Episode 2989 CWSA 10/15/25

or you snuck up on me.

Good morning, everybody.

Come on in.

Grab a seat.

Make sure you've got a beverage.

My sleeping cat is behind me, so you can get a a double show today.

Watch the cat and watch me at the same time.

Well, I'm checking your stocks for you, and it appears that they're doing pretty well.

And if you took um well, I won't say my advice because I don't I don't give stock advice, but I did tell you about a year ago that uh nuclear power stocks would probably be a good idea.

And if you had an index fund, which I do, of nuclear power stocks, you would see it's up 93%.

So that worked out.

The only the only advice I ever give for finance are two parts.

One is diversify and the other is there may be once ever stock opportunities that just never can happen again like the beginning of the cell phones or like the beginning of PCs or the beginning of AI.

But uh the beginning of nuclear power being um let's say reconstituted as a good thing will only happen once.

there'll be one time when everybody says, "Oh, we're going to need a lot of nuclear power." So, that was the basis.

And then again, I diversify by an index fund.

I do not recommend this.

I do not recommend that you follow anything I say for finance.

Um, that's not really my domain, but th that those are two investment tricks that you should know.

The once ever and diversify.

If you get those two things right, you might be in good shape as long as you don't make too big a bets.

All right, I think we had a show to do here.

Good morning everybody and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.

The best thing that ever happened to you in your whole darn life.

But if you'd like to take it up a level, see if you can do that.

All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker gels in a canteen and jug or flask a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

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

Go.

So good.

So good.

All right, I'm going to give you a reframe from my book, Reframe Your Brain, which I have not yet selected, but they're all so good that it won't be hard.

Um here, here's one.

Uh the usual frame is that you deserve to be treated well by other people.

How many of you think that that's a a fair statement?

That you deserve to be treated well by other people.

Well, here's a reframe.

I'll improve on that.

You get what you give on average.

No one deserves anything.

You get what you give.

If you're not getting enough out of other people or your job or out of life, you're probably not giving enough.

So instead of thinking, darn it, why have I not been given enough just for existing?

Stop that.

Go make sure that you can get enough by giving more.

So that's one of the uh tips for happiness, too.

If you're in a bad mood, you've heard me say this one before.

One of the best ways to get in a good mood is just to do some unsolicited good thing for somebody.

And if they appreciate it, or even if they don't, as long as it's a good thing, it will cheer you up.

So, stop thinking about what people can do for you.

Think about what you can do for other people and watch the magic happen.

All right, I got to see your comments here.

Let me give you a little update on my health situation.

Normally, I wouldn't do that, but since you're all part of the ride and you're you're wondering if I'm going to conchk out any minute.

So, here's the current plan.

Current plan goes like this.

On Friday, I'll get a scan that's a special scan PSMA that will tell me if I'm uh can be qualified for this new cancer drug called Plu Victto by what was that?

By Novartis.

Um, and so on Friday I get scanned and then my doctor will look at the scan and see if it's see if it uh what they do is they give you some nuclear juice and if it lights up the tumors then they know that the plto can reach the tumors.

So you don't automatically get it because you want it and you don't automatically get it because your doctor thinks it's a good idea.

You have to go through a process to qualify to be one of the people who can get it.

Probably because it's expensive.

There's there's something on my desk talking.

I don't know what it is.

I don't have any devices that should be talking to me now, but I'm hearing some voices.

I hope that's not in my head.

Anyway, so the process is I take the scan, my doctor looks at it, then he has to submit it to a board of people that only meet every two weeks specifically to decide who gets this limited drug and who doesn't.

It's very expensive.

I assume that's why they do it because it's costs so much.

Um, if they say yes, that will take me a couple of weeks before I get the yes.

Then I also have to schedule the actual treatments of which there would be half a dozen.

So we might be a month away from me getting that into my veins.

And uh, so my challenge is to stay alive until then.

What one of the exciting things about having late stage cancer is you don't really know how long you're going to last, right?

The I I bought a little extra time with the uh testosterone blockers, but you know, they they fail after a while.

Predictably, they fail.

So, I'm in that failure range where things are getting much worse, but my solution is getting closer and closer.

No, it's not a solution.

It's a chance of a solution.

Maybe maybe a good solid 30% chance it buys me, you know, some meaningful extra time, but we're only talking months.

We're only talking months.

If if I were one of the rare people who just the tumors just disappeared, which could happen by the way with that drug, um it's just not the common experience.

So, uh, the other thing you need to know is that I've upped my painkillers.

I won't be more specific than that, but wow, am I high right now.

I am so high uh on painkillers.

You know, legally legally prescribed painkillers.

So, uh, for the first time that you've seen me in months, I'm in no pain whatsoever.

I have no mental pain.

I have no physical pain.

This is the first time you've seen me out of pain since a year ago, probably a year ago.

So, I'm having a really good day and I had a good night's sleep and who knows what's going to happen next.

So, there's a uh story by the BBC that says your hormones might be controlling your mind.

Do you think they needed to do that study to find out that your hormones might control how you're thinking?

That's literally the most obvious thing in the world.

No, you didn't need to do that.

Just ask me, Scott, do you think that people's hormones will affect their thoughts?

Yes.

Yes.

But they're taking it further, trying to figure out how to change the hormones so it'll fix your mental problems.

But yes, your body is your brain, as I tell you often.

All right, here's another one.

Um, did they need to do this study?

Eric Dolan from Cypost is writing that negativity drives engagement on political Tik Tok.

How many of you were unaware that if you do negative things on Tik Tok and social media, you get more response than if you do positive things?

Did didn't everybody know that?

But I would I would like to introduce um a competing thought.

So being as I am a professional humorist and professional writer and specifically a cartoonist who writes short pathy funny things, I believe that when I do a uh a positive post that's that's all, you know, upside and and makes people feel good that those are just as viral as the negative stuff.

What's different is it's harder to do.

It's really easy to do negative stuff.

You're usually just forwarding something that somebody else sent around.

But if you wanted to do something that would make people inspired and happy, you could do it, but it's sort of a high bar.

You know, if if you're not a professional writer, you're not going to hit that too often.

But if you are, positivity can sell.

It's just much much harder for to produce.

Well, almost every day I tell you there's a new study about um hallucinogen doing good things for people.

Here's one.

This is also Eric Dolan and Cypost.

Uh that long-term iawasi use is linked to distinct emotional brain activity and higher resilience.

Now, what's different about this?

And by the way, I don't recommend Iaskca.

I'm pretty sure that that's one of the more dangerous ones.

I'm not an expert on this, but uh don't take this as a recommendation.

Uh you should look at the risks, but the people who are long-term users of it, I guess some people do it more as a lifestyle religious kind of thing that their brains are actually different and the difference is a positive that uh and and this is also interesting.

Apparently, they can use machine learning to determine just by looking at your brain if you've used Iawaska for a long time with 75% chance that they would get it right.

So, they it actually changes your brain.

Your brain is physically different if you do a lot of IUSA, but it's apparently it's a positive.

But it did did not help, and this was this part surprised me.

It didn't help anxiety, depression, or general mood in the long run, probably in the short run.

But uh the other the other hallucinagens like uh the mushroom type, I think that there's more indication that they last, but the ioesca will make you more emotionally resilient, which would be an amazing quality to have if you could build it.

I don't recommend it.

I'm just telling you what's out there.

Well, X is apparently going to make a change so that you can tell what country the poster is from.

I feel like that would be really helpful.

Wouldn't you like to know if the post came from China or Israel or some other country that's in the news?

That seems like a good idea to me.

I'd like that.

um they they're going to have to do a lot more to make, you know, the the comments trustable, but that probably help.

You may have seen this already that the uh percentage of people claiming to be trans uh among young people.

So, this is only a poll of young people.

the the number of people who claim to be trans is plunging.

Um is so it's it's gone way down, but the number of people claiming to be gay or lesbian, somewhat unchanged.

What does that tell you?

If the trans identifiers have gone way down, far far less of them just in the last year or two, but the gay and lesbian stayed the same.

Well, it tells me that gay and lesbian is real.

And trans was always a mass hysteria.

How many of you knew from the beginning that the trans thing was a mass hysteria?

Uh, and mass hysteria might be slightly wrong description, but you know what I mean that there was a psychological phenomenon and not a biological phenomenon.

Pretty much all of you knew that, right?

For some of you, this might be your first um first identifiable massist area.

The more of these you see, the easier it is to spot them.

And I, you know, I've been trying to teach you how to do this for years, but TDS is of course another massist area.

Um, and even TDS is starting to give way because of Trump's recent successes and the fact that, you know, you just sort of get used to his personality and then it becomes just part of the show.

I think I think Trump's personality went from, "Oh my god, we can't have a president who says and does things like that.

No, no, look what he said again.

Oh my god, did he say that?" And then you just get used to it.

And now we're at the point where he says outrageously provocative things and even his critics just sort of give up on it.

It's like, yeah, okay, that's just what he does.

Uh, does it work?

Well, apparently there's more upside than downside for Trump being Trump.

So, yeah, you you'll learn to m spottle these massistas.

Um, however, let's see if you think this is a competing number or not.

So, if you knew that trans is way down and you knew that gay and lesbian was stable, uh, what would you make of the fact that there was a in Brown University there's a one in three people identify as LGBTQ or LGBT?

No.

Q.

One in three.

Do you know what the the uh the secret?

Well, not secret.

Do you know why the number is so big?

that one in three people at Brown are LGBT.

