity and their diversity was I think Dminus and uh comic Dave Smith jokes that's the one.

So they picked the one that had the highest academic standards and the lowest diversity.

And he liked both of those things.

and he joked that uh unfortunately, you know, again, I'm paraphrasing, the the the level of diversity can really reliably tell you what the life would be like in that school and that he wanted didn't want that for his children.

So, uh I feel like that was one of the more honest things that anybody said this year.

And that's that's pretty honest.

I will also go so far as to say 100% of all adult humans did the same thing.

All of them, black, white, Asian, all of them.

Every single person who was trying to get their kid into a good school if they if they had the ability to move.

Not everybody has the ability to move, but the ones who had the ability to move, you don't think they looked at the quality of the school first.

You don't think they looked at the diversity to see if their kid fits in?

I mean, if you had a black kid, you'd want enough diversity that they feel comfortable.

So, it's, you know, you're not always going the same way.

But, aren't you making the decision based on diversity?

Of course you are.

Every single person, black, white, rich, poor, everyone.

You just admitted it.

So, that was fun.

And then just because I was having fun watching the uh uh the people who were the most uh provocative, I I was watching a clip of Candace, Candace Owens.

Now, I've told you I have a very positive um just personal feeling about Candace, having just met her once.

She's very warm.

And uh so I turned it on and it was, you know, a whole episode.

It wasn't a clip.

It was like a whole long episode.

I watched every minute of it, which I almost never do.

I don't watch usually the whole episode of anything, but so I'm grateful that you do, but uh I usually can't hang.

But oh my god, is she talented.

If any of you had the same reaction, her voice is just perfect.

Her her mastery of her topic, impressive.

the ability uh the ability to find like a an angle on something or a point of view that you haven't seen everywhere else.

Amazing.

Um the fluency with which she communicates.

Oh my god.

So smart.

So smart.

So talented.

I I watched that show and sat there thinking I need to get out of this business because I'm not I'm nowhere near that, right?

I say great things about um Megan Kelly and of course Joe Joe Rogan's a legend and you know, you can name a bunch of others.

Tucker is amazing.

You know, just talent wise, you don't have to agree with everything they say.

Just talent-wise, but she might be the best of all.

She might be the best in in the entire business.

She might be the best.

And one of the ways I judge that is if every minute is interesting, and it actually is.

Now, let me say clearly, I do not believe Breijit Mcronone has a penis.

I don't believe that at all.

But when you see how well she supports that theory, that is entertaining.

All right?

If you're not entertained by that, I don't know what it takes to entertain you, but that's entertaining.

Now, uh, when she suggests but does not say that, she's sort of open to the possibility that some foreign entity was involved in the Charlie Kirk murder.

And she doesn't have to say it, but we all know based on the context that she's thinking that maybe Israel had some involvement in that cuz Charlie had turned against Israel at the end.

And that would be a pretty big risk for Israel because he would be important enough that if they lost him, that could be very expensive for Israel.

So, she did demonstrate that they have a motive.

I didn't expect that.

She actually successfully demonstrated that Israel had a motive to kill him, which is not funny, but I I'm just sort of like so impressed how well she can bring things together that I don't believe, but still, you know, quite expertly uh sort of teased.

So, um and I told you yesterday, I don't believe there's any chance that Israel was involved because they're way too smart.

Nanyahu especially way too smart to do something that if there was even a 1% chance you get caught that would be the end of the game.

That that would be a dumb risk management versus just trying to deal with him and you know bring him back you know bring him back to a positive opinion.

Much more doable much less risk than trying to off him.

You know even if you thought you could hide your tracks no that's too risky.

So, I don't believe it all.

And uh the the one thing you should keep in mind when you watch um any of the top influencers when they've got a they've got a point of view that is not common and it's not held by other people.

Two things I want to teach you about persuasion that I've mentioned before, but every time you hear them in context and applied to a real world thing, they get a little stronger in your mind.

Number one, the documentary effect, which I mention all the time.

The documentary effect means that if you're listening to one point of view for an hour, you're going to kind of come away thinking it's true because you listen to one point of view for an hour.

It has nothing to do with how true it is.

It will just seem more and more true the longer you watch.

That's just what the documentary does.

So Candace is sort of a, you know, an example.

It's not a documentary, but you know what I mean.

It's one point of view for an extended period.

So yes, that's going to be very persuasive coming from, in my opinion, maybe one of the best communicators who's ever been alive.

I mean, she's really good.

Um, the other example is the other thing you need to know is the Bible code.

Again, I've mentioned it, but every time you see an example of it, it's it reinforces it.

The Bible code was years ago, it might have been the 60s or 70s, I forget.

Somebody wrote a book called the Bible Code in which they found that uh you could determine that the Bible, you know, the regular King James Bible, had a bunch of hidden codes in it that could have only come from God.

And they gave all kinds of examples.

They said, "All right, uh, and I I'll make up this example, but it's stuff like if you took the first word of the page and then the second word of the second sentence, but the third word of the third sentence, they would form a prediction, which you can see in history actually came true." It'd be like big bomb 1949, whatever it is.

Uh, and then you say, "Yes, it was forecasting the nuclear bomb." And the trouble was that although those codes did in fact exist, you could go look for yourself.

They would say, "All right, yeah, well, sure enough, third word, second word on the next page." You know, if you follow this algorithm, it does make a sentence and it does predict because you can see for yourself that it happened.

Do you know how the Bible code was debunked?

Somebody took their algorithm and applied it to war and peace and it also made a lot of predictions that came true.

In other words, you can take any big body of anything that's complicated.

Could be a book, could be a story, could be a real world event, and you can always find what looks like circumstantial evidence to any thing you want.

Do you do you want do you want me to prove that uh aliens were complicit in uh killing somebody?

I could probably do it.

I I could find all kinds of Well, did you know that there was a report of an alien in the area that day?

Did you know that there were reports of aliens in other places where people were murdered?

I mean, it would look like that.

So pretty soon I could build this story of all this circumstantial evidence that would be so so compelling to you that you would really think the aliens were involved.

So when you watch Candice, remember the documentary effect means that it will be convincing because it's long and because she's really really good at this, like really good.

And secondly, if you say, "But Scott, the evidence is real." Like, you could check it yourself.

There's the the text message, you know, all that.

And I would say, "Yep.

Yep.

The Bible code guarantees that any complex situation will have multiple hypotheses that all seem to have evidence." That's the whole point of a court case.

Do you know that you know the defense in a court case is going to have a version of events with a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence to show the person is innocent.

The the uh prosecution will have a whole bunch of stories of circumstantial evidence that says they're guilty.

So in every case you can make the case and the opposite case if it's a complicated situation something like a book and the Charlie situation is complicated enough that that that's possible.

Anyway, if you haven't watched uh um Kansas's show, I recommend it.

It's it's tremendous.

But be careful.

All right.

Uh there was this uh meeting that Trump was at to I guess talk about the looking into the sources of Antifa funding and I had a bunch of uh independent journalists who were there.

Some of them had had run-ins with Antifa I guess and one of them Brandy Cruz said quote I'm living proof that you can recover from TDS.

So she said this in front of the room and in front of Trump.

She said, "Uh, I think I even got a little more attractive after I get rid of my Trump derangement syndrome." Boy, talk about saying something that is going to amuse Trump.

Trump couldn't get the smile off his face.

I think he agreed with her that she became more attractive.

Um anyway, so if I had to give some advice to Brandy, who went from a anti-Trumper TDS person to a oh maybe I was wrong about all that.

Maybe Trump is the way.

Uh if I had to give her some advice, you know what I'd say?

You know, all of her old friends, the Democrats she was hanging around with, what do you think they're going to think of her now that she's come out as a mega supporting person?

Do you think all of her friends are going to be okay with her?

You think they'll invite her to parties now?

No.

Do you know you want advice I would give her?

Get the away from Democrats.

Just get the away because you know that at least 60% of them are going to think you're garbage because you like Omega.

Forget it.

You're going to have to get away from those Democrats.

That's what I did when when I first became known as a Trump supporter.

I lost pretty much my entire social structure.

Everything except family and and just, you know, a handful of close friends.

But mostly I lost my entire Democrat structure because I didn't even know the politics of my friends.

Do you know that?

For years and we'd spend, you know, massive amount of times together.

I didn't know their politics.

No idea.

Cuz it never came up.

But boy, when it came up, I I could feel the hatred.

Not from all of them, of course, but you could feel it.

And what did I do?

I got the away.

And and I would give this advice.

People think that this is somehow limited to the one situation where there was a there was a Raspmanson poll that said something like 30 or 40% of black people said it wasn't okay to be black.

And then I said the word that gets forgotten.

If when people tell my story, they always leave out if.

Have you noticed that?

It's the most important word.

I said, "If this poll is accurate," and couple years later they redid it with a bigger sample.

It was accurate.

Um, I said, "If it's accurate, you should stay away from uh groups of people if 40% of them think it's not okay to be you.

It wouldn't matter if they're black.

It wouldn't matter if they're LGBTQ.

It wouldn't matter if they were a bunch of uh Democrats who are your best friends." That was my case.

It was a bunch of Democrats.

They were all all different from different countries.

And by the way, uh a a vast percentage of my closest friends were born in other countries or their parents were born in other countries.

So they they had that, you know, the immigrant anti-Trump view.

I understand it.

But why would I spend time around it?

Would it make sense for me to spend time around it?

Now I only had one only had one family friend who said directly um don't want to spend time with you.

What did I do when my one friend very close friend said you know it's better if we don't spend time together because of my cancellation.

Do you know what I said?

I said, 'Fine, blocked the phone and will never talk to them again for the rest of my life.

I'm going to stay the away from them.

Why would I spend a minute with somebody who would harbor that feeling about me, even if they were nice enough not to say it out loud?

The minute you find somebody dislikes you on that level, get the away from them.

And I'm not going to ever change that advice.

Why?

because you all agree with me.

Everyone who cancels me also agrees with me.

Everyone Every person who cancelled me.

Everyone agrees with me 100%.

If they listen to what I said, if they if they heard a version of the context, then that's different.

But if they listen to what I said, I have never once insulted black people.

That's never happened.

Would you agree?

you you're the ones who watch me the closest.

Have I ever insulted black people?

Never.

I love black people like on an individual basis.

All good experiences.

All good.

Anyway, but groupwise, you can you can act differently in group decisions versus individual decisions.

Of course, never never discriminate against an individual.

That's bad for them and it's limiting your own choices.

Why would you limit your own choices, you know, unless you believe that like every single person in one group is going to be worse than every single person in another group?

And nobody thinks that.

Literally nobody thinks that.

So yeah, don't don't discriminate individuals, but groups.

Yeah, totally.

Um, if it's for your safety, that's the only good reason.

Um, during that same meeting talking about Antifa, somebody asked Trump if he would designate Antifa as a foreign terrorist organization.

They're already designated as a domestic terror organization.

And Trump did that Trumpy thing, which I love so much.

He he looks at his top adviserss who are also in the room.

He goes, "Is that a good idea?

Should I do that?

And one adviser says, "Yes." And he looks at the next one while we're all watching.

It's televised.

We're all watching.

Goes to the next one.

Is that a good idea?

Should we do that?

Yes.

Should we do that?

I think he looked at three or maybe four and they all said, you know, "Yes." He goes, "All right.

Yeah, I think we'll do that." Now, did did you see that moment where where you watched him take a public comment and turn it into a policy?

Because it was two words.

Two words.

What was it?

Describe what you saw in two words.

Common sense.

Somebody Somebody gave him a total common sense suggestion, which apparently he had not noodled on before.

He recognized it as common sense.

He tested it with three or four people live.

They all seemed to give answers that would suggest it's compatible with common sense.

And then he said yes.

It was in a weird way.

It was the smallest thing that happened yesterday, but boy was it impressive.

All right.

You know, you maybe you have to be pro.