Well, one uh hypothesis which I think is right on is that young females um still find it trendy.

I feel like it's trendy.

It's not it's not a massive story.

It's just trendy to say that well, you know, I'm a little bit bisexual.

If I met a woman that I fell in love with, you know, I could imagine I could imagine that maybe something would happen there.

So, I think it has to do with women, young women saying, "Yeah, no problem.

If I fell in love with somebody of the same sex, you know, I'm not I'm not exactly gay or by, but if it happened, it happened." So, I think that's what's happening.

The one in three is mostly young women.

All right.

Let's talk about Leticia James.

So, Leticia James, you all know who she is.

She's the one who tried to lawfare Trump into jail, but she's got her own lawfare problems with alleged banking fraud for her several mortgages.

Anyway, she appeared in in front of some group and got like a hero's welcome.

And I thought to myself, how how do you get a hero's welcome for being incredibly accused of being a gigantic fraud while also being the attorney general?

Like, h how?

But apparently she had lots of supporters and she was quite happy to raise her hand and what if she were Elon Musk, they would call a Nazi salute, but instead she was just waving to the crowd.

Um but but uh Jonathan Turley, one of my favorite observers of anything, uh had a good comment on X about her.

Uh Jonathan Turley says, "Leticia James declared yesterday, this was at the event, that her indictment is nothing more than a desperate weaponization of our justice system." And Charlie says, "It is like Katie Porter objecting to a hostile workplace." That's a good line.

The fact that the audience applauded rather than laughed is the ultimate test of rage politics.

Yeah, that that's a perfect comment, Jonathan Turley.

I'm going to mention him again later.

He's so good.

Uh you remember Jack Smith?

What do you call him?

A special counsel or whatever he was.

So, he was investigating uh Trump and he went on MSNBC.

He was talking to Andrew Weisman, who Molly Hemingway reminds us was the architect of the Russia collusion hoax.

Now, what two people could be less credible than Jack Smith talking to Andrew Weissman on MSNBC?

If you if you were to try to come up with a a movie plot of the two least credible people in the least credible place saying the least credible things, it would look a lot like that.

So, Jack Smith actually said uh in real words that uh the idea that politics would play a role in his cases against Trump is quote absolutely ludicrous.

It's ludicrous to imagine that politics had anything to do with lawfaring Trump.

No, it's ludicrous.

What are you crazy?

Stop looking at me like that.

That's crazy talk.

And not only do I know it's crazy talk, but Andrew Weissman would totally agree with me on MSNBC.

So that was that was wonderfully insane.

Uh, in other funny news, uh, Representative Anna Pelina Luna, I don't know, I don't know exactly what her role is in Congress, Representative Luna, but apparently she's been given, I'll call it the portfolio of all the uh, the secrets, stuff like UFOs and secret files and I I don't know.

So, she has some kind of some kind of role with the government secrets.

But as part of that, she was offered and has accepted, I think she already has them, uh, a bunch of files from Russia on the topic of their own investigation of who killed JFK.

Now, how much would you trust Russia's assessment of who killed JFK?

Does that seem like something credible to you?

Especially in today's day and age, it's possible.

But but even if they're telling the truth, how much truth do they know?

That would Russia have access to more, you know, accurate information or or simply be willing to say it whereas maybe the US people would lie about it.

I don't know.

But I I haven't seen the details, but I saw a suggestion that the Russians thought LBJ and the CIA conspired to kill Kennedy.

Now, that's what I think.

I mean, that this sort of matches my opinion.

Um, other people will say Israel is behind it cuz we say Israel's behind everything.

I don't know about that.

Um, I know the argument.

The argument is that Kennedy was doing things that Israel didn't like, such as trying to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.

Um, well, that would be uh a very big risk to murder our president because they didn't like something.

So, I'm generally going to say that I just don't believe a foreign country is going to take a chance of murdering our president if there's any chance of getting caught.

And there's always a chance of getting caught.

You You can't murder somebody in public and then just assume you won't get caught because you what?

Rapidly killed the shooter itself.

I mean, there's just no way you could assume you wouldn't get caught.

But you could imagine CIA and LBJ thinking maybe they could cover it up because that would be an inside job.

But if it were an outside job, you know, it wasn't the United States involved.

I don't know if you could cover that up.

But an inside job, yeah, you you could cover up an inside job.

All right.

You probably saw the story that some group I never heard of called the Young Republican National Federation.

Some of their uh private or internal text messages got revealed.

And uh there were some very uh let's say provocative and uh inappropriate messages in there that got surfaced.

So there were people joking about gas chambers and saying they like Hitler and referring to black people as watermelon eaters and monkeys and other disgusting things.

the leadership has uh disavowed it totally, the leadership of the Young Republican National Federation and demanded that anybody who's involved with those messages immediately resign from the organization.

Let me give you for those of you who are not male, let me give you some insight.

All right?

I don't think I have to tell this to anybody who's a male.

Do you have any idea what young males say when nobody when they think nobody's listening?

Do you have any idea?

I've been a young male.

Not anymore.

But do you have any idea what would be normal conversation among I don't know 19year-olds?

Any idea?

Do you really think this is outside the line that that you discovered this little pocket of people who say things that are provocative?

No.

This would be every group of 100 people is going to have 10 trolls in it.

Let's say if you picked 100 young men, doesn't matter what race, doesn't matter what politics, doesn't matter.

Probably doesn't even matter.

Well, maybe it matters what religion.

That would matter a little bit.

But if it's just a hundred people picked randomly, you're going to get 10 trolls who think it's the funniest thing in the world to say things that offend the rest of the people.

They would be doing it to be offensive, but the payoff is the offensive part that to see the reaction.

If you don't understand that about young boys or men that there's going to be 10% trolls, they're going to say whatever is the worst thing you could say and they're doing it for the reaction, for the attention, then you don't really understand this.

Pretty much all of those people will outgrow this kind of behavior.

So for the people who are under 25, I just say, "Wait, it's not really a problem you need to fix.

It's not ideal.

I don't approve of it.

That's why it gets fixed.

That when when people get to a certain age and they realize nobody approves of this, just nobody nobody approves of this.

Then, you know, they start to buy into the system a little bit and it goes away.

So, I would say it's a nonpro.

Um, but it is a shock probably to women to find out that this would be so ordinary.

Um, and by the way, I'm not saying it's ordinary that they're racists.

I'm saying it's ordinary that they would pick whatever was the most provocative, inappropriate thing to say, and 10% of them are going to say that, guaranteed every time.

Whatever it is you don't want them to say, 10% will say it cuz they just love doing that.

So, I wouldn't take it too seriously.

I think the young Republican leadership treated it right.

They disavowed it right away.

They said, "You got to get out of here." They they set a standard.

That's all you can do.

Sort of a non story.

Uh you are probably know that Jimmy Kimmel um praised Trump for his Gaza success.

He said, quote, "I know it sounds crazy to say, but good work on that one, President Trump." Now, I would say that was the easiest thing that anybody could ever do.

So Kimmel probably would enjoy having some easy non-controversial way to get back some of his conservative audience.

I mean that's that's a big reach.

I don't think he'll get him back.

But it's easy to say, you know, once CNN and you know, even the critics of the president have sided with him on Gaza, it's kind of easy at that point say, "All right, all right.

You did that one thing good." So that was smart and appropriate, but it it makes a more of a contrast with why the ladies of the view can't seem to do this.

When you see how easy it is and how smart it is really, it's just smart.

Uh then you see that the view can't do the thing that's easy and smart.

Just can't do it.

So anyway, so the most what would be the most uh predictable thing that would happen after this Gaza deal seems to have been uh made.

The most predictable thing would be violations of the ceasefire.

Is there anyone who thought the ceasefire would not be violated?

Of course it will.

It's always violated because there there are members of both sides who probably didn't want peace.

There probably probably some Israelis and probably some Gazins were like, you know, I wouldn't mind a little bit more war.

We could maybe get more of what we want out of this deal.

So, of course, there will be ceasefire violations, but uh as long as the main combatants have been separated, it should be limited and something we can work through.

I don't think it'll be the end of the process.

Anyway, and then the reports that Hamas has already carried out um a bunch of public executions.

We don't know how much.

It might be it might have happened once uh eight people um but there's reports of at least 33 people who have been uh executed sort of revenge I guess they just take them out but that too was 100% predictable right it's 100% predictable the Hamas would execute whoever they didn't like during the war but at some point they run out of people to execute uh or at some point they lose their weapons.

So Trump says Hamas will be forced to disarm or quote we will disarm them.

I asked on X, who's we?

Because I think there are 200 US troops over there.

They're not going to do it, right?

I I hope we're not sending US troops on the ground.

But he said we he probably means that peace council who whichever countries decide to be part of the security arrangement but he says um the disarmment should take place in a reasonable period of time.

Well, you know Trump is good at disarming.

Uh if you saw him shaking hands with Emanuel Mcronone, he practically ripped his whole arm off.

Yeah, he's very disarming.

And then uh and and Trump clarifies.

He says, "If they don't disarm, we will disarm them and it will happen quickly and perhaps violently." Uh but then he looks sort of looks at the camera.

Trump did this at his event at uh one of those press events yesterday.

He says, "But they will disarm." Do you understand me?

Now, my understanding is that that had not been maybe completely agreed when they said yes to the hostage deal.

I believe that Hamas was still sort of, you know, sort of holding on to maybe the option that maybe they could keep some weapons, whereas uh the Israelis and the US were saying, "Nope, that's not an option.

You're not keeping any weapons." So that was a I think that was a non-aggreedon point.

Can Trump once again change reality as opposed to negotiating?

Change reality so that Hamas would actually disarm.

I don't know.

He's acting he he's acting like he talked to Hamas and they told him that they would disarm.

So he's he's taking their no as a yes again, right?

I mean, it may be a little murkier.

this time, but I'm pretty sure they said they didn't say yes, but he's saying that they said yes to him.

Now, we can't we can't prove that cuz we weren't in the room, but did they say yes to him?

If they said yes to him, um, that would carry some weight.

But I also love the fact that if they didn't say yes to him, he might still say that they did because that's that would be another example of him changing reality as opposed to negotiating.

So suppose Trump convinced the other members of Hamas that when he talked to the leadership, they had agreed to disarm.

What if that had never happened?

Would it still be smart for Trump to say, "Yeah, I talked to them.

They said they're going to disarm.

Yes, it would because it would make the other people who also don't have good communication with their leadership think, "Oh, well, may maybe that's what we've agreed to." So, I like how I like how clever it is whether it happened or not.

And remember, people are just now getting used to the fact that Trump gets things done without being technically accurate about everything he says.

He's not technically accurate about everything he says, but he sure knows how to get results.

And this might be one of those examples.

So, we don't know the truth of it.

It's possible that Hamas just felt cornered in the meeting and lied to him just to, you know, get to get past the meeting.

It's possible they lied to him, but I I'm kind of entertained by the possibility that nobody ever said that and that he could still sell it cuz he can he could still sell it.

So, we'll see.

And it would be for the good.

Uh I think everybody'd be better off if he did sell it.

I guess Bill Clinton has been claiming that when he was in office, he had made an offer to the Palestinians, there was a once- ina-lifetime peace opportunity.

But let's just say that not everybody agrees that that really happened.

Uh Erin Mate is claiming that uh Clinton's been saying that for a while, but there's a book by Robert Mali um who served as US peace negotiator on Clinton and he says no that didn't happen there.

There was nothing like that that happened there.

There was never a deal on the table that the Palestinians could have accepted.

But let's talk about this two-stage solution which I feel is my responsibility to solve.

So your basic situation here is another impossibility.

How could it be possible that Israel gets their one-state solution?

You know it's a mixed bag in Israel.

Some people would like two, some would like one.

But the government certainly Netanyahu is not in favor of two.

The Palestinians are also of, you know, mixed opinion, but a lot of them would like a two-sided solution.

Some of them would like a one-state solution, but not the one state that they have, if you know what I mean.

So, you've got these sort of impossible to reconcile positions.

It can't be a two, and it can't be a one.

So, there there are two things that are possible, two states or one state.

And the one thing we know for sure is that two states won't work because there'll always be enough religious people in each state to think the other one shouldn't exist and there'll be continuous conflict.

So it's not like two ordinary states.

It's more like a religious situation where if if they were just if they were two nonreligious countries, yes, two-state solution.

I would I would be pushing for that hard.

It's like, yeah, you just, you know, you just want to live and have a good economy.

There's no religion involved here.

Oh, yeah, you could probably figure out how to live next to each other.

But as soon as you add the God told us this is our land and they both have it, they both have it.

That's not reconcilable.

You can't reconcile that with one or two.

There's always going to be half the people who want to go to war to change that situation.

So, do you know what you need?

Can you guess what I'm going to say next?

You need a reframe.

If there are only two possibilities and you know for sure neither of them will work, you got to reframe.

So is there a reframe?

I I'm going to suggest this.

We think of things in terms of the way things have always been done and that becomes your prison.

Uh Greg Guffel talks about the the prison of two ideas.

When you get locked into well there are only two things only two things.

It's either a one or a two.

One state or two state.

But what if you released on that and you said there's something that's not a one state and it's not a two state.

What if it was a I'll just make up some words.

Uh a special um special conscious conscience zone.

I'm using conscience um as a substitute for religion cuz you don't want to pick the right religion.

That's not a thing.

But isn't the thing that makes part of the world different is how people feel internally.

Right.

Right.

What makes that place different is how all the people involved feel internally.

Now there's an external part where people are getting you know killed and there's wars and there's boundaries and all that but we you know we have sort of an understanding of that and it's not getting us to any kind of a good place.

But if you change the focus from the kinetic physical boundary kind of thing to the internal state of the people involved that's a reframe.

So I would say that this might be the one place on earth that you don't want something like a standard country.

So it wouldn't be one country, but it also wouldn't be two.

It would be all by itself and not even a country.

It would be a land of conscience where you where if you wanted to be there, you would, you know, meet a certain set of requirements, you know, because you have to have some kind of order.

but that it would be run as a sort of an open whatever your conscience tells you to believe this is the place to do it and this is not the place where we fight with each other and uh you find some way to get God on both sides.

For example, could you bring together the leading people from both religions and could you find any moderates who say, "You know what?

If God were in the room with us, what would he want?

Would he want us to be fighting or would he want us to live our conscience and, you know, express our best our best feelings about the world and and the afterworld and all that.

So, this is not a complete idea.

I'm just sort of leaning in the direction of something that might have some possibility.

But if you've ruled out one country and you've ruled out two countries, you're going to have to find something that's not one of those two things.

And I think it's possible.

Now, who could who could pull that off?

Who could change reality?

Reality.

We're not talking about negotiating.

We're talking about changing reality.

Who could change reality enough to make some kind of peace happen without a traditional state situation?

Trump.

There's only one person in the world who could do that.

Trump.

Now, will he do it?

I doubt it.

It doesn't doesn't seem like that would be exactly in his domain, but you could imagine it could be done.

You can imagine it.

So, just for a moment, imagine maybe there's a way to solve that.

And it won't be a one or two state solution.

Well, I am continuing to be uh entertained how Democrats are addicted to things that aren't real.

So, they were of course pushing the trans bubble, the whole trans thing.

That wasn't real.

I mean, trans people are real, but not the size of it.

There there was a fine people hoax and all the other hoaxes that they believed in.

There's a they still believe the January 6 was an insurrection because that's how you conquer a country by wandering around without weapons.

That's how you do it.

That's what they think.

Uh they believe there was no problem at the border.

They think that Trump is going to run for a third term and steal your democracy.

They think that crime in the cities is actually getting better as opposed to what's really happening, which is they're tweaking the statistics.

uh they think the climate crisis is real.

They think uh Republicans are the ones who close the government even though the Republicans have all voted to open it.

Uh they they believe that we do know or that it's even possible to know that the 2020 election was clean.

Now, it would be one thing if you're arguing whether whether it was rigged or not, but they don't even argue that.

They argue that it couldn't have been rigged because we know it.

That's just crazy.

Um, and remember when they said that when Trump said he wanted to find votes and he got impeached for that, didn't he?

But find is just a regular word, but they imagined it meant go steal some votes or go lie.

They thought that there was a huge white supremacist threat in the US.

Well, so far those white supremacists seemed kind of quiet.

And it makes sense that the Democrats would become a a completely imaginary imaginary believing group.

The group is real, but what they believe in is almost entirely imaginary.

And it makes sense because the uh the Trump people, they laid claim to common sense and once it became a catchphrase of the right, you can't really use it on the left.

So the the fact that uh everything that Trump does falls under common sense uh what's left the opposite of common sense is is imaginary stuff or stuff that's just stupid.

So some of it's just stupid but most of it's based on imaginary stuff.

Now what would you now if if what I'm saying is true what would you predict from that?

So if it's true that the Democrats have gone into completely imaginary world of of things well you would expect that whatever they're doing right now like whatever their biggest effort is would be a fight against something imaginary.

But wait it gets better.

It wouldn't just be a fight against something imaginary.

They would use imaginary tools to fight the imaginary thing.

Do you think you could ever get to the double imaginary?

Yeah.

It's this weekend.

They're they're going to have a no kings rally, which is my understanding a bunch of paid protesters, probably elderly white people who will wander around and not cause any trouble.

and they believe that the wandering around on the weekend will help save them from Trump stealing their democracy.

So, first of all, nobody's stealing their democracy.

Second of all, there is no logical common sense way that people wandering around this weekend on a nice autumn day is going to change anything in the real world.

So, you've got an imaginary problem which they have matched with an imaginary solution and they're all going to be marching around marching around this weekend and the Republicans are just going to be watching and saying what what the hell is all this?

What's your imaginary problem?

And how do you imagine that this imaginary solution will have any connection to what you believe the problem is?

What?

What is Trump going to step down because a few thousand people marched in the city?

What do they even think is going to happen?

Well, let me explain why this happens.

Um, on the Democrat side, and it might be true on the Republican side more than more than I wish it were true, but on the Democrat side, it's all just money that these protesters are part of a paid business model.

somebody who has a business that organizes protests and as long as they can get the Democrats to pay them to organize another protest, you'll have a protest.

It doesn't mean that it will work or that anybody thinks it's a good idea.

It just means they got paid.

So if you follow the money, it makes perfect sense that they have an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem because all that really mattered was did they get paid and the answer is yes.

So now you understand everything.

I saw a saw some comments on X from Steven Pinker who's a Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, Harvard professor.

If you don't know who Stephen Pinker is, the short version is very smart.

Smarter than me, smarter than most of us, right?

So, you need to know that he's smarter than ordinary people because otherwise this won't make sense.