Trump to be as impressed at it as I was.

Was it Jack?

Was it Jack Basabek who who mentioned the the international thing?

I didn't catch who said it.

But anyway, if you've ever seen anybody president more impressively than that in front of you, I'd love to hear the example because that was that was solid presidenting right there.

And uh Nick Sorter was there with his semi burned flag.

And uh Trump suggested that Bondi should prosecute the person who was burning the flag under the theory that I don't think is proven.

So I don't think he I don't think he would be prosecuted, but uh that the flag burner was the one who incited maybe more trouble.

So the current situation, as I understand it, is that it's still 100% legal to burn a flag.

If you're only doing it to make a point, but if you're doing it as part of inciting violence or maybe some other kind of damaging trouble, then uh then it would be considered um inciting violence.

So then it would move out of the free speech category into the you know the special illegal category.

So, I don't believe I could be talked out of this, but I don't believe the flag burner made much difference to the overall event.

I think it was just a sideeshow at a bigger event.

If that's the case, then I would not want that person to go to jail, unfortunately, then it's just free speech.

Um, but we'll see.

Uh remember I always tell you that one of the things I like about Trump is that if there are two positions to take on any issue and one of them is the strong position and the other is sort of weak he'll take the strong position every time even if it's not the winning position and this might not be the winning position because I don't know that there's enough to convict but he took the strong position and uh what you'll will remember about Trump when all the fog clears is that he was the strongest leader.

You won't remember that maybe that court case didn't work out.

You'll just remember he always took the strong side and it was the strong side on behalf of America.

You don't forget the person who always takes your side even stronger than you do.

You don't forget that person.

Anyway, I guess the White House uh released the names of people, rich people funding Antifa.

Who do you think it was?

If you guessed it was a network of NOS's, you'd be right.

If you guessed that hund00 million of taxpayer money somehow got funneled through NOS's that got funneled into Antifa, meaning that your taxpayers, that your tax money is paying the people trying to kill you.

Well, trying to destroy your system, which would end up in a lot of us dying.

Uh, you'd be right.

But also, if you guessed George Soros, you'd be right.

If you guessed Arabella Funding Network, you may have heard some of these names before.

The Tidesh Fishing Network.

Um, they were involved.

They funded allegedly.

Neville Royal Roy Singum.

I don't know who he is, but he's got a network.

And then there's this Swiss billionaire guy who's like a hundred years old, uh, Johan George Hansor.

Some for some reason there's some Swiss billionaire who cares deeply about destroying America by funding all the wrong people.

What's up with that guy?

Yeah, I I don't see how we let foreigners do that.

But um then there's a bunch of additional foreign cash and other other stuff.

So I am impressed that the uh Trump administration is going after the funding but also finding it.

So if you imagine that Antifa is not a real organization, who's getting the money?

If it's not a real organization, who are they funding?

What is there to fund?

There's no organization there, right?

But apparently there is an organization and they're taking in a lot of money.

Well, here's a story that could be gigantic, but I never even heard about it until uh yesterday.

Um I saw a post by Eric Dohy.

Good follow, by the way.

Um if you want to get independent uh journalist kind of stuff.

Uh, Eric Dhorty, spelled D A U G H E R T, spelled like daughter with a Y on the end.

Um, so it turns out that the Supreme Court is going to vote on uh abolishing a specific part of the Voting Rights Act that allowed special uh districts to be allocated for black voters.

Um, well, they say for minorities, but I suspect the majority of that was for the benefit of the black community.

But the just did you even know this?

I didn't know this was a thing that there were districts that were drawn for minorities to favor Democrats.

Um, so I guess the idea was to make sure that minorities did not get closed down of having representation by a bunch of white people redistricting because you could redistrict, you know, to cut up the black neighborhoods so that, you know, they would never be able to elect a black leader because there just wouldn't be enough black people in any one uh one voting area.

So it looks like in order to protect against discrimination in redistricting, uh the the law allowed them to redistrict for the purpose of making sure that black voters, I think mostly black, um had representation.

Now, like most things, that sounds like kind of a good idea, right?

If you have a real problem with black representation being eliminated, you know, intentionally by redistricting, yeah, I think I think I would have been in favor of this actually, you know, if you took me back in time.

But it is time to re reassess because I don't know that uh that Republicans would do that in 2025, especially if it's really obvious.

You know, the the other way to handle it is not to make it illegal, but make it public and say, "Look, look what these dirty Republicans did.

We Democrats would never do something that bad to you." So, I feel like uh this might be exactly the right time to overturn it.

Um and not because it didn't have a purpose.

I would say the same thing with um with with all of the racial improvements that have been made over time.

There's a time to do it when you need the tourniquet.

Like things are just so bad.

You got to you got to eliminate racism or not racism.

You got to eliminate slavery.

Like you just got to do that.

You got to eliminate J, you know, Jim Crow.

You got to you got to make sure that black people have a you know seat at the table and that they can get interviewed like everybody else and if they've got the skills they can get the job.

All that's great in its time.

So the only question is not whether those were good ideas but whether they currently match the time.

And I don't think that they currently match the time.

I think we have other better ways to handle that sort of thing.

But but we'll see.

There's a good chance that that will happen and that would result in 19 more Republican House seats potentially.

I think they'd still have to redistrict to get it, but uh imagine getting 19 more Republican seats in the House before the midterms.

That would pretty much guarantee the Republicans keep the House.

Um, so I I can't believe I didn't know about that story before.

Um, I saw a suggestion by a user on X, nobody famous, that I thought was so good.

It's one of those examples where maybe the magic of social media could work.

So, uh, I have a largestish account on X, which means a lot of people will see what I what I post, but I also read and consume a lot of smaller accounts.

Usually, they're commenting, right?

I'll see them in my comments.

So, that that creates a system where I can see an individual who's not famous or noted for anything.

they can talk to me then people will see me because I'm you know more public and 1.3 million people I can guarantee that important people in the administration not all of them but important people will see my show or see my ex my ex posts and then if the idea is so good that the individual gets to me I'm impressed I post it goes to somebody maybe on the way have a staff.

They're impressed.

Next thing you know, something happens.

Now, this might be one of those.

So, let me tell you the situation.

The suggestion is from a user on X uh named Misty Sunrise.

Again, don't know anything about the person.

It's just a user on X.

Misty Sunrise had this suggestion talking about uh Trump surging the forces into the cities for a crime.

Um, Misty said they need to frame these as quote gun violence reduction missions.

You feel it already?

And she goes on or he goes out, I don't know who Misty is, but uh, white female voters love to virtue signal on the gun violence issue.

So connecting the National Guard deployments to the zip codes with the highest rates of gun violence would be powerful.

We need a map to go along with it.

Zip codes with highest rates of gun violence and National Guard deployments.

Okay.

Do you feel that?

You feel that, right?

There's some suggestions that you feel.

I feel that.

meaning that how in the world did we miss the point that um you know each time they do one of these surges, one of the one of the data points that they always report is the number of guns confiscated, right?

If if if you're trying to satisfy the proun crowd, MAGA, and you're also trying to do as best you can to satisfy the Democrats because they're they're citizens, right?

they they get service too.

Uh if you're trying to satisfy everyone, how did we miss the fact that we're doing it and it's not being highlighted?

Now, it could be remember Trump Trump reads the room better than anybody.

So, it could be that he doesn't want to open that anti-gun box.

you know, maybe just give the data, but don't frame it as anti-gun because then it you maybe it just starts a whole anti-gun thing.

So maybe he just wants to avoid the topic.

But when I saw this, I thought to myself, okay, I don't know about Portland.

I don't know if there's a lot of gun violence in Portland, so it might not work for every city who wants to surge.

And I and I honestly I think Portland's a little overdone.

I I just don't know there's that big a problem in Portland, but you know, politically it works.

Um, but if they pivoted, they wouldn't have to make every deployment about guns.

But if they said, uh, the one thing that MAGA and Democrats will agree on is that the criminals should not have guns.

So, we're going to at least do the thing we all agree on.

and you just make it a gun reduction thing instead of a crime reduction thing instead of just a violence reduction thing, which it also is.

But I think the the illegal gun reduction is just sort of irresistible for Democrats, is it not?

So, here's my suggestion from Misty Sunrise.

Maybe the administration should think about highlighting what they're doing to reduce gun violence because they're doing it the way Republicans like to reduce gun violence.

Take them away from criminals.

Put the criminals who do gun violence in jail.

You know, that doesn't solve everybody's problem.

But how do we disagree on that?

There's no disagreement on that.

You know, even if you said, "Oh, I don't like the federal, you know, the feds coming in and scaring everybody with masks and all that." Well, if what they're doing is removing illegal guns, you're going to put up with the masks a lot a lot more easily.

By the way, is it illegal for the bad the people on the streets to wear a mask or is it only illegal for the people putting trying to stop them?

I I wasn't clear on that.

Well, you've seen some uh per some uh online influencers, podcasters say things like the US is on the brink of civil war.

You've heard Tucker talk about it.

Tim P's talked about it.

I don't think he's predicting it per se, but sort of warning about it.

Um, I'm going to be I've seen enough this and I don't want this to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy which I worry about.

In my opinion, there's no chance of a civil war.

Do you know why?

Who would you shoot?

Who the hell are you going to shoot?

If it started tomorrow, what would you do?

We it's not like we have some big issue, you know, like slavery or, you know, some some nations are trying to withdraw from the union or or who would you shoot?

Your neighbors.

You just go out in the lawn and start blazing away at your neighbor's house.

The There's something missing with the whole civil war thing.

There's there's nobody forming a militia, right?

There's no militia being formed.

At least, you know, there might be somebody in some forest somewhere, but no, nobody's going to be a risk to the system.

You You're going to have to connect a lot more dots before you can get me to worry about a civil war.

Right now, civil war is my smallest smallest concern.

I think everything is a bigger risk than that.

Everything.

Now, I will make you this promise.

uh if there became a bigger risk, you know, whether it's Antifa gets bigger or whatever, if it becomes a bigger risk, I will spend more time persuading it out of out of business.

And and I think that one of the things that we have today not everybody fully recognizes is that the influencers can stop a civil war.

I believe the influencers are getting a little bit reckless in warning us that one might happen because you know the self-fulfilling prophecy thing once you get it in your head things become possible just because they're in your head.

So there is a little extra danger in talking it up.

But what we have now is people like me.

There's no way to there's no way for me to tell this story without making it about me.

So, I apologize in advance.

You don't think You don't think I could stop a civil war?

I probably could.

The I could do it the misty sunrise way.

It's not that I have influence.

It's that if I say something that makes common sense to you, you're going to like it.

You're going to talk to your friends.

So, as long as there are enough people like me who I guarantee you I'm going to be looking to stop a civil war if it got anywhere near, there'll be others like me and we would be powerful enough to stop a civil war.

Collectively, not me by myself.

But collectively, yeah, we could stop a civil war now.

I'm sure of it.

I don't even think the government could pull it off or a militia could pull it off unless there was some kind of public support and we just make sure there isn't there just won't be.

Anyway, um Cash Patel said there's 110,000 gang members in Chicago streets.

Gateway pundits reporting that.

Do you think that's true?

110,000 gang members.

I think what might be true is that if you live in a lot of places in Chicago, you have to at least identify with a gang to be safe.

So, I don't know that that's like 110,000 gang bangers with, you know, guns in their pants working the streets and selling drugs.

It might be more, you know, grandmas in the gang and little Billy's in the gang because everybody has to be in the gang just to say stay safe.

So, I don't know what that number means, but it's a shocking number.

According to the Reese Group, domestic violence uh in California impacts 2/3 of Californians.

31% identify as survivors.

The rest that would have some family connection to it.

Does that sound right?

Do you believe that number that in California twothirds of Californians are have a domestic violence problem?

Well, I don't know how they collect that data, but if they get it from divorcees and pretty much every divorcee claims that they were domestically abused, either verbally or otherwise.

Sometimes it's both of them.

You know, both the the the husband and the wife will claim that they were domestic violence victims.

Now, I do think domestic violence is way bigger problem than maybe we all realize.

So, I'm not doubting the seriousness of it.

Just just to be clear, I'm not minimizing domestic violence.

I think it's a huge huge problem and it does affect huge numbers of people.

I just wonder how they got the data because if the way they got the data is from people who are in divorces, there's a little bit of overclaiming of domestic abuse in divorce.

In the real world, it's underclaimed.

But as soon as you get that divorce, oh, everybody's a everybody's an abuser.

Well, if you don't know that a war with Venezuela is coming, um, it looks like it is.

So, the, uh, the Senate rejected a measure that would have required Trump to seek congressional approval before authorizing further US military action in the Caribbean.

So, the Senate doesn't want Trump to have to get permission to go to war with Venezuela.

What's that tell you about the odds of war with Venezuela?

Oh, we're definitely going to have boots on the ground in Venezuela.

Now, I hope that when that happens, and it's definitely going to happen, that it's a decapitation strike and nothing else.

What I don't want to see is anything that looks like a ground war.

Not even a little bit.

But if we have an opening and we can take out the top guy and maybe, you know, several of the top lieutenants, probably worth doing under the theory that he's really a drug dealer and not a head of state.

They they would have to stay in that frame.

We're taking on a drug dealer.

So, I think that's coming.

Um, there's a story in New York Times about how Ukraine is still the most corrupt place in the world.

Now that you know that that Ukraine is still one of the most corrupt places in the world and all the government money is being stolen in different ways, don't you appreciate Trump more that he's the one who said, "We're not giving you any money.

If you want to give us money, we'll take it to sell you weapons.

But we're not going to give you more money.

You're all bunch of crooks.

I appreciate Trump for that.

Uh did you know that in the city, the Ukrainian city of Kersan that Russia would like to take but hasn't yet that what they're doing is depopulating the city with drones?

So apparently uh Kurissan used to have 300,000 people.

It's down to 65,000.

And the reporting is that the Russians are using drones with, you know, small explosives like a hand grenade to target and kill civilians so that they'll move out.

So that if they ever want to, you know, move in with their with their own forces and take over the city, there won't be anybody there.

They'll just take over an empty city.

And apparently it's working.

if they're down from 300,000 to 65,000.

And they showed a video of just some senior citizen in his SUV being targeted by a drone.

You know, he gets he sees the drone, so he gets out and he runs and the drone chases him and drops a hand grenade on him.

He he survived, but it got wounded pretty badly.

Now, that is intentional.

So that very much means that the military is trying to depopulate just kill the residents.

So it looks like the there are two parts to the uh Soviet Soviet to the Russian plan.

Just got to update my references.

The Russian plan.

Um so they're taking out more power plants.

Breitbar London's reporting this.

So uh Ukraine lost one of its thermal power plants in another attack.

Um, at the same time, Ukraine is doing the same thing, trying to take out the energy production in Russia.

So, we have a uh robot energy war, but also a robot depopulation war using robots, but it's all a robot war.

But once the robots clear out the humans from Kersan, then there'll be a robot war in Kersan.

Uh, Germany apparently is going to allow the police, according to Reuters, to shoot down drones because they still don't know what is the deal with the drones over Germany or other other European countries either.

Uh, but at least the Germans are going to let the police shoot them down.

Um, I think we're going to find out that they're domestic.

I think that's ger German people with German drones.

They're just not admitting it's them.

Um, so I think some will get shot down, but that in the end we will not learn that they were Russian.

They might be.

I wouldn't rule it out, but I think it's just a little more ordinary that it's domestic.

Or maybe most of them are domestic, but Russia had a few.

It does make sense for Russia to uh, you know, make Europe a little more nervous by showing them that they're that they're they have no air control.

That would be very nervous making.

Uh it was nervous making when we had drones in New Jersey.

If Trump had not come out and said that they're ours and I would have to live with the knowledge that we had uh drones all over our major facilities and we didn't know what to do about it.

That would have been scary.

So I don't really trust uh Trump's statement that they're all our drones.

I don't think they're aliens, but I would definitely not rule out that some of them were foreign for the very purpose of testing our air defense andor showing us that we don't have one.

So, um I would be okay if Trump or the government lied about the uh about the question of whether they're ours.

That would be an acceptable government lie because the military is not they're really not tasked with the truth.

They're tasked with lethality and keeping us safe.

So, you know, I I wouldn't mind that specific lie.

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

I went extra long because it was so good.

Um, I guess I won't need to talk to the uh local subscribers.

She got enough of me today.

So, I'm going to say goodbye to everybody.

Thanks for joining.

I will see you tomorrow.

Might even be shorter tomorrow, but better?

I don't know.

I don't know.

Could it be better?

Bye for now.

Hey everybody, come on in.

Come on in and grab a seat. Got a few

seats left. It's a special day today.

Big news. Got a lot to talk about. Grab

a beverage. You're going to need it in a

minute. I've checked your stocks. Israel

is up. US is kind of flat, a little bit

down, but

maybe that will change.

I'm feeling lucky.

All right. Probably should do a show

since you're all getting in here right

on time.

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 for

that is a cup of mug or a glass of

tanker shells inside a canine jugger

flask. A vessel of what kind? Any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid. I

like coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine hit

of the day. The thing that makes

everything better.

It's called That's right. The

simultaneous sip. Go.

I think it's more delicious when I sell

it harder. Don't you think? No.

All right. Well, I've set up a little

trap behind me

for the cats who are wandering around.

We're going to do a test to see if the

cats like laying on the blankets or in

the empty cardboard boxes between them.

So, you can keep an eye on that while I

do the show. Okay. Watch for cats.

Gee, I wonder if there's any scientific

stuff

uh that they didn't need to do because

they could have just asked me. Save a

little time. Oh, here's one from uh

Anglia Ruskin University. So, I did some

research to find out that you can unlock

autobiographical memories about your own

life. That would be the autobiographical

part. Um, by looking at an image of

yourself that the computer

makes younger. So, they can take your,

you know, your current face and while

you're looking at the computer screen,

the AI will turn it into a, you know, a

young version of you. And then they

claim that by looking at the young

version of yourself, it triggers

uh better, more extensive memories of

your life at that time.

So, did they need to do that research

or could they just have asked me, Scott,

do you think showing a picture of

somebody looking youthful would uh

increase their memories of those days?

to which I would say maybe. But you know

what? It would definitely increase

false memories.

Talk to any hypnotist. If you do this

study a 100 times in a row, a hundred

times in a row, it will create false

memories every time.

Will some of the memories also be true

and, you know, richer or deeper than if

you hadn't done this? probably. Yeah,

probably. So, so it's a combination of

Yeah, it probably works, but

the part that works would be completely

buried and obscured by the fact that you

would make up all kinds of fake memories

to satisfy the researchers. That that's

that's the If you don't believe that,

look into the Mc Martin preschool

uh legal case. Very famous case of false

memories. do a little research on false

memories and you'll know that uh that's

what's happening here. Probably probably

some real ones if they can figure out

which ones are real. Um

here comes the cats.

So, the big news, I usually do the the

technology news before the big news, but

the big news is so big apparently,

and things could change quickly, even

even while I'm doing the podcast,

there's an agreement between Hamas and

it looks like Israel and the United

States and all the other Arab countries

or Muslim countries in the area. Um cuz

that includes Turkey non non-Arab.

But

it looks like we got a deal to release

the hostages, all of them. And it looks

like it could happen Monday.

And as part of that deal, the IDF, the

Israeli military would pull back to some

agreed lines, which I think they're

still tweaking where those lines would

be. And then the rest of the, you know,

the deal that you would need to have a

permanent peace, such as what's going to

happen with the remaining Hamas leaders,

what's going to happen with their

weapons? Do they get to keep any small

weapons or or just give up the big ones?

Are they going to have any role going

forward? And well, we got some cat

action. Uh, and the question is,

um, how do we get the other stuff done?

Now, here's the first question you

should ask yourself about this.

If it's true, and it does look true,

that Hamas has agreed to release all the

hostages on Monday in return for just

Israel moving its uh line of uh of

forces.

Why would Hamas give up their only

leverage before they had gotten

agreement on the things they care about

the most? Because they don't care about

the hostages.

That's just something they were holding

for leverage, right? It's not important

to them that they have hostages.

It's only for that purpose to get the

other stuff. So why would they go

through all of this and then give back

their only leverage without getting

agreements on other stuff?

Does anybody understand that? Like how

in the world does that even make sense?

Well,

um I would submit to you that when it

comes to these uh war related issues

that the fog of war never really clears

up.

We talk about the fog of war being in,

you know, during the middle of the the

actual fighting or when the war starts

or something like that, but the fog of

war never goes away and we're still in

it. So, here's what I suspect,

but don't know, just a suspicion, that

the only way we would get to the point

we're at now where the where it looks

like they're giving hostages back for

almost nothing in return because the IDF

could pull back and then after they get

the hostages, you know, and they get

some hostages in return, they get like

2,000 hostages in return. But that's not

why they're doing it. I don't think they

care about their hostages that much. I

think they're doing it because they want

to get to the end of the war somehow. My

guess without any evidence whatsoever is

that there are some secret deals at work

and that the secret deals would look

something like

if you do this, we'll let the current

leadership that remains, you know, I

don't know what's left. We'll let you

guys leave.

uh you have to leave the area, but we'll

let you leave and you can leave with

your stolen billion dollars. So you can

be rich and you can be alive and uh you

know and then they would think, "Oh, but

I can also secretly reconstitute Hamas

once they let me free." Well, they don't

have to say that part out loud. But you

could imagine why the Hamas leadership

would take a deal that allowed them to

go live in exile with a whole bunch of

money and then who could really stop

them from reconstituting, you know, do

it slowly maybe, but still reconstitute

Hamas if that's what they want to do.

Maybe from a foreign country, but still

doing it. So, I feel like there's a

secret deal

or there's a secret blackmail as in uh

hello current Hamas leaders. You know

those hostages you have? We're going to

bury all of them and you too. And we

also uh have control of your family and

we're going to bury them at the same

time. If one hostage dies, we're gonna

bury your family and then send you the

we're gonna send you the video of us

killing your family. Something like

that. But there's something going on

that we don't know about that's, you

know, controlling this deal in a way

that we haven't seen before. Could be

anything. Could be a threat, could be a

bribe.

Um, but as long as it works, that would

be the great thing. I just don't see how

the rest of this gets negotiated because

that was the hard part again unless

they've already made a secret deal.

So, um, interestingly, assuming that

this goes through and all indications

are that it will, some people are sort

of mistaking it for like a whole peace

deal, but it's not. It might be the most

important part of the peace deal in the

end. might be the it was the hardest

part maybe, but uh it's not the whole

peace deal for sure. Uh however, as

as fate would have it, the announcements

are tomorrow for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now, presumably the Nobel committee has

already chosen their peace prize winner

and that probably a whole bunch of work

has to be done on their side secretly

before they announce it. So, in all

likelihood, there's already a Nobel

Peace Prize winner and it's in all

likelihood not Trump.

So,

it's possible

that they would they would change all of

their plans before tomorrow,

but the only situation I could see that

happening is if they happened to be MAGA

themselves,

if the Nobel Peace Prize people were

like full MAGA. Yeah. Yeah. They would

just delete whoever they had on their

list and say, "Well, you know, this is a

really good argument. Uh, it's going to

look weird if we bypass Trump now. So,

yeah. So, otherwise, we'll just give it

to Greta.

Yeah, Greta will probably get it.

However, if this works out and it leads

to a especially if it leads to an

expansion of the Abraham Accords and it

looks like Gaza is being rebuilt and

everything's on the right track a year

from now,

it's going to be pretty hard not to give

it to him a year from now. But I would

bet against it happening on Friday. and

and the fact that it won't happen on

Friday, it's going to be another big

news story because even even CNN, MSNBC,

ABC, all of Trump's enemies are saying

today, "Okay, there's no way Biden could

have gotten this done."