So, he's smarter than ordinary people, but he was talking in some event recently about how Trump is violating uh norms.

He violates norms.

the way he talks about things, the way the way he acts he violates norms and that that could be bad.

um such as you he gave an example of talking about maybe annex in Greenland or Canada and that you know normally you wouldn't say stuff like that uh and he thinks that it's a negative development that Trump violates norms to which I said why do you automatically think it's bad to violate a norm isn't every successful entrepreneur a norm violator Can Can you think of anybody who didn't violate a norm?

Did Did Steve Jobs violate any norms?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Did Trump violate any norms to get a deal in Gaza?

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's exactly what he did.

He violated all the norms.

Did he violate norms to get elected president?

And at least half of the country is very, very happy that he did.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And are we getting used to him when he violates norms?

Yes, that the the the act that he put on in the Middle East, he violated so many norms, you know, the way the the way he treated the other leaders, you know, you could make your own list, but he's not really a slave to norms.

Would you want him to be?

Now, the reason I started out by saying that Pinker is smarter than me and smarter than you, I mean, if he took an IQ test, he'd beat me.

He'd beat mostly you, too.

Um, the point is that intelligence doesn't help as much as you think because he's clearly, you know, I can't read his mind.

So, let let me be a little bit humble there.

I can't read his mind.

And if I could, maybe I wouldn't understand it because, like I said, he's smarter than me.

So, here's what it looks like.

What it looks like is that people have started with the answer Trump bad and now they're trying to rationalize it which looks like cognitive dissonance which looks like Trump derangement syndrome.

When you see somebody this smart say something that in my opinion I I won't say it's dumb.

It just seems disconnected from reality to imagine that violating a norm would automatically be bad.

Now, I think somebody told me that, you know, somewhere he softened it a little bit.

So, so if I'm being too harsh, I apologize in advance, but what I saw was this was part of what the Democrats are retreating to.

They're trying to retreat to something they can support because everything you can measure is starting to go pro.

Trump.

Right?

If you can measure the crime, Trump reduced it.

If you can measure the number of people coming across the border, Trump reduced it.

If you can measure how much he's collecting in tariffs, he's collecting a lot of money in tariffs.

So you see every everywhere that you can measure it, Trump either has a good argument or he's just flat out winning.

So they have to retreat to things you can't measure which is oh the character.

Oh, I know.

What about his norms?

What about his norms?

He's violating norms and character and and we think he's going to steal your democracy.

Do you see the pattern?

They have to completely retreat to unverifiable non-measurable things otherwise they've got nothing.

Now there are some things where you can argue whether the numbers are right and you know that they can do that a little bit but mostly you know overall if you can measure it Trump is killing it right and if you can't measure it well that's where they have to go live because it's the only way to protect their TDS is that they're they're really the smart ones that that's what they think they're really the smart ones and they can tell just by reading his find that there's a bunch of bad stuff in there that's going to come out any minute.

Well, I don't know if you saw the video of Gavin Newsome when he was asked on some podcasts, I guess, uh about his involvement with APAC.

Now, I usually don't show videos on my podcast because it's sort of distraction, but you have to watch this.

I'm going to instead of show video, I'm going to give you my impression of Gavin Newsome ask asking about if he uh took money from APEC.

And it goes like this.

Um you you're like you're like the first to bring up Apac in years, which is which is interesting.

That's interesting.

It's interesting.

It's it's interesting.

I haven't thought about Apac.

Oh, it's been years now.

It's but it's interesting.

It's interesting that he would bring that up.

And after he'd said it was interesting and he hadn't really thought about it, after he said it like three times, I started thinking, "What's wrong with you?

Like, you're acting weird.

It's interesting.

Why are you acting so weird?" And then after he said it three times, he couldn't stop saying it.

He said it maybe 10 times in a row.

Now, there are some things that you can say three times in a row for emphasis, and everybody gets that.

If you can say it 10 times in a row without adding anything in between, there's something going on.

There's something wrong.

What's that?

Yeah.

So, um, here's how not to act.

If somebody asked you if you're being influenced by Apac, I haven't thought about, well, it's interesting.

It's interesting.

I haven't thought about I I don't even think about it.

Well, it's just not even It's interesting.

Well, you know, that's interesting.

That's interesting.

Don't do that.

That That's my advice.

Just don't do that.

Well, the Supreme Court has rejected Alex Jones appeal.

You know, he was being sued by the San Diego people for uh I guess it's up to $1.4 billion judgment that nobody could pay.

Well, he can't pay.

And so, at this point, his personal assets and all of his business assets are, I believe, forfeited to the people who won the lawsuit.

Now, here's my question.

Alex Jones has um through his hard work over the years has developed himself into an asset that many many people find very valuable.

Do we lose that?

I mean, there there's a human element, too, which is I care about him as a person.

I like Alice Jones.

Uh he's been nice to me, right?

So, everybody who knows him likes him.

So in person apparently he's very likable.

Um so I want him to do well and I don't want him to uh if you call this a mistake and I think that would be fair.

The San Die thing it does look like a mistake but do you want to lose everything he has to offer to the world which I think is lot because of that one mistake.

And it's not like he's he's going to jail, but how in the world is he allowed to make a living and also contribute, you know, contribute to taxes, contribute to the world, contribute to the way we see or think.

So that that's an actual question.

How how do you go on?

Because it looks like they would take whatever.

So his business is gone, but let's say he reconstitutes a new business.

that wouldn't be the hardest thing.

But if he starts making money again, isn't that all attached?

Like all the money that comes in just goes right to the the lawsuit people.

So how do you is there any path to recover from that?

So the question I'm going to ask is is there a way given that he has extensive you know extensive u network of people who would probably help him is there a way that you could structure it so that he would be let's say reimbursed for expenses in a way that would you know allow him to have a a decent lifestyle.

Um that wouldn't look like income because if it's income he's got to he's got to give it up.

But if it's not income, so for example, could he build a world where he appears on podcasts?

Uh, and he gets a an expense account from the podcasters, you know, maybe some of the big ones.

Um, is there any model that he can make that work?

I'm concerned about him.

Anyway, we'll see.

Um, EUR Europe's having a drug shortage.

So, I guess thearmacies are running on empty and that has to do with their own regulations getting in the way, but China must be restricting some things.

So, is this going to come to us?

Because I haven't noticed any drug restrictions in the US and I get a lot of meds at the moment.

Um, but that's scary.

So, apparently Europe there there are people who need these drugs who just can't get them, just not available.

That's really scary.

Wired says that uh satellites maybe a lot of the satellites that are already in the air, believe it or not, don't have encrypted data.

So, apparently with a very small investment, you can start taking the private data off of the satellites.

Not all of them, but a huge number of satellites are not encrypted and you can just get all their stuff.

Did you know that?

Did you know that you could just read the satellite messages if you had what an $800 piece of equipment?

Well, that's bad.

Um, ex admiral.

I guess maybe are you always an admiral?

Um, but the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, guy named uh Admiral James Stridus, he was telling News Nation that uh that uh Trump should definitely give Ukraine Tomahawk missiles so it can go after Putin's oil and gas capabilities.

So, what do you think of that?

I think he's with the Carlilele group now.

So, do you trust that or is that just a militaryindustrial complex kind of an opinion and uh less of a military opinion?

But, uh he does say that the key is to go after the oil and gas capabilities.

I you know, I've been telling you for a while that it's a robot versus energy war.

So the robot drones and other robots from both sides are going hard at the energy resources of the other especially because winter is coming.

So uh that's what the war is now.

The war is energy energy versus robots.

Have you been following the story of the uh Pentagon press policy?

I guess Hagath has a new policy that says um if you want to be in the Pentagon and talk to people and get information, you got to you got to sign this 10-page agreement that says uh that you won't be soliciting people for tips or insider stuff.

I guess if you get your information not from asking the people in the Pentagon, you can still publish it, but they don't want you pestering them and then reporting on it.

Now, uh to their credit, it appears that both the leftleaning and right-leaning, including Fox News, have said uh no way, First Amendment, we do not sign on to this.

So there there's almost complete unonymity on the left and the right that this is an overreach.

I guess OA agreed, but they're a small entity.

And so this is an example of why I'm not worried.

Um, this is why I'm not worried about u an authoritarian takeover by the right because the right has what I call a sort of an internal idea of where the line is but the left can't see it and the ear the internal line is the constitution.

If you violate the constitution conservatives are not going to put up with any extra authoritarian stuff that violates the constitution and this is that.

So as soon as as soon as you see that the administration has in fact gone too far and I I feel like you know again Jonathan Turley is on the side of this goes too far and I think all the reasonable people are on that same side.

Um you can depend on the conservative press and also the conservative public saying that's too far.

So what?

Imagine if you were a Democrat and you don't have the same, let's say, reverence for the Constitution and you also don't know how any conservative thinks.

If you did not know the inner thoughts of conservatives, you wouldn't know that there's an automatic very reliable um guard rail to make sure that a Republican or conservative president doesn't go too far.

We like him to push the door a little bit.

Right.

We we like him to test things.

We we don't mind if he's testing the edge, but as soon as he steps over the edge, I I think everybody recognizes it at the same time.

And this would be an example.

So, if the combined left and right um media succeeds in getting this dropped, or possibly maybe it doesn't matter.

It might be one of those things that you think matters, but doesn't really matter.

But I think they'll deal with it.

And uh you can you can see how a Democrat would be possibly panicked about authoritarianism because they don't know that the people who will stop that authoritarianism are really dead set on stopping it if it has to be stopped.