Do do you realize what a big deal that

is? that all of his biggest critics,

everyone I've seen, you know, the ones

that you expect to look for whatever is

the worst case, you know, Abby Phillip,

Dana Bash,

all of the I don't want to say

anti-Trumpers, but certainly not on his

side. All of them are calling this out

as something that Biden couldn't have

done and is kind of amazing.

Isn't that weird that that's what it

took? It took this for somebody to give

him his due. And I feel like I feel like

the anti-Trumpers

have had this building up that, you

know, they see the border being closed

and they're like, "H,

he did close that border."

And then they see the tariffs not being

a disaster and in in some ways including

some I'll tell you about today seeming

to work

and creating revenue that the government

didn't have albeit much of that from

citizens but

and then they go he did close the border

I do like that he is cleaning up crime

in these cities. Uh, I can't say I like

it, but of course I like it. And then,

you know, the economy, the tariffs, uh,

I have to admit the GDP is looking kind

of good. And he did get a trillion

dollars or whatever the number is of

investments that no way Biden would have

gotten. And then

suddenly you're you're like, "Oh god,

there's there's like a lot of weight

pushing me away from TDS.

There's a lot of weight, but not

enough."

And then he does this.

How do you hold that?

At some point, you're just going to have

to admit that Biden was 2% of the

president that Trump is. You're just

going to have to fold. Yeah, the the

weight is too great. You cannot carry

that much weight on your back as a lying

journalist while everybody's watching.

Uh you know that this is the fifth

impossible thing he did in a row

there. What do they have in common? What

what are the tariffs and closing the

border and getting getting the hostages

back? Maybe the rest of the peace deal.

We hope. What do they all have in

common?

They were all impossible.

They were all impossible.

How many impossible things does one

person have to do? I you know name name

one other thing that a president did

that was thought to be impossible when

he did it. None. I can't I don't I can't

think of any. Can you I can think of

things where president tried hard things

and failed. Jimmy Carter with his

helicopters in Iran, for example. I

mean, nice try, but it failed. But but

Trump is is dropping precision bombs

down Iranian

vent holes three times in a row.

I thought that was impossible. Honestly

thought it was impossible. Now obvious

of course you give the credit to the

military. Trump was not in the plane.

But the way it works is the president

gets credit. That's just the way it

works. He would get the blame if it

didn't work.

So maybe we give him a little credit

when some miracle works.

So yeah, I think it's just getting

impossible for the anti-Trumpers to keep

up their their their fake narrative

because they're just watching him do

miracles, like one miracle after

another. Uh ABC News, one of their guys

said today, "Make no mistake. It looks

like President Trump has actually pulled

off something here that many presidents

before him have failed to do." Yeah. You

know how many presidents before him have

failed to do it? All of them.

All of them. When When MAGA supporters

say that Trump is the best president of

all time, it's this. It's this.

That's the best president of all time.

Even ABC is like, "Nobody else could

pull that off." Now, some of it is you

have to be in the right place at the

right time. So, if the Israelis had not

killed allegedly 65,000 people in Gaza,

could we get to peace?

No. If they had not taken out Hezbollah

and Iran and weakened Syria and done all

of those things that that gave them some

purchase, could we get to this point?

No, probably not. So, you can't beat

luck. And I think Trump I think Trump

actually

said something like that himself. you

know, having everybody on the same page

and having all the right situations so

that you could get to this point.

There's luck involved. But what what is

one of the things that we wanted Trump

to bring to the office? I did. I don't

know if any of you had this explicit

thought, but when I saw Trump running

for president, one of the things I said

is, "Would it really be bad to have the

luckiest guy in the country as your

president?"

I mean, just look at his life. He just

looks like the luckiest guy in the

world. I mean, a a good day for young

Trump,

I think a good day for him would look

better than all of your good days put

together. And that would just be one

day.

So, don't you want the luckiest person

in the entire country to be maybe

bringing his luck to us? Maybe that's

what happened because it does look like

there's some luck involved, but a whole

bunch of skill. And one of those skills

is that he was willing to push Israel as

hard as they needed to be pushed.

That probably was the magic is that he

was willing to push Israel, not just

Hamas. Had to push both. I don't know if

we had anybody who would do that before

or even thought it would work.

Yeah. Anyway, so

I guess Trump has officially proposed

that his own face would be in a $250

bill to

to commemorate the 250th anniversary in

2026.

Um, now that's a really good troll.

Okay, he's the best troll. I don't know

how much he cares about it. Probably

doesn't care about it. Probably doesn't

think it would necessarily happen.

Although, I suppose if it's his

administration, maybe they could just

pass it with a simple majority if it

even needs a vote. I don't know if it

needs a vote. Um,

but I love that the the the funny thing

is, who needs a $250 bill besides drug

dealers?

It would only be for drug dealers, but

it would have it would have the face of

the guy who's going to kill them out.

Hey, cartels.

I've got a

I've got an offer for you. We're going

to make it much easier to move money

around cash because there'll be a new

$250 bill. So, you know, your your piles

of money will be much smaller. You'll be

able to move your money. So, that's the

good news. What's the bad news? Uh well,

well, the bad news is that the picture

on the front of the bill is the guy

who's going to kill you.

So, there's that.

That's such a good troll. I don't care

if it happens or not, but if it did

happen, I would never stop laughing. And

I would I would immediately run to the

bank and get me one.

I would put it on my wall. It would be

the best art worth $250 ever until

somebody steals it.

Well, you've heard me uh talk about how

the climate models are are all bad, but

here here's a followup on that. Um, so

apparently there's a 42page report from

the uh president's energy department

that was released in July, and we've

talked about it before, but I'm going to

add something to it. And there were they

showed 36 climate models and then they

showed how they're all wildly off of the

actual temperatures that we've observed.

36 models.

Now,

if you've lived in the the real world or

you've been in like a real corporation

or if you're just a certain age,

what do you know? If the only thing you

know is that there are 36 different

models for measuring the weather, what

do you know for sure?

Well, what I know for sure is if science

had science was sure that they could

model things with models, there would be

one.

There would be one because it would be

the one where the scientists say, "Oh,

yeah, that's the one." If you have a 36,

what's that telling you?

You know, you lived in the real world.

You're not a scientist, but you've lived

in the real world and there are 36

different models.

Well, I'll tell you what it tells me. It

tells me there used to be a hundred

and that the ones that didn't come close

enough to reality, they just quietly

threw away. So, what you're seeing is

the surviving models and they still

needed 36 of them.

So all you're seeing is a survivor bias.

They started with lots of models. They

they looked at what was really

happening. Some of the models by

coincidence were close to reality. So

they said, "Well, these must be the good

ones." No, they're not the good ones.

There were a hundred and they were all

over the place. Some of them were going

to be close.

There was no science there at all. It's

just, oh, let's keep the ones that were

close as if they're scientific.

But do you think in 10 years that those

will be kept?

I don't. I don't. So, here's the thing

I'm going to add.

If you knew that climate change was an

existential risk and the biggest problem

in the world and then your darn new

president,

darn him. He he uh puts his name on a

report that says the climate models are

all bunk and haven't come anywhere near

reality. What would you do if you knew

that the climate models were real and

that they represented an existential

threat? It was the most important thing

in the world and the government said

they were bunk.

What would you do? Well, if you were CNN

or MSNBC or any of the news people, you

would immediately put together a panel

of the top uh model making experts and

you would have them argue how their

models are actually good and not

Anybody uh see that show?

Anybody uh anybody remember seeing that

on MSNBC?

I don't recall seeing it. Anybody see it

on CNN?

I don't have any memory of seeing it.

So, the single most important thing in

the whole world.

And as soon as there's a a dissenting

government opinion,

all the experts go away. They just they

just go silent. No, they know they got

caught. That they know they got caught.

Other were otherwise you wouldn't you

wouldn't see anything else. If they

could have used this to bury Trump as

the anti-science idiot that they've been

trying to paint him for 10 years. If

this worked in their narrative, they

would be all over it. Instead, it's very

quiet. It's very quiet. If you wanted to

see a climate expert defending these

climate models, you'd probably have to

invite somebody who didn't work on the

models but thinks they know about them.

I'll tell you what you won't get is the

person who actually is putting the

variables into the model. Because you

know what that person knows? That person

knows models are

Not just his or her own model, but all

the other ones do. They all know it.

They if you don't think they know it,

oh, they know it. The reason I know it

is because I worked in my corporate life

collecting data for various projects.

You know, I would collect data to say,

should we do this? Would this be more

expensive than that? Should we, you

know, should we lease or buy? And what I

learned immediately is that none of my

data and none of my analyses were

anything but that my boss

wanted to see. There's no science to it.

So once you're actually in the work, you

can see that it's fake. But then you're

too invested cuz that's your job. So you

do what I did, which is, well,

I guess if my boss or the person funding

me wants me to do more of this, I guess

that's my job.

Anyway, the dogs not barking. There's

not enough push back on the climate

models being good for me to have any

belief that they're good.

Sam Alman uh is telling us that the

touring test

probably uh wasn't that important in the

in the arc of AI. The touring test, if

you didn't know, not most of you know,

um, for many years, it was thought that

a computer could not be considered

intelligent unless you could put it on

the other side of a curtain and have a

human being converse with it, not

knowing if it's talking to a computer or

a human on the other side of the

curtain. If the computer could fool the

person on the other side of the curtain

consistently, that would be considering

passing the Allen Touring

test. Well, that happened.

It happened a while ago, and it didn't

make much news. Here's why I think it

didn't make much news. Because Because

AI can only fool stupid people.

Do you think AI could have fooled me?

No, I would just ask it to use some

banned words and then that would be the

end of it. There's no way the AI could

fool me into thinking it was a human

being. Even even the current best

models, no matter how smoothly they

talked, no matter whether it was text or

voice, there isn't the slightest chance

that they could have fooled me that they

were human. Not I mean, I've used the

chat bots. I' I've tried out the the

anime

uh Grock uh chat.

There's no it's not even close to human.

You're not you're not even in the

neighborhood of fooling me that you're

human. Not even anywhere close. But it

did fool some stupid people enough to

say we we passed the touring test. And

when I see the uh the AI memes, they're

clearly AI created. and I see how many

people repost them and and I look at

them, I go, "Well, that's obviously AI.

That's obviously fake."

But some large percentage of the public

the public looks at it and goes, "Oh,

that looks pretty good to me. That looks

real to me." So, the touring test was

never super useful because you could

always fool dumb people, but maybe

there's no way you'll ever fool smart

people. So, I don't know if the touring

test allows for that. But Sam Alman has

what I consider a smarter better test

for AI. And he says it's when we see our

first AI scientist.

Meaning that the AI will

discover and invent things

scientifically that humans just couldn't

or didn't. And once it can become like a

peer of, hey, I just invented a new

thing or discovered a new thing. um then

that would be a better test than the

touring test. I agree with him

completely.

Uh also, interestingly, I have a I have

a dog in this race because my current

strategy for survival

is that I've got one more scan I have to

do to see if I can qualify for a uh drug

treatment. That's a new one that was

only approved in the US in the spring.

But you have to uh be the right kind of

cancer. I have the right kind of cancer,

I think. And you have to have uh gone

through certain things that didn't work,

which is now the case. The uh

testosterone blockers worked for a

little bit, but they they kind of

stopped working as as was anticipated.

We just didn't know how long it would

take. Didn't take long before it stopped

working. So now I'm riddled once again

with tumors. But this new drug is called

Pluictto.