That they will stop it.

But you know, you don't trust the other team to to do what you want.

So, I can see how that'd be scary if you didn't know that conservatives aren't going to put up with losing free speech.

Not not for the long run.

Yeah.

CNN's reporting, you've heard this before, the Supreme Court, I guess now is um getting ready to vote on that Voting Rights Act, which included some special set aside districts for minorities just to make sure they weren't completely closed down from representation.

That was part of the Voting Rights Act from way back.

But I guess that will be reassessed.

And if it's struck down as being racist, which it is, by design is racist, uh it it was the kind of racist that was supposed to be the good kind, but you know, time goes by, so maybe we don't think it's the good kind anymore.

Um it would give up to 19 extra seats to Republicans.

So here's my here's my quibble.

Do I like it that Republicans will get 19 extra seats, which might be enough to keep the midterms from flipping?

Okay, I like that.

Like, like that feels like that would be good for the country.

But here's what I don't like.

How many elections are we going to have determined by rule changes?

By rule changes.

It wasn't the 2020 election mostly because of rule changes around COVID and you know mail and voting and stuff like that.

Now we're looking at getting rid of maybe voting machines.

That would be a rule change.

Maybe requiring driver's licenses or IDs.

That would be a rule change.

Now I I might be in favor of every one of these changes except for the vote by mail one.

Um, I might be I might be in favor of them, but do you want to live in a world where the president is determined by the most recent rule change?

Like that's what what kind of system is that?

We we've developed a system that's completely immune to voting.

It's only it's only immune it's only sensitive to rule changes.

And this would be another one.

So, even though I'm even though I'm in favor of dropping that uh those racial set aides, uh I'm not comfortable with our democratic republic turning into basically a lawyer contest.

I'm not comfortable with that.

Anyway, Argentinian President Javier Mle visited and was smart enough to bring with him a letter nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I I feel like all of his buddies are going to do that now.

I wonder how many nominations he'll get.

It could be a lot.

You know, if people see that he likes it, they'll just keep doing it.

Um, but Trump uh uh very publicly decided to interfere with Argentina's elections and and somehow people are just sort of ignoring that.

He said that if MLE didn't get reelected that he wouldn't be nearly as kind to Argentina.

Now, isn't that directly interfering with their election?

Um, and then he's with Scott Bessant, which I think is probably a good idea just because Bessant is involved and he he understands this world.

If he were not involved, I don't know if I would be in so supportive of it, but they're going to do some kind of currency support that Argentina needs.

It's been pointed out that Argentina often needs uh some currency problem because they have all kinds of emergencies.

So, I wouldn't assume that this one intervention solves their currency problem.

It might get them past a a bad phase, but I don't know if it's the end of their problems.

However, um I am not I don't have a problem with Trump interfering with their elections uh either through the currency support or through just threatening that he won't be so friendly if somebody else wins.

And the reason is that I think this falls under the Monroe doctrine, doesn't it?

You know, the the Monroe doctrine says, "Don't mess around with our hemisphere.

We're the big dog." Trump is basically just Monroe doctrine all over this thing.

So, yes, he's interfering in their elections.

But I think he I would go even further.

if they elected some, you know, pro-Chinese communist leader, I think he would go further than talking, you know, that they might get kinetic.

The CIA might be setting up a government overthrow function there.

So, I feel like it's all I think that the Monroe doctrine works.

It's good for the US.

It's it's definitely America first.

Uh, so I'm okay with it, but but it definitely is interfering with their elections.

Um, Dan Driscoll, he's a US Army secretary.

He described Ukraine as quote the Silicon Valley of warfare.

meaning that uh uh at this point the uh the Ukraine military might be one of the might be the strongest military in Europe because of all the practice and all the weaponry, but also their innovative um system uh appears to be just way better than Russia because you know Russia is you get a paycheck no matter what you do.

Uh the Ukraans have all these incentive systems and uh various ways probably to get rich as well um for building better drones.

So what you should see, as I've warned you, is that you're going to see the Ukrainian innovation start to make a big difference.

The Russians still have the human power, the missiles.

They've they've got a range of, you know, advantages, but those advantages should be disappearing entirely because the innovation thing just keeps going.

Russia isn't making lots of new soldiers, but Ukraine might be making lots of new innovations.

So, one of them is going to, you know, improve faster than the other one could improve.

And I guess uh they bombed each other last night.

their energy facilities are both going after them.

Breitbar London says Russia hammered Ukraine with glide bombs and they struck a hospital and energy facilities and meanwhile Ukraine struck um I guess St.

Pet according to Grock um St.

P St.

Petersburg is already having blackouts.

So Ukraine's being successful there.

And uh Russia's low on diesel and aviation fluid um fuel.

Uh trains are late.

Planes some planes are grounded because they don't have aviation flu fuel.

And I guess Siberia is going to have a special problem um because they would be the you know most vulnerable.

So I don't know that that comes from Grock.

I don't know if we really know what's going on over there at all.

But there's a poll according to Breitbart John Hayward that 75% of Ukrainians want Zilinski to leave office after the war.

So do you think the war is going to end if the guy in charge of the war knows that 75% of the people want him to leave office after the war?

Is he going to end the war?

Probably not.

So that's a problem.

Um, I was going to ask you what percentage of people think you should stay, but I think you already figured out 25%.

Hong Kong's going to install 60,000 AI enabled cameras in public.

So, did you think there was any chance we wouldn't get to a future where there were cameras everywhere in public that could do facial recognition and connect it to your entire life?

Well, it's definitely happening.

It's happening in Hong Kong.

And uh I'm pretty sure it's just going to happen everywhere.

Now, sometimes people say, "Scott, why are you in favor of losing all the privacy?" I'm not in favor of losing all the privacy.

It's just going to happen.

There there's no world in which we don't lose all of our privacy.

I hate to say it.

I mean, it might take longer, it might take shorter, but you're going to lose all your privacy.

Or somebody is, maybe your children.

Uh there there's literally nothing you can do about it.

The technology will just make it too easy.

And then this is kind of cool.

Direct TV uh has worked down some deal with another company.

Ars Technica is talking about this.

Another company called uh called the thing I didn't write down.

Glance.

glance.

But what it'll do is make the screen saver on your TV or whatever it is you're watching uh for Direct TV.

Um it will put you in the ad.

So I think you have to give it approval, but you can take a picture of your face and then from that point on some of the ads will have you in the commercial with AI.

Now, how cool is that?

That is one of the best advertising ideas I've ever seen.

If you put if you put the consumer's face in the picture, the odds of them buying that product go way up.

Yeah.

You know, you don't have to do a study on that one.

I can tell you for sure that you because people care about themselves more than they care about anything else.

So, if you put me in the commercial and then you show me enjoying the product, that's going to be really influential.

That'd be a great ad.

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

Uh, thanks for joining everybody.

Um, I hope I didn't look too whacked down on painkillers today, but I'm feeling good.

Um, I'm going to talk to the uh locals people privately if my button works today.

And the rest of you, thanks for joining.

It's always a pleasure to see you.

Hope you come back tomorrow, same time, same place.

Right.

Locals.

If this button

or you snuck up on me. Good morning,

everybody. Come on in. Grab a seat. Make

sure you've got a beverage.

My sleeping cat is behind me, so you can

get a a double show today. Watch the cat

and watch me at the same time.

Well, I'm checking your stocks for you,

and it appears that they're doing pretty

well. And if you took

um well, I won't say my advice because I

don't I don't give stock advice, but I

did tell you about a year ago

that uh nuclear power stocks would

probably be a good idea. And if you had

an index fund, which I do, of nuclear

power stocks, you would see it's up 93%.

So that worked out. The only the only

advice I ever give for finance are two

parts. One is diversify

and the other is there may be once ever

stock opportunities that just never can

happen again like the beginning of the

cell phones or like the beginning of PCs

or the beginning of AI. But uh the

beginning of nuclear power being um

let's say reconstituted as a good thing

will only happen once. there'll be one

time when everybody says, "Oh, we're

going to need a lot of nuclear power."

So, that was the basis. And then again,

I diversify by an index fund. I do not

recommend this. I do not recommend that

you follow anything I say for finance.

Um, that's not really my domain,

but th that those are two investment

tricks that you should know. The once

ever and diversify. If you get those two

things right, you might be in good shape

as long as you don't make too big a

bets.

All right, I think we had a show to do

here.

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

Coffee with Scott Adams. The best thing

that ever happened to you in your whole

darn life. But if you'd like to take it

up a level, see if you can do that. All

you need for that is a cup or a mug or a

glass of tanker gels in a canteen and

jug or flask a vessel of any kind. Fill

it with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the

thing that makes everything better. It's

called the simultaneous sip and it's

going to happen right now. Go.

So good. So good.

All right, I'm going to give you a

reframe from my book,

Reframe Your Brain, which I have not yet

selected, but they're all so good that

it won't be hard.

Um

here, here's one. Uh the usual frame is

that you deserve to be treated well by

other people. How many of you think that

that's a a fair statement? That you

deserve to be treated well by other

people.

Well, here's a reframe. I'll improve on

that. You get what you give on average.

No one deserves anything. You get what

you give. If you're not getting enough

out of other people or your job or out

of life, you're probably not giving

enough. So instead of thinking, darn it,

why have I not been given enough just

for existing? Stop that. Go make sure

that you can get enough by giving more.