And for some people, but not all, it can

remove actually just remove all your

tumors. Not for most people, but for

some. It's like most things. Everybody's

different. All the cancers are a little

bit different. The people are a little

bit different. But there's a really good

chance, you know, maybe if I had to put

a number on it, 30%. Something like

that. 30% chance it could remove the

tumors which would not remove the

cancer. So I still have the cancer which

means that at some rate it would return

but you know maybe I could knock it back

again in a few years or whatever I

needed to do. So, the the treatments are

you go to a place and you get a UV or I

an IV, not a UV, you get an IV. Uh you

go home, there's not much side effects

and you do it, you know, like four to

six times depending on your situation.

Um so, it's fairly civilized. You know,

it's not like chemo where I'm I'm going

to wish I hadn't done it. Um, however,

it's not a cure.

But if I can get this one extra scan

done, it's a special scan that puts some

juice in you just to find out if the

plto can get to the tumors. You can't

get to everything. But if it can or it

can get to the tumors that matter the

most, have the most lifestyle effect,

then I can stall

until AI gets up to speed.

I do think that AI is going to cure most

cancers.

I do think so. Maybe not in six months,

maybe not in a year,

maybe in two to five.

So,

so my uh you know my my Hail Mary is if

I can figure out how to use current

technology to stay alive

two years,

I might, no guarantees,

I might be able to bridge it to

something closer to an AR treatment or

um AI treatment or an AI cure. So that

that's my current plan. So I have a

nonzero chance of making a several

years. If if none of that works, if I

can't get on the plto,

maybe six year uh maybe six months left,

my guess 6 months to a year at most, but

we'll see.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is looking to start

an AI

um healthcare service. So they're they

not only are part owner of OpenAI and

Chat GBT, but they don't want to be

reliant on ChatGpt apparently for

everything. So they're building their

own version that they'll work into their

co-pilot program and essentially try to

turn it into as much of a doctor as they

can. So everybody's got their own

private AI doctor. Here's the problem.

They want to build this thing based on

the Harvard Health Publishing Arm. Um,

and maybe that's also where they're

getting their their um I guess their

most reliable healthc care information.

But according to everything that I've

seen about scientific studies lately,

correct me if I'm wrong, but if AI

trained itself on scientific studies,

both both existing ones that have

informed what drugs are available, but

also new ones that would tell us what's

coming up, wouldn't it be wrong up to

50% of the time?

How do you train AI to be smarter than

humans when you're training it on

studies that we know a full half of them

are fraudulent, but we don't always know

which half? Would AI know which half?

Not really, because AI is only going to

look at the published studies. It's not

going to look into the data. It's not

going to find out if the publisher is a

crook. Uh, all that stuff. So, how does

Microsoft get to or anybody get to an AI

doctor when it's being trained on 50%

incorrect data and it doesn't know which

half is incorrect? It's the same problem

with humans. So, maybe it's no worse

than humans. Might be better than

humans, but I don't see how you get to

AI when you're being trained on dumb a

dumb AI.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk got another $20

billion of funding led by Nvidia. So,

Nvidia's going in on a lot of the uh AI

companies because they want them to

succeed so they can sell them more

chips. Um, and Elon Musk was saying

something on X that uh the the winner in

the AI race will be I'll paraphrase him,

but it's basically whoever builds the

biggest data centers and buys the most

chips and puts the most cash into it uh

will be the winner. Now, there will be

more than one winner in the AI domain.

I'm pretty sure. I mean, I hope so. Uh

but there won't be that many and it will

definitely make a difference if you're

the number one winner or the number

three winner. So he's trying to be

number one. I like his chances. Um but

what I wondered is if AI as a business

is unique in that there's no way to put

a moat around it. You know, Facebook has

its own moat because once everybody gets

on there, there's there's a network

effect. And even if somebody built the

Facebook competitor, which of course

they tried, your friends wouldn't be

there. So that's like a moat that

protects Facebook just by getting there

first. And the other social media, too.

Now, um there are lots of other big tech

that you could say the same thing. It's

like, whoa, once they got there, nobody

could really catch up. Like nobody

really made a search engine as good as

Google, you know? Although it looks like

that's happening with AI. So my question

is, is it possible, I'm just speculating

here, that AI would be the first mega

giant civilization changing technology

that could never be moed. And the reason

I think it could never be moed

is because

uh startups will also have AI.

and the startups. Somebody, this is my

prediction, somebody fairly soon, maybe

in the next five years, will spend $1

billion to recreate what it took Elon

and Chad GBT a trillion dollars to get

to.

Anybody want to take the other side of

that bet? Within 5 years, an AI startup

will match the biggest AI spending $1

billion to get there where the big AIs

have put down 1 trillion and are

figuring some way to monetize it. 1

billion to1 trillion. That's my that's

my prediction. So, if that's true, and

we don't know that that's true, how

would the big companies ever protect

themselves?

Is it just owning the biggest data

center?

Because if the small company figures out

a way to do it with a small data center,

how do they compete with the big data

center? I don't know.

I guess they buy that little company and

put them out of business. Oh yeah, that

would work.

I just realized that the big AI

companies would just buy the billiondoll

startup and put it out of business and

steal their tech. Anyway, so maybe there

is a moat. According to Rasmusen poll,

only 48% of adults under 30 have a

full-time job.

According to Michael Schneider, who's

writing the economic collapse? Does that

sound like a problem to you that only

48% of people under 30 have a full-time

job?

Well, first you would have to subtract

the people in college, right? The people

in college almost never have full-time

jobs, but a lot of them have part-time

jobs. So, but that's the people in

college under 30 would be I don't know

10% of them. So, that that that's not

most of them. Um,

but I do wonder if the time in history

is sort of weirdly perfect that uh there

are a lot of unemployed young people for

reasons that probably have nothing to do

with AI, but AI is going to make a lot

of people maybe undermployed. Uh maybe

part-time work is what we all want and

then AI fills in for the rest. Would

would you be happy if you had no job?

Some of you would. I wouldn't be happy

with no job. I you know even if let's

say I lost you know my current career

completely and but I but AI was giving

me enough money to live and I had a

house and everything. I would do a

part-time job and I would I would be

happy that I had it and and it could be

working at Starbucks or something. But

I'm definitely going to have to get out

of the house. I'm going to have to do

something. I mean, I'm not going to sit

around and pet my cats and wait for my,

you know, universal

uh payment check to come in and the

robots to clean my house. What kind of

life is that? So, I feel like uh we're

moving toward almost everybody will have

a part-time job because the AI will do

the other part of the job.

China is uh allegedly tightening up on

their sales of rare earth materials. Um

this might be preparing for a meeting

with Trump so they have more leverage.

Haha, you can't get our rare earth

materials. So they're doing a number of

things to make it harder for anybody to

cheat and send out any rare earth

materials from China that they don't

know about. Um given that that seems to

be China's primary leverage over us more

so than almost everything else is this

rare earth material stuff. Uh whatever

we're doing to uh take that leverage

away. We really need to do that quickly.

What whatever we think is our biggest

problem in the world. It might be this.

It might be the biggest problem in the

world that China has us by the rare

earth materials if you know what I mean.

So I do see the government doing what

looks like a lot of stuff to open up

mines and get past regulations and

partner with companies and you know that

need a little help and all that. So, I

do think they're putting a lot of effort

into it, but it seems like the right

amount of effort would be just, you

know, all hands on deck kind of thing.

So, I don't know if we're up up to that

challenge yet, but we're probably

heading there.

Well, I saw a meme that I was so

impressed with. Um, I've told you before

you should follow a user called Maze. M

A Z. If you're looking for his account,

it's Maze Moore. M A Z E M O O R E all

one word. And he found and I don't know

how he did this exactly. There must be

some kind of video search engine I don't

know about. But he found uh I think

there were like eight different

interviews in which Rob Reiner was

saying uh let's see several years ago he

said in an interview we've got 241 years

of self-ruule

that basically depends on keeping Trump

out of office. So he was saying 241

years of self-ruule in the United States

and Trump's going to take it all away.

And then the year after he said,

"We only have 242 years of self-ruule

and Trump's going to take it away." And

the next year he said, "We got 243 years

of self-ruule, but this Trump's going to

take it away." And then the next year he

said, well, he got all the way up to 249

years. And then the last one was teasing

was teasing that I don't know if we'll

make it to 250 years.

Now it gets funnier

as you go along. When you read the first

one, you're like, I don't why are you

even doing this? Then the second one is

incremented by one year. You go, okay,

is this what I think? Then the third one

is incremented by one year. And then you

start laughing.

And then every time it goes up a year,

you laugh harder.

And you realize that for 10 years, he's

been saying that we're going to lose our

freedom any minute now.

for 10 years in a row and basically

nothing's different.

You we think now he says we only have a

year to correct our 250 year experiment.

Well, what's going to happen if we don't

correct it? Will the border get closed

and the GDP be 3.7 and uh will there be

peace in uh Gaza? Is that what he's

worried about?

Poor stupid bastard. Uh, and then yeah,

there there's definitely something

happening here. Uh, John Stewart, who of

course is, you know, no friend to Mega,

but

to his credit, he's also a pretty

straight shooter, like, you know, he he

is willing to say things unpopular if if

they ring as true. So he is a special

kind of character somewhat like Bill

Maher that uh they're you know braver

than most people uh who would identify

more with the left than the right but uh

he's going after Chuck Schumer.

He he's made fun of Chuck Schumer being

a you know bad uh face of the Democrats

because he has to be a Democrat.

Uh

[Music]

Okay. Um,

but now, uh, John Stewart just did a

piece where he called Chuck Schumer,

quote, "A human flat tire."

Can you imagine how embarrassing it

would be to be a, you know, real serious

Democrat and then watch the face of your

movement be uh, Chuck Schumer?

How would that feel to you?

And this has nothing to do with policies

or anything else. Would you want that

guy to be the face of your party? I

mean, seriously, even John Stewart is

saying, "Ah,

we got to do better than this. We got to

do better than this." Anyway, in other

news, uh, former FBI director James

Comey has pled not guilty

um on charges of making false statements

to Congress. He did not get a burp walk.

His home was not invaded at 6:00 a.m.

Nobody handcuffed him, as far as I know.

So, it's kind of a quiet news story that

doesn't have much of a visual element to

it. Um, I'm I'm expecting him not to be

guilty. What do you think? Or maybe the

case will even be thrown out for, you

know, lack of lack of something.

I don't think there's really any chance

that he's going to get convicted.

I don't know. Um maybe. I mean, it's not

impossible. I I just don't think the

world works that way. I I think even if

they have him dead to rights, they're

just going to say, "Ah." And there'll be

at least one juror who said, "Ah, you

know, I'm not going to convict him just

for that. Everybody lies." All you need

is one one juror who says, "Everybody

lies.

And that's it. Trump lies. Why isn't he

in jail? All these other people lied.

Why aren't they in jail? So, I'm just

going to put this one guy in jail. The

one guy. Everybody's lying to Congress

all the time, but I'm going to put this

one guy in jail.

Honestly,

if you put me on the jury,

I don't know that I would convict him,

even if I thought he was guilty. I'm

being honest because I like to live in a

world where where there's at least some

consistency,

right? And and if if I knew that tons of

famous people on both sides had lied to

Congress for years and years, would I

care that uh somebody like Navaro or

Bannon went to jail for not talking to

Congress or uh I guess they went for not

talking, not for lying. That's

different. Um, I don't know. I I feel

like as a juror, I might just say, "Go

screw yourself. If you're just going to

put this one guy in jail, that looks

like lawfare to me. I'm not in favor of

that." Now, that would be if I'm a

juror, but I'm not a juror. So, I get to

sort of look at it with my

dispassionate, not my responsibility

kind of public opinion. My public

opinion is that you can lawfare the

lawfarers

but not anybody else. All right. I don't

want to see anybody getting lawfared

because you don't like their politics.

No way. That's Yeah. It wouldn't matter

if they had a technical violation. No

way. I'd find him guilty if it was just

lawfaring.

But if you're lawfairing the person who

tried to lawfare you literally out of

office as the presidency and into jail,

yeah, lawfare him as much as you want. I

I call that fair. I don't know if I'd

call it fair if I'm on the jury.

But from my current perspective,

yeah, lawfare the laws. Absolutely.

Dana Bash was uh talking to Nancy Pelosi

and uh her last name sounded right. She

actually bashed her.

So uh Dana Bash points out that the

Republicans

um I'll just read it. Republicans are

voting yes to open the government. All

right, this is CNN Dana Bash. She's

saying to Pelosi, Republicans are voting

yes to open the government. Democrats

are voting no. So how are they shutting

down the government? Republicans. It's a

pretty good question, right? So the the

the yes would be on the continuing

resolution that just keeps things the

way they are funded for 7 weeks until

they start arguing about the new budget

on the schedule that they plan to argue

about it.

So, so yes, all the all the Democrats

would have to do is sign the thing that

says, "Oh,

we'll just pay everybody for another

seven weeks, then everybody gets their

Obamacare subsidies. Nobody loses

anything. Everybody gets a paycheck."

That's what the Republicans want.

And the Democrats are keeping it shut.

So, was that a fair question from CNN?

Yeah. Yeah, that's a fair question. How

are you saying that the Democrats are

shutting it down when all the Democrats

have to do is sign this document that

keeps everything exactly the same, which

is what they're asking for at least 7

weeks until you can work out the

details. And what did Pelosi say when

challenged with that? She said, "It's

not a clean CR. A clean one means all it

does is say we're going to continue the

way we were." A non-clean one would be

adding things. But the whole point of

the CR is that it doesn't add things.

That is what it is. It's a thing that

doesn't add things.

That's exactly what it is. A clean CR.

Nothing added. The Republicans know they

can't add and get away with it. Of

course, there's nothing added.

And they're also smart enough to know

that if they give the Democrats what

they're asking for, they'll still say

no. And they did. And even CNN isn't

going to let Pelosi get away with that.

So So Bash says, "What's not clean about

the CR? What do you think Pelosi said?"

I quote, "The point is,

would you like me to repeat that again?"

Pelosy's answer was the point is

end quote

destroyed.

That's what I call getting Dana bashed.

In other news, the White House says if

the government doesn't reopen that it

will use maybe tariff money to pay for

some of the nutritional programs that

are very important that are being cut.

So the so the White House will be able

to say, "Well, we're not monsters." So

we're going to make sure that, you know,

people are eating. Um, and we can do

that with some tariff revenue because

I'm so darn smart. I've got all these

tariffs and it created this money that's

not spoken for. And why don't we just

use that to plug the gap? I mean, better

better would be you sign the clean CR

and then everybody gets what they want

right away. That's better. But if you

Democrats are going to starve people,

well, we'll we'll feed them. And we we

found a clever way to do it that only

Trump could do. Tariff money.

It's pretty good. That's pretty good

politicking right there.

Anyway, in other news, the Palisades

fire starting bastard has been caught.

It's a 26 year old or 28 or something.

young guy with long hair looks to have

mental problems would be my guess. U

based on that on the fact that he speaks

French. No, I'm just kidding. I'm just

kidding. But he does speak French. I

don't know what that means. But uh

anyway, this uh young man set the fire

on I guess it was the first of the year,

but it was spotted and the fire

department uh put it out before it

injured any structures. had burned a lot

of grass, but they got it all out. Well,

not all out, but they thought they put

it out and then they monitored it for a

while because that's that's the uh

protocol. They know that sometimes the

fire will have some underground

smoldering things that they can't

detect. So, they hang around a little

while just to make sure the smoldering

doesn't take off. However,

uh depending who you talk to, which fire

experts, they will tell you that the

fire department did not stay there long

enough. Now, some would say that you

need to stay there, I don't know, 36

hours. Some would say, "No, that's not

even close. You might need to stay there

for two weeks." I think that was the

other estimate. So, they definitely

didn't stay there for two weeks, but

they did stay there, you know, more than

more than just putting out the fire. So,

nobody has been found uh let's say

guilty in any kind of a lawsuit, but I

think some of them might still be

pending.

So, the LA Fire Department probably has

some

some questions to answer because there

there does seem to be some alleged

certainty by the at least by the police

that they definitely got the guy. He

definitely set the fire. It definitely

was put out and it definitely recurred,

you know, some days later. So, is that

enough for the fire department to get

sued?

I don't know. Guess we'll find out.

Somebody sent me a uh a clip yesterday

that uh it cut out the mention of my

name, but it was about me in one part.

There was a a comic Dave Smith talking

to provocative Nick Fuentes. Both of

them are provocative I guess. And uh

so Dave Smith mentioned me and uh a

story about he he saw what I shockingly

said to get cancelled in 2023 and his

first reaction was oh man you you know

went too far. So his his first reaction

was like most people's you know some

form of disgust and shock

and condemnation

but but then he said I wasn't expecting

this he said that a minute later he

realized that uh what I had advised

which is to get away from people who say

they don't like you which seemed like

just reasonably good advice in all

situations to stay away from people who

say who say they don't like you. Not

people you suspect, but if there's a,

you know, 30 or 40% of some group that

you know says, "I don't even think you

should exist or there's something wrong

with you," you should stay away from

them. Doesn't matter who it is. Doesn't

matter at all who it is, you should just

always take that advice. So, uh, anyway,

Dave Smith said, "A minute later, I

realized that that's what I had done."

Meaning what he had done. And then he

tells the story of looking for a a place

to move with his wife and I guess

children. And they were looking for a

good school. And he humorously tells the

story of looking at uh I guess a school

they ended up picking. And it was a I'm

paraphrasing so this is not exactly what

he said, but it was stuff like okay

their uh their college acceptance A+,

you know, their their math teaching A+,

their their English teaching A+. And

then it got to the bottom of the list.

It was like they got a grade for

diversity and their diversity was I

think Dminus

and uh comic Dave Smith jokes that's the

one.

So they picked the one that had the

highest academic standards and the

lowest diversity. And he liked both of

those things. and he joked that uh

unfortunately, you know, again, I'm

paraphrasing, the the the level of

diversity can really reliably tell you

what the life would be like in that

school and that he wanted didn't want

that for his children. So, uh I feel

like that was one of the more honest

things that anybody said this year.

And that's that's pretty honest. I will

also go so far as to say 100% of all

adult humans did the same thing. All of

them, black, white, Asian, all of them.

Every single person who was trying to

get their kid into a good school if they

if they had the ability to move. Not

everybody has the ability to move, but

the ones who had the ability to move,

you don't think they looked at the

quality of the school first. You don't

think they looked at the diversity to

see if their kid fits in? I mean, if you

had a black kid, you'd want enough

diversity that they feel comfortable.

So, it's, you know, you're not always

going the same way. But, aren't you

making the decision based on diversity?

Of course you are. Every single person,

black, white, rich, poor, everyone. You

just admitted it.

So, that was fun.

And then just because I was having fun

watching the uh uh the people who were

the most uh provocative, I I was

watching a clip of Candace, Candace

Owens. Now, I've told you I have a very

positive um just personal feeling about

Candace, having just met her once. She's

very warm. And uh so I turned it on and

it was, you know, a whole episode. It

wasn't a clip. It was like a whole long

episode. I watched every minute of it,

which I almost never do. I don't watch

usually the whole episode of anything,

but so I'm grateful that you do, but uh

I usually can't hang. But oh my god, is

she talented.

If any of you had the same reaction,

her voice

is just perfect.

Her her mastery of her topic,

impressive.

the ability uh the ability to find like

a an angle on something or a point of

view that you haven't seen everywhere

else. Amazing.

Um the fluency with which she

communicates.

Oh my god.

So smart. So smart. So talented. I I

watched that show and sat there thinking

I need to get out of this business

because I'm not I'm nowhere near that,

right? I say great things about um Megan

Kelly and of course Joe Joe Rogan's a

legend and you know, you can name a

bunch of others. Tucker is amazing. You

know, just talent wise, you don't have

to agree with everything they say. Just

talent-wise, but she might be the best

of all. She might be the best in in the

entire business. She might be the best.

And one of the ways I judge that is if

every minute is interesting, and it

actually is. Now, let me say clearly, I

do not believe Breijit Mcronone has a

penis. I don't believe that at all. But

when you see how well she supports that

theory, that is entertaining. All right?

If you're not entertained by that, I

don't know what it takes to entertain

you, but that's entertaining. Now, uh,

when she suggests but does not say that,

she's sort of open to the possibility

that some foreign entity was involved in

the Charlie Kirk murder. And she doesn't

have to say it, but we all know based on

the context that she's thinking that

maybe Israel had some involvement in

that cuz Charlie had turned against

Israel at the end. And that would be a

pretty big risk for Israel because he

would be important enough that if they

lost him,

that could be very expensive for Israel.

So, she did demonstrate that they have a

motive.

I didn't expect that. She actually

successfully demonstrated that Israel

had a motive to kill him, which is not

funny, but I I'm just sort of like so

impressed

how well she can bring things together

that I don't believe, but still, you

know, quite expertly uh sort of teased.

So, um and I told you yesterday, I don't

believe there's any chance that Israel

was involved because they're way too

smart. Nanyahu especially way too smart

to do something that if there was even a

1% chance you get caught that would be

the end of the game. That that would be

a dumb risk management versus just

trying to deal with him and you know

bring him back you know bring him back

to a positive opinion. Much more doable

much less risk than trying to off him.

You know even if you thought you could

hide your tracks no that's too risky.

So, I don't believe it all. And uh the

the one thing you should keep in mind

when you watch um any of the top

influencers when they've got a they've

got a point of view that is not common

and it's not held by other people. Two

things I want to teach you about

persuasion that I've mentioned before,

but every time you hear them in context

and applied to a real world thing, they

get a little stronger in your mind.

Number one, the documentary effect,

which I mention all the time. The

documentary effect means that if you're

listening to one point of view for an

hour, you're going to kind of come away

thinking it's true because you listen to

one point of view for an hour. It has

nothing to do with how true it is. It

will just seem more and more true the

longer you watch. That's just what the

documentary does. So Candace is sort of

a, you know, an example. It's not a

documentary, but you know what I mean.

It's one point of view for an extended

period. So yes, that's going to be very

persuasive coming from, in my opinion,

maybe one of the best communicators

who's ever been alive. I mean, she's

really good. Um,

the other example is the other thing you

need to know is the Bible code. Again,

I've mentioned it, but every time you

see an example of it, it's it reinforces

it. The Bible code was years ago, it

might have been the 60s or 70s, I

forget. Somebody wrote a book called the

Bible Code in which they found that uh

you could determine that the Bible, you

know, the regular King James Bible, had

a bunch of hidden codes in it that could

have only come from God. And they gave

all kinds of examples. They said, "All

right, uh, and I I'll make up this

example, but it's stuff like if you took

the first word of the page and then the

second word of the second sentence, but

the third word of the third sentence,

they would form a prediction, which you

can see in history actually came true."

It'd be like big bomb 1949, whatever it

is. Uh, and then you say, "Yes, it was

forecasting the nuclear bomb." And the

trouble was that although those codes

did in fact exist, you could go look for

yourself. They would say, "All right,

yeah, well, sure enough, third word,

second word on the next page." You know,

if you follow this algorithm, it does

make a sentence and it does predict

because you can see for yourself that it

happened. Do you know how the Bible code

was debunked?

Somebody took their algorithm and

applied it to war and peace and it also

made a lot of predictions that came

true. In other words, you can take any

big body of anything that's complicated.

Could be a book, could be a story,

could be a real world event, and you can

always find what looks like

circumstantial evidence to any

thing you want. Do you do you want do

you want me to prove that uh aliens were

complicit in uh killing somebody? I

could probably do it. I I could find all

kinds of Well, did you know that there

was a report of an alien in the area

that day?

Did you know that there were reports of

aliens in other places where people were

murdered? I mean, it would look like

that. So pretty soon I could build this

story of all this circumstantial

evidence that would be so so compelling

to you that you would really think the

aliens were involved.