So that's one of the uh tips for

happiness, too. If you're in a bad mood,

you've heard me say this one before. One

of the best ways to get in a good mood

is just to do some unsolicited good

thing for somebody. And if they

appreciate it, or even if they don't, as

long as it's a good thing, it will cheer

you up. So, stop thinking about what

people can do for you. Think about what

you can do for other people and watch

the magic happen.

All right, I got to see your comments

here. Let me give you a little update on

my health situation. Normally, I

wouldn't do that, but since you're all

part of the ride and you're you're

wondering if I'm going to conchk out any

minute. So, here's the current plan.

Current plan goes like this. On Friday,

I'll get a scan that's a special scan

PSMA

that will tell me if I'm uh can be

qualified for this new cancer drug

called Plu Victto by

what was that? By Novartis.

Um,

and

so on Friday I get scanned and then my

doctor will look at the scan and see if

it's see if it uh what they do is they

give you some nuclear juice and if it

lights up the tumors then they know that

the plto can reach the tumors. So you

don't automatically get it because you

want it and you don't automatically get

it because your doctor thinks it's a

good idea. You have to go through a

process to qualify to be one of the

people who can get it. Probably because

it's expensive.

There's there's something on my desk

talking.

I don't know what it is.

I don't have any devices that should be

talking to me now, but I'm hearing some

voices. I hope that's not in my head.

Anyway, so the process is I take the

scan, my doctor looks at it, then he has

to submit it to a board of people that

only meet every two weeks specifically

to decide who gets this limited drug and

who doesn't. It's very expensive. I

assume that's why they do it because

it's costs so much. Um, if they say yes,

that will take me a couple of weeks

before I get the yes. Then I also have

to schedule the actual treatments of

which there would be half a dozen. So we

might be a month away from me getting

that into my veins. And uh, so my

challenge is to stay alive until then.

What one of the exciting things about

having late stage cancer is you don't

really know how long you're going to

last, right? The I I bought a little

extra time with the uh testosterone

blockers,

but you know, they they fail after a

while. Predictably, they fail. So, I'm

in that failure range where things are

getting much worse, but my solution is

getting closer and closer. No, it's not

a solution. It's a chance of a solution.

Maybe maybe a good solid 30% chance it

buys me, you know, some meaningful extra

time, but we're only talking months.

We're only talking months. If if I were

one of the rare people who just the

tumors just disappeared, which could

happen by the way with that drug, um

it's just not the common experience.

So, uh, the other thing you need to know

is that I've upped my painkillers. I

won't be more specific than that, but

wow, am I high right now.

I am so high uh on painkillers. You

know, legally legally prescribed

painkillers. So, uh, for the first time

that you've seen me in months, I'm in no

pain whatsoever. I have no mental pain.

I have no physical pain. This is the

first time you've seen me out of pain

since

a year ago, probably a year ago. So, I'm

having a really good day and I had a

good night's sleep and who knows what's

going to happen next. So, there's a uh

story by the BBC that says your hormones

might be controlling your mind. Do you

think they needed to do that study to

find out that your hormones might

control how you're thinking?

That's literally the most obvious thing

in the world. No, you didn't need to do

that. Just ask me, Scott, do you think

that people's hormones will affect their

thoughts? Yes. Yes. But they're taking

it further, trying to figure out how to

change the hormones so it'll fix your

mental problems. But yes, your body is

your brain, as I tell you often. All

right, here's another one. Um, did they

need to do this study? Eric Dolan from

Cypost is writing that negativity drives

engagement on political Tik Tok. How

many of you were unaware

that if you do negative things on Tik

Tok and social media, you get more

response than if you do positive things?

Did didn't everybody know that?

But I would I would like to introduce um

a competing thought.

So being as I am a professional humorist

and professional writer and specifically

a cartoonist who writes short pathy

funny things,

I believe that when I do a uh a positive

post that's that's all, you know, upside

and and makes people feel good that

those are just as viral as the negative

stuff. What's different is it's harder

to do. It's really easy to do negative

stuff. You're usually just forwarding

something that somebody else sent

around. But if you wanted to do

something that would make people

inspired and happy, you could do it, but

it's sort of a high bar. You know, if if

you're not a professional writer, you're

not going to hit that too often. But if

you are, positivity can sell. It's just

much much harder for to produce.

Well, almost every day I tell you

there's a new study about um

hallucinogen doing good things for

people. Here's one. This is also Eric

Dolan and Cypost. Uh that long-term

iawasi use is linked to distinct

emotional brain activity and higher

resilience. Now, what's different about

this? And by the way, I don't recommend

Iaskca.

I'm pretty sure that that's one of the

more dangerous ones. I'm not an expert

on this, but uh don't take this as a

recommendation. Uh you should look at

the risks, but the people who are

long-term users of it, I guess some

people do it more as a lifestyle

religious kind of thing that their

brains are actually different and the

difference is a positive that uh and and

this is also interesting. Apparently,

they can use machine learning to

determine just by looking at your brain

if you've used Iawaska for a long time

with 75% chance that they would get it

right. So, they it actually changes your

brain. Your brain is physically

different if you do a lot of IUSA, but

it's apparently it's a positive. But it

did did not help, and this was this part

surprised me. It didn't help anxiety,

depression, or general mood in the long

run, probably in the short run. But uh

the other the other hallucinagens like

uh the mushroom type, I think that

there's more indication that they last,

but the ioesca will make you more

emotionally resilient, which would be an

amazing quality to have if you could

build it. I don't recommend it. I'm just

telling you what's out there.

Well, X is apparently going to make a

change so that you can tell what country

the poster is from. I feel like that

would be really helpful. Wouldn't you

like to know if the post came from China

or Israel or some other country that's

in the news? That seems like a good idea

to me. I'd like that.

um they they're going to have to do a

lot more to make, you know, the the

comments trustable, but that probably

help.

You may have seen this already that the

uh percentage of people claiming to be

trans

uh among young people. So, this is only

a poll of young people. the the number

of people who claim to be trans is

plunging.

Um is so it's it's gone way down, but

the number of people claiming to be gay

or lesbian, somewhat unchanged. What

does that tell you? If the trans

identifiers have gone way down, far far

less of them just in the last year or

two, but the gay and lesbian stayed the

same. Well, it tells me that gay and

lesbian is real.

And trans was always a mass hysteria.

How many of you knew from the beginning

that the trans thing was a mass

hysteria?

Uh, and mass hysteria might be slightly

wrong description, but you know what I

mean that there was a psychological

phenomenon and not a biological

phenomenon.

Pretty much all of you knew that, right?

For some of you, this might be your

first um first identifiable massist

area. The more of these you see, the

easier it is to spot them. And I, you

know, I've been trying to teach you how

to do this for years, but TDS is of

course another massist area. Um, and

even TDS is starting to give way because

of Trump's recent successes and the fact

that, you know, you just sort of get

used to his personality and then it

becomes just part of the show. I think I

think Trump's personality went from, "Oh

my god, we can't have a president who

says and does things like that. No, no,

look what he said again. Oh my god, did

he say that?" And then you just get used

to it. And now we're at the point where

he says outrageously provocative things

and even his critics just sort of give

up on it. It's like, yeah, okay, that's

just what he does. Uh, does it work?

Well, apparently there's more upside

than downside for Trump being Trump.

So, yeah, you you'll learn to m spottle

these massistas.

Um, however, let's see if you think this

is a competing number or not. So, if you

knew that trans is way down and you knew

that gay and lesbian was stable,

uh, what would you make of the fact that

there was a in Brown University there's

a one in three people identify as LGBTQ

or LGBT? No. Q. One in three.

Do you know what the the uh the secret?

Well, not secret. Do you know why the

number is so big? that one in three

people at Brown are LGBT.

Well, one uh hypothesis which I think is

right on is that young females

um still find it trendy. I feel like

it's trendy. It's not it's not a massive

story. It's just trendy to say that

well, you know, I'm a little bit

bisexual. If I met a woman that I fell

in love with, you know, I could imagine

I could imagine that maybe something

would happen there. So, I think it has

to do with women, young women saying,

"Yeah, no problem. If I fell in love

with somebody of the same sex, you know,

I'm not I'm not exactly gay or by, but

if it happened, it happened." So, I

think that's what's happening. The one

in three is mostly young women.

All right.

Let's talk about Leticia James.

So, Leticia James, you all know who she

is. She's the one who tried to lawfare

Trump into jail, but she's got her own

lawfare problems with alleged banking

fraud for her several mortgages. Anyway,

she appeared in in front of some group

and got like a hero's welcome. And I

thought to myself, how how do you get a

hero's welcome for being incredibly

accused of being a gigantic fraud while

also being the attorney general?

Like, h how? But apparently she had lots

of supporters and she was quite happy to

raise her hand and what if she were Elon

Musk, they would call a Nazi salute, but

instead she was just waving to the

crowd. Um but but uh Jonathan Turley,

one of my favorite observers of

anything, uh had a good comment on X

about her. Uh Jonathan Turley says,

"Leticia James declared yesterday, this

was at the event, that her indictment is

nothing more than a desperate

weaponization of our justice system."

And Charlie says, "It is like Katie

Porter objecting to a hostile

workplace." That's a good line. The fact

that the audience applauded rather than

laughed is the ultimate test of rage

politics. Yeah,

that that's a perfect comment, Jonathan

Turley. I'm going to mention him again

later. He's so good. Uh you remember

Jack Smith?