So when you watch Candice,

remember the documentary effect means

that it will be convincing

because it's long and because she's

really really good at this, like really

good. And secondly, if you say, "But

Scott, the evidence is real." Like, you

could check it yourself. There's the the

text message, you know, all that. And I

would say, "Yep.

Yep. The Bible code guarantees that any

complex situation will have multiple

hypotheses that all seem to have

evidence." That's the whole point of a

court case. Do you know that you know

the defense in a court case is going to

have a version of events with a whole

bunch of circumstantial evidence to show

the person is innocent. The the uh

prosecution will have a whole bunch of

stories of circumstantial evidence that

says they're guilty. So in every case

you can make the case and the opposite

case if it's a complicated situation

something like a book

and the Charlie situation is complicated

enough that that that's possible.

Anyway, if you haven't watched uh um

Kansas's show, I recommend it. It's it's

tremendous.

But be careful.

All right. Uh there was this uh meeting

that Trump was at to I guess talk about

the looking into the sources of Antifa

funding and I had a bunch of uh

independent journalists who were there.

Some of them had had run-ins with Antifa

I guess and one of them Brandy Cruz said

quote I'm living proof that you can

recover from TDS. So she said this in

front of the room and in front of Trump.

She said, "Uh, I think I even got a

little more attractive after I get rid

of my Trump derangement syndrome."

Boy, talk about saying something that is

going to amuse Trump. Trump couldn't get

the smile off his face. I think he

agreed with her that she became more

attractive. Um

anyway,

so if I had to give some advice to

Brandy, who went from a anti-Trumper TDS

person to a oh maybe I was wrong about

all that. Maybe Trump is the way. Uh if

I had to give her some advice, you know

what I'd say?

You know, all of her old friends, the

Democrats she was hanging around with,

what do you think they're going to think

of her now that she's come out as a mega

supporting person? Do you think all of

her friends are going to be okay with

her? You think they'll invite her to

parties now?

No. Do you know you want advice I would

give her?

Get the away from Democrats. Just

get the away because you know that

at least 60% of them are going to think

you're garbage because you like

Omega. Forget it. You're going to have

to get away from those Democrats. That's

what I did when when I first became

known as a Trump supporter. I lost

pretty much my entire social structure.

Everything except family and and just,

you know, a handful of close friends.

But mostly I lost my entire Democrat

structure because I didn't even know the

politics of my friends. Do you know

that? For years and we'd spend, you

know, massive amount of times together.

I didn't know their politics. No idea.

Cuz it never came up. But boy, when it

came up, I I could feel the hatred. Not

from all of them, of course, but you

could feel it. And what did I do? I got

the away.

And and I would give this advice. People

think that this is somehow limited to

the one situation where there was a

there was a Raspmanson poll that said

something like 30 or 40% of black people

said it wasn't okay to be black. And

then I said the word that gets

forgotten. If

when people tell my story, they always

leave out if. Have you noticed that?

It's the most important word. I said,

"If

this poll is accurate," and couple years

later they redid it with a bigger

sample. It was accurate. Um, I said, "If

it's accurate, you should stay away from

uh groups of people if 40% of them think

it's not okay to be you. It wouldn't

matter if they're black. It wouldn't

matter if they're LGBTQ.

It wouldn't matter if they were a bunch

of uh Democrats who are your best

friends."

That was my case. It was a bunch of

Democrats. They were all all different

from different countries. And by the

way, uh a a vast percentage of my

closest friends were born in other

countries or their parents were born in

other countries. So they they had that,

you know, the immigrant anti-Trump view.

I understand it. But why would I spend

time around it? Would it make sense for

me to spend time around it? Now I only

had one only had one family friend who

said directly um don't want to spend

time with you.

What did I do when my one friend very

close friend said you know it's better

if we don't spend time together because

of my cancellation.

Do you know what I said?

I said, 'Fine, blocked the phone and

will never talk to them again for the

rest of my life. I'm going to stay the

away from them. Why would I spend a

minute with somebody who would harbor

that feeling about me, even if they were

nice enough not to say it out loud? The

minute you find somebody

dislikes you on that level, get the

away from them.

And I'm not going to ever change that

advice. Why? because you all agree with

me.

Everyone who cancels me also agrees with

me. Everyone

Every person who cancelled me. Everyone

agrees with me 100%. If they listen to

what I said, if they if they heard a

version of the context, then that's

different. But if they listen to what I

said,

I have never once insulted black people.

That's never happened. Would you agree?

you you're the ones who watch me the

closest. Have I ever insulted black

people?

Never. I love black people

like on an individual basis.

All good experiences.

All good.

Anyway,

but groupwise, you can you can act

differently

in group decisions versus individual

decisions. Of course, never never

discriminate against an individual.

That's bad for them and it's limiting

your own choices. Why would you limit

your own choices, you know, unless you

believe that like every single person in

one group is going to be worse than

every single person in another group?

And nobody thinks that. Literally nobody

thinks that. So yeah, don't don't

discriminate individuals, but groups.

Yeah, totally.

Um, if it's for your safety, that's the

only good reason.

Um, during that same meeting talking

about Antifa, somebody asked Trump if he

would designate Antifa as a foreign

terrorist organization. They're already

designated as a domestic terror

organization. And Trump did that Trumpy

thing, which I love so much. He he looks

at his top adviserss who are also in the

room. He goes, "Is that a good idea?

Should I do that? And one adviser says,

"Yes." And he looks at the next one

while we're all watching. It's

televised. We're all watching. Goes to

the next one. Is that a good idea?

Should we do that? Yes.

Should we do that? I think he looked at

three or maybe four and they all said,

you know, "Yes." He goes, "All right.

Yeah, I think we'll do that."

Now, did did you see that moment where

where you watched him take a public

comment and turn it into a policy?

Because it was two words. Two words.

What was it? Describe what you saw in

two words.

Common sense.

Somebody Somebody gave him a total

common sense suggestion, which

apparently he had not noodled on before.

He recognized it as common sense. He

tested it with three or four people

live. They all seemed to give answers

that would suggest it's compatible with

common sense. And then he said yes.

It was in a weird way. It was the

smallest thing that happened yesterday,

but boy was it impressive.

All right. You know, you maybe you have

to be proTrump to be as impressed at it

as I was. Was it Jack? Was it Jack

Basabek who who mentioned the the

international thing? I didn't catch who

said it.

But anyway, if you've ever seen anybody

president

more impressively than that in front of

you, I'd love to hear the example

because that was that was solid

presidenting right there.

And uh Nick Sorter was there with his

semi burned flag. And uh Trump suggested

that Bondi should prosecute the person

who was burning the flag under the

theory that I don't think is proven. So

I don't think he I don't think he would

be prosecuted, but uh that the flag

burner was the one who incited maybe

more trouble. So the current situation,

as I understand it, is that it's still

100% legal to burn a flag. If you're

only doing it to make a point, but if

you're doing it as part of inciting

violence or maybe some other kind of

damaging trouble, then uh then it would

be considered um inciting violence. So

then it would move out of the free

speech category into the you know the

special illegal category. So, I don't

believe I could be talked out of this,

but I don't believe the flag burner made

much difference to the overall event. I

think it was just a sideeshow at a

bigger event. If that's the case, then I

would not want that person to go to

jail, unfortunately, then it's just free

speech. Um, but we'll see.

Uh remember I always tell you that one

of the things I like about Trump is that

if there are two positions to take on

any issue and one of them is the strong

position and the other is sort of weak

he'll take the strong position every

time even if it's not the winning

position and this might not be the

winning position because I don't know

that there's enough to convict but he

took the strong position

and uh what you'll will remember about

Trump when all the fog clears is that he

was the strongest leader. You won't

remember that maybe that court case

didn't work out. You'll just remember he

always took the strong side and it was

the strong side on behalf of America.

You don't forget the person who always

takes your side even stronger than you

do. You don't forget that person.

Anyway, I guess the White House uh

released the names of people, rich

people funding Antifa.

Who do you think it was? If you guessed

it was a network of NOS's,

you'd be right. If you guessed that

hund00 million of taxpayer money somehow

got funneled through NOS's that got

funneled into Antifa, meaning that your

taxpayers, that your tax money is paying

the people trying to kill you. Well,

trying to destroy your system, which

would end up in a lot of us dying. Uh,

you'd be right. But also, if you guessed

George Soros, you'd be right. If you

guessed Arabella Funding Network, you

may have heard some of these names

before. The Tidesh

Fishing Network. Um, they were involved.

They funded allegedly. Neville Royal Roy

Singum. I don't know who he is, but he's

got a network. And then there's this

Swiss billionaire guy who's like a

hundred years old, uh, Johan George

Hansor.

Some for some reason there's some

Swiss billionaire who cares deeply about

destroying America by funding all the

wrong people. What's up with that guy?

Yeah, I I don't see how we let

foreigners do that. But um then there's

a bunch of additional foreign cash and

other other stuff. So I am impressed

that the uh Trump administration is

going after the funding but also finding

it. So if you imagine that Antifa is not

a real organization,

who's getting the money? If it's not a

real organization,

who are they funding?

What is there to fund? There's no

organization there, right? But

apparently there is an organization and

they're taking in a lot of money.

Well, here's a story that could be

gigantic, but I never even heard about

it until uh yesterday. Um I saw a post

by Eric Dohy. Good follow, by the way.

Um if you want to get independent uh

journalist kind of stuff. Uh, Eric

Dhorty, spelled D A U G H E R T, spelled

like daughter with a Y on the end. Um,

so it turns out that the Supreme Court

is going to vote on

uh abolishing a specific part of the

Voting Rights Act

that allowed special

uh districts to be allocated for black

voters.

Um, well, they say for minorities, but I

suspect the majority of that was for the

benefit of the black community. But the

just did you even know this? I didn't

know this was a thing that there were

districts that were drawn for minorities

to favor Democrats.

Um, so I guess the idea was to make sure

that minorities did not get closed down

of having representation by a bunch of

white people redistricting because you

could redistrict, you know, to cut up

the black neighborhoods so that, you

know, they would never be able to elect

a black leader because there just

wouldn't be enough black people in any

one uh one voting area. So it looks like

in order to protect

against discrimination in redistricting,

uh the the law allowed them to

redistrict for the purpose of making

sure that black voters, I think mostly

black, um had representation.

Now, like most things, that sounds like

kind of a good idea, right? If you have

a real problem

with black representation being

eliminated, you know, intentionally by

redistricting,

yeah, I think I think I would have been

in favor of this actually, you know, if

you took me back in time. But it is time

to re reassess

because I don't know that uh that

Republicans would do that in 2025,

especially if it's really obvious. You

know, the the other way to handle it is

not to make it illegal, but make it

public and say, "Look, look what these

dirty Republicans did. We Democrats

would never do something that bad to

you." So, I feel like uh this might be

exactly the right time to overturn it.

Um and not because it didn't have a

purpose. I would say the same thing with

um

with with all of the racial improvements

that have been made over time. There's a

time to do it when you need the

tourniquet. Like things are just so bad.

You got to you got to eliminate racism

or not racism. You got to eliminate

slavery.

Like you just got to do that. You got to

eliminate J, you know, Jim Crow. You got

to you got to make sure that black

people have a you know seat at the table

and that they can get interviewed like

everybody else and if they've got the

skills they can get the job. All that's

great

in its time.

So the only question is not whether

those were good ideas but whether they

currently match the time. And I don't

think that they currently match the

time. I think we have other better ways

to handle that sort of thing.

But

but we'll see. There's a good chance

that that will happen and that would

result in 19 more Republican House seats

potentially. I think they'd still have

to redistrict to get it, but uh imagine

getting 19 more Republican seats in the

House before the midterms.

That would pretty much guarantee the

Republicans keep the House.

Um, so I I can't believe I didn't know

about that story before.