What do you call him? A special counsel

or whatever he was. So, he was

investigating uh Trump and he went on

MSNBC.

He was talking to Andrew Weisman, who

Molly Hemingway reminds us was the

architect of the Russia collusion hoax.

Now, what two people could be less

credible than Jack Smith talking to

Andrew Weissman on MSNBC?

If you if you were to try to come up

with a a movie plot of the two least

credible people in the least credible

place saying the least credible things,

it would look a lot like that. So, Jack

Smith actually said uh in real words

that uh the idea that politics would

play a role in his cases against Trump

is quote absolutely ludicrous.

It's ludicrous to imagine that politics

had anything to do with lawfaring Trump.

No, it's ludicrous. What are you crazy?

Stop looking at me like that. That's

crazy talk. And not only do I know it's

crazy talk, but Andrew Weissman would

totally agree with me on MSNBC.

So that was that was wonderfully insane.

Uh, in

other funny news, uh, Representative

Anna Pelina Luna, I don't know, I don't

know exactly what her role is in

Congress, Representative Luna, but

apparently she's been given, I'll call

it the portfolio of all the uh, the

secrets, stuff like UFOs and secret

files and I I don't know. So, she has

some kind of some kind of role with the

government secrets. But as part of that,

she was offered and has accepted, I

think she already has them, uh, a bunch

of files from Russia on the topic of

their own investigation of who killed

JFK.

Now, how much would you trust Russia's

assessment of who killed JFK?

Does that seem like something credible

to you? Especially in today's day and

age, it's possible.

But but even if they're telling the

truth, how much truth do they know? That

would Russia have access to more, you

know, accurate information or or simply

be willing to say it whereas maybe the

US people would lie about it. I don't

know. But I I haven't seen the details,

but I saw a suggestion that the Russians

thought LBJ and the CIA conspired to

kill Kennedy. Now, that's what I think.

I mean, that this sort of matches my

opinion. Um, other people will say

Israel is behind it cuz we say Israel's

behind everything. I don't know about

that. Um, I know the argument. The

argument is that Kennedy was doing

things that Israel didn't like, such as

trying to prevent them from getting

nuclear weapons. Um, well, that would be

uh a very big risk to murder our

president because they didn't like

something. So, I'm generally going to

say that I just don't believe a foreign

country is going to take a chance of

murdering our president if there's any

chance of getting caught. And there's

always a chance of getting caught. You

You can't murder somebody in public and

then just assume you won't get caught

because you what? Rapidly killed the

shooter itself. I mean, there's just no

way you could assume you wouldn't get

caught.

But you could imagine CIA and LBJ

thinking maybe they could cover it up

because that would be an inside job. But

if it were an outside job,

you know, it wasn't the United States

involved. I don't know if you could

cover that up. But an inside job, yeah,

you you could cover up an inside job.

All right. You probably saw the story

that some group I never heard of called

the Young Republican National

Federation. Some of their uh private or

internal text messages got revealed. And

uh there were some very uh let's say

provocative and uh inappropriate

messages in there that got surfaced. So

there were people joking about gas

chambers and saying they like Hitler and

referring to black people as watermelon

eaters and monkeys and other disgusting

things.

the leadership has uh disavowed it

totally, the leadership of the Young

Republican National Federation and

demanded that anybody who's involved

with those messages immediately resign

from the organization.

Let me give you for those of you who are

not male, let me give you some insight.

All right? I don't think I have to tell

this to anybody who's a male.

Do you have any idea what young males

say when nobody when they think nobody's

listening? Do you have any idea?

I've been a young male.

Not anymore.

But do you have any idea what would be

normal conversation among

I don't know 19year-olds?

Any idea? Do you really think this is

outside the line that that you

discovered this little pocket of people

who say things that are provocative?

No.

This would be every group of 100 people

is going to have 10 trolls in it. Let's

say if you picked 100 young men, doesn't

matter what race, doesn't matter what

politics, doesn't matter. Probably

doesn't even matter. Well, maybe it

matters what religion. That would matter

a little bit. But if it's just a hundred

people picked randomly, you're going to

get 10 trolls who think it's the

funniest thing in the world to say

things that offend the rest of the

people. They would be doing it to be

offensive, but the payoff is the

offensive part that to see the reaction.

If you don't understand that about young

boys or men that there's going to be 10%

trolls, they're going to say whatever is

the worst thing you could say and

they're doing it for the reaction, for

the attention, then you don't really

understand this.

Pretty much all of those people will

outgrow this kind of behavior. So for

the people who are under 25, I just say,

"Wait,

it's not really a problem you need to

fix. It's not ideal. I don't approve of

it. That's why it gets fixed. That when

when people get to a certain age and

they realize nobody approves of this,

just nobody nobody approves of this.

Then, you know, they start to buy into

the system a little bit and it goes

away. So, I would say it's a nonpro.

Um, but it is a shock probably to women

to find out that this would be so

ordinary. Um, and by the way, I'm not

saying it's ordinary that they're

racists. I'm saying it's ordinary that

they would pick whatever was the most

provocative,

inappropriate thing to say, and 10% of

them are going to say that, guaranteed

every time. Whatever it is you don't

want them to say, 10% will say it cuz

they just love doing that. So, I

wouldn't take it too seriously. I think

the young Republican leadership treated

it right. They disavowed it right away.

They said, "You got to get out of here."

They they set a standard. That's all you

can do. Sort of a non story.

Uh you are probably know that Jimmy

Kimmel um praised Trump for his Gaza

success. He said, quote, "I know it

sounds crazy to say, but good work on

that one, President Trump." Now, I would

say that was the easiest thing that

anybody could ever do. So Kimmel

probably

would enjoy having some easy

non-controversial way to get back some

of his conservative audience. I mean

that's that's a big reach. I don't think

he'll get him back. But it's easy to

say, you know, once CNN and you know,

even the critics of the president have

sided with him on Gaza, it's kind of

easy at that point say, "All right, all

right. You did that one thing good." So

that was smart and appropriate, but

it it makes a more of a contrast with

why the ladies of the view can't seem to

do this.

When you see how easy it is and how

smart it is really, it's just smart. Uh

then you see that the view can't do the

thing that's easy and smart. Just can't

do it. So anyway, so the most what would

be the most uh predictable thing that

would happen after this Gaza deal seems

to have been uh made. The most

predictable thing would be

violations of the ceasefire.

Is there anyone who thought the

ceasefire would not be violated? Of

course it will. It's always violated

because there there are members of both

sides who probably didn't want peace.

There probably probably some Israelis

and probably some Gazins were like, you

know, I wouldn't mind a little bit more

war. We could maybe get more of what we

want out of this deal. So, of course,

there will be ceasefire violations, but

uh as long as the main combatants have

been separated,

it should be limited and something we

can work through. I don't think it'll be

the end of the process.

Anyway, and then the reports that Hamas

has already carried out um a bunch of

public executions. We don't know how

much. It might be it might have happened

once uh eight people um but there's

reports of at least 33 people who have

been uh executed sort of revenge I guess

they just take them out but that too was

100% predictable

right it's 100% predictable the Hamas

would execute whoever they didn't like

during the war

but at some point they run out of people

to execute

uh or at some point they lose their

weapons. So Trump says Hamas will be

forced to disarm or quote we will disarm

them. I asked on X, who's we? Because I

think there are 200 US troops over

there. They're not going to do it,

right? I I hope we're not sending US

troops on the ground. But he said we he

probably means that peace council who

whichever countries decide to be part of

the security arrangement

but he says um the disarmment should

take place in a reasonable period of

time. Well, you know Trump is good at

disarming. Uh if you saw him shaking

hands with Emanuel Mcronone, he

practically ripped his whole arm off.

Yeah, he's very disarming.

And then uh and and Trump clarifies. He

says, "If they don't disarm, we will

disarm them and it will happen quickly

and perhaps violently."

Uh but then he looks sort of looks at

the camera. Trump did this at his event

at uh one of those press events

yesterday. He says, "But they will

disarm." Do you understand me?

Now, my understanding is that that had

not been

maybe completely agreed when they said

yes to the hostage deal. I believe that

Hamas was still sort of, you know, sort

of holding on to maybe the option that

maybe they could keep some weapons,

whereas uh the Israelis and the US were

saying, "Nope, that's not an option.

You're not keeping any weapons." So that

was a I think that was a non-aggreedon

point.

Can Trump once again change reality as

opposed to negotiating? Change reality

so that Hamas would actually disarm.

I don't know. He's acting he he's acting

like he talked to Hamas and they told

him that they would disarm. So he's he's

taking their no as a yes again, right? I

mean, it may be a little murkier. this

time, but I'm pretty sure they said they

didn't say yes,

but he's saying that they said yes to

him. Now, we can't we can't prove that

cuz we weren't in the room, but did they

say yes to him? If they said yes to him,

um, that would carry some weight. But I

also love the fact that if they didn't

say yes to him, he might still say that

they did

because that's that would be another

example of him changing reality as

opposed to negotiating.

So suppose Trump convinced the other

members of Hamas that when he talked to

the leadership, they had agreed to

disarm.

What if that had never happened? Would

it still be smart for Trump to say,

"Yeah, I talked to them. They said

they're going to disarm. Yes, it would

because it would make the other people

who also don't have good communication

with their leadership think, "Oh, well,

may maybe that's what we've agreed to."