Um,

I saw a suggestion by a user on X,

nobody famous, that I thought was so

good. It's one of those examples where

maybe the magic of social media could

work. So, uh, I have a largestish

account on X, which means a lot of

people will see what I what I post, but

I also read and consume a lot of smaller

accounts. Usually, they're commenting,

right? I'll see them in my comments. So,

that that creates a system where I can

see an individual who's not famous or

noted for anything. they can talk to me

then people will see me because I'm you

know more public and 1.3 million people

I can guarantee

that important people in the

administration not all of them but

important people will see my show or see

my ex my ex posts and then if the idea

is so good

that the individual gets to me I'm

impressed I post it goes to somebody

maybe on the way have a staff. They're

impressed.

Next thing you know, something happens.

Now, this might be one of those. So, let

me tell you the situation. The

suggestion is from a user on X uh named

Misty Sunrise. Again, don't know

anything about the person. It's just a

user on X. Misty Sunrise had this

suggestion talking about uh Trump

surging the forces into the cities for a

crime. Um, Misty said they need to frame

these as quote gun violence reduction

missions.

You feel it already?

And she goes on or he goes out, I don't

know who Misty is, but uh, white female

voters love to virtue signal on the gun

violence issue. So connecting the

National Guard deployments to the zip

codes with the highest rates of gun

violence

would be powerful. We need a map to go

along with it. Zip codes with highest

rates of gun violence and National Guard

deployments. Okay. Do you feel that?

You feel that, right?

There's some suggestions that you feel.

I feel that.

meaning that how in the world did we

miss the point that um you know each

time they do one of these surges, one of

the one of the data points that they

always report is the number of guns

confiscated,

right?

If if if you're trying to satisfy the

proun crowd, MAGA, and you're also

trying to do as best you can to satisfy

the Democrats because they're they're

citizens, right? they they get service

too. Uh if you're trying to satisfy

everyone, how did we miss the fact that

we're doing it

and it's not being highlighted? Now, it

could be

remember Trump Trump reads the room

better than anybody. So, it could be

that he doesn't want to open that

anti-gun box. you know, maybe just give

the data, but don't frame it as anti-gun

because then it you maybe it just starts

a whole anti-gun thing. So maybe he just

wants to avoid the topic. But when I saw

this, I thought to myself, okay, I don't

know about Portland.

I don't know if there's a lot of gun

violence in Portland, so it might not

work for every city who wants to surge.

And I and I honestly I think Portland's

a little overdone. I I just don't know

there's that big a problem in Portland,

but you know, politically it works. Um,

but if they pivoted, they wouldn't have

to make every deployment about guns. But

if they said, uh, the one thing that

MAGA

and Democrats will agree on is that the

criminals should not have guns.

So, we're going to at least do the thing

we all agree on. and you just make it a

gun reduction thing instead of a crime

reduction thing

instead of just a violence reduction

thing, which it also is. But I think the

the illegal gun reduction is just sort

of irresistible for Democrats, is it

not? So, here's my suggestion from Misty

Sunrise. Maybe the administration should

think about highlighting what they're

doing to reduce gun violence

because they're doing it the way

Republicans like to reduce gun violence.

Take them away from criminals.

Put the criminals who do gun violence in

jail.

You know, that doesn't solve everybody's

problem.

But how do we disagree on that? There's

no disagreement on that. You know, even

if you said, "Oh, I don't like the

federal, you know, the feds coming in

and scaring everybody with masks and all

that." Well, if what they're doing is

removing illegal guns, you're going to

put up with the masks a lot a lot more

easily. By the way, is it illegal for

the bad the people on the streets to

wear a mask or is it only illegal for

the people putting trying to stop them?

I I wasn't clear on that.

Well, you've seen some uh per some uh

online influencers,

podcasters say things like the US is on

the brink of civil war. You've heard

Tucker talk about it. Tim P's talked

about it. I don't think he's predicting

it per se, but sort of warning about it.

Um,

I'm going to be I've seen enough this

and I don't want this to turn into a

self-fulfilling prophecy which I worry

about. In my opinion, there's no chance

of a civil war. Do you know why? Who

would you shoot?

Who the hell are you going to shoot?

If it started tomorrow, what would you

do?

We it's not like we have some big issue,

you know, like slavery or, you know,

some some nations are trying to withdraw

from the union or or who would you

shoot? Your neighbors.

You just go out in the lawn and start

blazing away at your neighbor's house.

The There's something missing with the

whole civil war thing. There's there's

nobody forming a militia,

right? There's no militia being formed.

At least, you know, there might be

somebody in some forest somewhere, but

no, nobody's going to be a risk to the

system.

You You're going to have to connect a

lot more dots before you can get me to

worry about a civil war. Right now,

civil war is my smallest

smallest concern. I think everything is

a bigger risk than that. Everything.

Now, I will make you this promise.

uh if there became a bigger risk,

you know, whether it's Antifa gets

bigger or whatever, if it becomes a

bigger risk, I will spend more time

persuading it out of out of business.

And and I think that one of the things

that we have today not everybody fully

recognizes is that the influencers can

stop a civil war.

I believe the influencers are getting a

little bit reckless in warning us that

one might happen because you know the

self-fulfilling prophecy thing once you

get it in your head

things become possible just because

they're in your head. So there is a

little extra danger in talking it up.

But what we have now is people like me.

There's no way to there's no way for me

to tell this story without making it

about me. So, I apologize in advance.

You don't think You don't think I could

stop a civil war? I probably could.

The I could do it the misty sunrise way.

It's not that I have influence. It's

that if I say something that makes

common sense to you,

you're going to like it. You're going to

talk to your friends. So, as long as

there are enough people like me who I

guarantee you I'm going to be looking to

stop a civil war if it got anywhere

near, there'll be others like me and we

would be powerful enough to stop a civil

war. Collectively, not me by myself. But

collectively, yeah, we could stop a

civil war now. I'm sure of it. I don't

even think the government could pull it

off or a militia could pull it off

unless there was some kind of public

support and we just make sure there

isn't there just won't be.

Anyway, um Cash Patel said there's

110,000 gang members in Chicago streets.

Gateway pundits reporting that. Do you

think that's true? 110,000

gang members. I think what might be true

is that if you live in a lot of places

in Chicago, you have to at least

identify with a gang to be safe. So, I

don't know that that's like 110,000 gang

bangers with, you know, guns in their

pants working the streets and selling

drugs. It might be more, you know,

grandmas in the gang and little Billy's

in the gang because everybody has to be

in the gang just to say stay safe. So, I

don't know what that number means, but

it's a shocking number.

According to the Reese Group, domestic

violence uh in California impacts 2/3 of

Californians.

31% identify as survivors. The rest that

would have some family connection to it.

Does that sound right?

Do you believe that number that in

California twothirds of Californians are

have a domestic violence problem?

Well, I don't know how they collect that

data, but if they get it from divorcees

and pretty much every divorcee claims

that they were domestically abused,

either verbally or otherwise. Sometimes

it's both of them. You know, both the

the the husband and the wife will claim

that they were domestic violence

victims. Now, I do think domestic

violence is way bigger problem than

maybe we all realize. So, I'm not

doubting the seriousness of it. Just

just to be clear, I'm not minimizing

domestic violence. I think it's a huge

huge problem and it does affect huge

numbers of people. I just wonder how

they got the data because if the way

they got the data is from people who are

in divorces, there's a little bit of

overclaiming of domestic abuse in

divorce. In the real world, it's

underclaimed. But as soon as you get

that divorce, oh, everybody's a

everybody's an abuser.

Well, if you don't know that a war with

Venezuela is coming, um,

it looks like it is. So, the, uh, the

Senate rejected a measure that would

have required Trump to seek

congressional approval before

authorizing further US military action

in the Caribbean.

So, the Senate doesn't want Trump to

have to get permission to go to war

with Venezuela.

What's that tell you about the odds of

war with Venezuela? Oh, we're definitely

going to have boots on the ground in

Venezuela.

Now, I hope

that when that happens, and it's

definitely going to happen, that it's a

decapitation strike and nothing else.

What I don't want to see is anything

that looks like a ground war. Not even a

little bit. But if we have an opening

and we can take out the top guy and

maybe, you know, several of the top

lieutenants,

probably worth doing under the theory

that he's really a drug dealer and not a

head of state. They they would have to

stay in that frame. We're taking on a

drug dealer. So, I think that's coming.

Um,

there's a story in New York Times about

how Ukraine is still the most corrupt

place in the world. Now that you know

that that Ukraine is still one of the

most corrupt places in the world and all

the government money is being stolen in

different ways,

don't you appreciate Trump more that

he's the one who said, "We're not giving

you any money.

If you want to give us money, we'll take

it to sell you weapons.

But we're not going to give you more

money. You're all bunch of crooks.

I appreciate Trump for that. Uh did you

know that in the city, the Ukrainian

city of Kersan that Russia would like to

take but hasn't yet that what they're

doing is depopulating the city with

drones? So apparently uh Kurissan used

to have 300,000 people. It's down to

65,000.

And the reporting is that the Russians

are using drones with, you know, small

explosives like a hand grenade to target

and kill civilians so that they'll move

out. So that if they ever want to, you

know, move in with their with their own

forces and take over the city, there

won't be anybody there. They'll just

take over an empty city. And apparently

it's working. if they're down from

300,000 to 65,000. And they showed a

video of just some senior citizen in his

SUV being targeted by a drone. You know,

he gets he sees the drone, so he gets

out and he runs and the drone chases him

and drops a hand grenade on him. He he

survived, but it got wounded pretty

badly. Now,

that is intentional.

So that very much means that the

military is trying to depopulate just

kill the residents. So it looks like the

there are two parts to the uh Soviet

Soviet to the Russian plan. Just got to

update my references. The Russian plan.

Um so they're taking out more power

plants. Breitbar London's reporting

this. So uh Ukraine lost one of its

thermal power plants in another attack.

Um, at the same time, Ukraine is doing

the same thing, trying to take out the

energy production in Russia. So, we have

a uh robot energy war, but also a

robot depopulation war using robots, but

it's all a robot war. But once the

robots clear out the humans from Kersan,

then there'll be a robot war in Kersan.

Uh, Germany apparently is going to allow

the police, according to Reuters, to

shoot down drones because they still

don't know what is the deal with the

drones over Germany or other other

European countries either. Uh, but at

least the Germans are going to let the

police shoot them down.

Um, I think we're going to find out that

they're domestic.

I think that's ger German people with

German drones. They're just not

admitting it's them. Um, so I think some

will get shot down, but that in the end

we will not learn that they were

Russian. They might be. I wouldn't rule

it out, but I think it's just a little

more ordinary that it's domestic.

Or maybe most of them are domestic, but

Russia had a few. It does make sense for

Russia to uh, you know, make Europe a

little more nervous by showing them that

they're that they're they have no air

control. That would be very nervous

making. Uh it was nervous making when we

had drones in New Jersey. If Trump had

not come out and said that they're ours

and I would have to live with the

knowledge that we had uh drones all over

our major facilities and we didn't know

what to do about it. That would have

been scary. So I don't really trust

uh Trump's statement that they're all

our drones. I don't think they're

aliens, but I would definitely not rule

out that some of them were foreign for

the very purpose of testing our air

defense andor showing us that we don't

have one. So,

um I would be okay if Trump or the

government lied

about the uh

about the question of whether they're

ours. That would be an acceptable

government lie because the military is

not they're really not tasked with the

truth. They're tasked with lethality and

keeping us safe. So,

you know, I I wouldn't mind that

specific lie.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's

all I got for you today. I went extra

long because it was so good. Um, I guess

I won't need to talk to the uh local

subscribers. She got enough of me today.

So, I'm going to say goodbye to

everybody. Thanks for joining. I will

see you tomorrow. Might even be shorter

tomorrow, but better? I don't know. I

don't know. Could it be better? Bye for

now.