So, I like how I like how clever it is

whether it happened or not. And

remember, people are just now getting

used to the fact that Trump gets things

done without being technically accurate

about everything he says. He's not

technically accurate about everything he

says, but he sure knows how to get

results. And this might be one of those

examples. So, we don't know the truth of

it.

It's possible that Hamas just felt

cornered in the meeting and lied to him

just to, you know, get to get past the

meeting. It's possible they lied to him,

but I I'm kind of entertained by the

possibility that nobody ever said that

and that he could still sell it cuz he

can he could still sell it. So, we'll

see. And it would be for the good. Uh I

think everybody'd be better off if he

did sell it. I guess Bill Clinton has

been claiming that when he was in

office, he had made an offer to the

Palestinians, there was a once-

ina-lifetime peace opportunity.

But let's just say that not everybody

agrees that that really happened. Uh

Erin Mate is claiming that uh Clinton's

been saying that for a while, but

there's a book by Robert Mali

um who served as US peace negotiator on

Clinton and he says no that didn't

happen there. There was nothing like

that that happened there. There was

never a deal on the table that the

Palestinians could have accepted.

But let's talk about this two-stage

solution which I feel is my

responsibility to solve. So your basic

situation here is another impossibility.

How could it be possible that Israel

gets their one-state solution? You know

it's a mixed bag in Israel. Some people

would like two, some would like one. But

the government certainly Netanyahu is

not in favor of two.

The Palestinians

are also of, you know, mixed opinion,

but a lot of them would like a two-sided

solution. Some of them would like a

one-state solution, but not the one

state that they have, if you know what I

mean. So, you've got these sort of

impossible to reconcile positions. It

can't be a two, and it can't be a one.

So, there there are two things that are

possible, two states or one state. And

the one thing we know for sure is that

two states won't work because there'll

always be enough religious people in

each state to think the other one

shouldn't exist and there'll be

continuous conflict. So it's not like

two ordinary states. It's more like a

religious situation where if if they

were just if they were two nonreligious

countries,

yes, two-state solution.

I would I would be pushing for that

hard. It's like, yeah, you just, you

know, you just want to live and have a

good economy. There's no religion

involved here. Oh, yeah, you could

probably figure out how to live next to

each other. But as soon as you add the

God told us this is our land and they

both have it, they both have it. That's

not reconcilable.

You can't reconcile that with one or

two. There's always going to be half the

people who want to go to war to change

that situation. So, do you know what you

need?

Can you guess what I'm going to say

next?

You need a reframe.

If there are only two possibilities and

you know for sure neither of them will

work,

you got to reframe.

So is there a reframe?

I I'm going to suggest this.

We think of things in terms of the way

things have always been done and that

becomes your prison. Uh Greg Guffel

talks about the the prison of two ideas.

When you get locked into well there are

only two things only two things. It's

either a one or a two. One state or two

state. But what if you released on that

and you said there's something that's

not a one state and it's not a two

state. What if it was a I'll just make

up some words. Uh a special

um special conscious conscience zone.

I'm using conscience um as a substitute

for religion cuz you don't want to pick

the right religion. That's not a thing.

But isn't the thing that makes part of

the world different is how people feel

internally. Right. Right. What makes

that place different is how all the

people involved feel internally. Now

there's an external part where people

are getting you know killed and there's

wars and there's boundaries and all that

but we you know we have sort of an

understanding of that and it's not

getting us to any kind of a good place.

But if you change the focus from the

kinetic physical boundary kind of thing

to the internal state of the people

involved that's a reframe.

So I would say that this might be the

one place on earth that you don't want

something like a standard country. So it

wouldn't be one country, but it also

wouldn't be two. It would be all by

itself and not even a country. It would

be a land of conscience

where you where if you wanted to be

there, you would, you know, meet a

certain set of requirements, you know,

because you have to have some kind of

order. but that it would be run as a

sort of an open

whatever your conscience tells you to

believe this is the place to do it and

this is not the place where we fight

with each other and uh you find some way

to get God on both sides.

For example, could you bring together

the leading people from both religions

and could you find any moderates who

say, "You know what? If God were in the

room with us, what would he want? Would

he want us to be fighting

or would he want us to live our

conscience and, you know, express our

best

our best feelings about the world and

and the afterworld and all that. So,

this is not a complete idea. I'm just

sort of leaning in the direction of

something that might have some

possibility. But if you've ruled out one

country and you've ruled out two

countries, you're going to have to find

something that's not one of those two

things. And I think it's possible. Now,

who could who could pull that off? Who

could change reality? Reality. We're not

talking about negotiating. We're talking

about changing reality. Who could change

reality enough to make

some kind of peace happen without a

traditional state situation?

Trump.

There's only one person in the world who

could do that. Trump. Now, will he do

it? I doubt it. It doesn't doesn't seem

like that would be exactly in his

domain, but you could imagine it could

be done. You can imagine it. So, just

for a moment, imagine maybe there's a

way to solve that. And it won't be a one

or two state solution.

Well, I am continuing to be uh

entertained how Democrats are addicted

to things that aren't real. So, they

were of course pushing the trans bubble,

the whole trans thing. That wasn't real.

I mean, trans people are real, but not

the size of it. There there was a fine

people hoax and all the other hoaxes

that they believed in. There's a they

still believe the January 6 was an

insurrection because that's how you

conquer a country by wandering around

without weapons. That's how you do it.

That's what they think. Uh they believe

there was no problem at the border. They

think that Trump is going to run for a

third term and steal your democracy.

They think that crime in the cities is

actually getting better as opposed to

what's really happening, which is

they're tweaking the statistics. uh they

think the climate crisis is real. They

think uh Republicans are the ones who

close the government even though the

Republicans have all voted to open it.

Uh they they believe that we do know or

that it's even possible to know that the

2020 election was clean. Now, it would

be one thing if you're arguing whether

whether it was rigged or not, but they

don't even argue that. They argue that

it couldn't have been rigged because we

know it.

That's just crazy. Um, and remember when

they said that when Trump said he wanted

to find votes and he got impeached for

that, didn't he? But find is just a

regular word, but they imagined it meant

go steal some votes or go lie. They

thought that there was a huge white

supremacist threat in the US. Well, so

far those white supremacists seemed kind

of quiet. And it makes sense that the

Democrats would become a a completely

imaginary

imaginary believing group. The group is

real, but what they believe in is almost

entirely imaginary. And it makes sense

because the uh the Trump people, they

laid claim to common sense

and once it became a catchphrase of the

right, you can't really use it on the

left. So the the fact that uh everything

that Trump does falls under common sense

uh

what's left the opposite of common sense

is is imaginary stuff or stuff that's

just stupid. So some of it's just stupid

but most of it's based on imaginary

stuff.

Now what would you now if if what I'm

saying is true

what would you predict from that? So if

it's true that the Democrats have gone

into completely imaginary

world of of things well you would expect

that whatever they're doing right now

like whatever their biggest effort is

would be a fight against something

imaginary.

But wait it gets better. It wouldn't

just be a fight against something

imaginary.

They would use imaginary tools to fight

the imaginary thing.

Do you think you could ever get to the

double imaginary?

Yeah. It's this weekend. They're they're

going to have a no kings rally, which is

my understanding a bunch of paid

protesters, probably elderly white

people who will wander around and not

cause any trouble. and they believe that

the wandering around on the weekend

will help save them from Trump stealing

their democracy.

So, first of all, nobody's stealing

their democracy.

Second of all, there is no logical

common sense way that people wandering

around this weekend on a nice autumn day

is going to change anything in the real

world. So, you've got an imaginary

problem which they have matched with an

imaginary solution

and they're all going to be marching

around

marching around this weekend and the

Republicans are just going to be

watching and saying

what what the hell is all this? What's

your imaginary problem? And how do you

imagine that this imaginary solution

will have any connection to what you

believe the problem is?

What? What is Trump going to step down

because a few thousand people marched in

the city?

What do they even think is going to

happen? Well, let me explain why this

happens. Um, on the Democrat side, and

it might be true on the Republican side

more than more than I wish it were true,

but on the Democrat side, it's all just

money

that these protesters are part of a paid

business model. somebody who has a

business that organizes protests and as

long as they can get the Democrats to

pay them to organize another protest,

you'll have a protest. It doesn't mean

that it will work or that anybody thinks

it's a good idea. It just means they got

paid. So if you follow the money, it

makes perfect sense that they have an

imaginary solution to an imaginary

problem because all that really mattered

was did they get paid and the answer is

yes.

So now you understand everything.

I saw a saw some comments on X from

Steven Pinker who's a Canadian-American

cognitive psychologist, Harvard

professor. If you don't know who Stephen

Pinker is, the short version is very

smart. Smarter than me, smarter than

most of us, right? So, you need to know

that he's smarter than ordinary people

because otherwise this won't make sense.

So, he's smarter than ordinary people,

but he was talking in some event

recently about how Trump is violating uh

norms.

He violates norms. the way he talks

about things, the way the way he acts he

violates norms and that that could be

bad.

um such as you he gave an example of

talking about maybe annex in Greenland

or Canada and that you know normally you

wouldn't say stuff like that uh and he

thinks that it's a negative development

that Trump violates norms to which I

said

why do you automatically think it's bad

to violate a norm

isn't every successful entrepreneur a

norm violator

Can Can you think of anybody who didn't

violate a norm? Did Did Steve Jobs

violate any norms? Yeah. Yeah. Did Trump

violate any norms to get a deal in Gaza?

Yeah. Yeah. That's exactly what he did.

He violated all the norms. Did he

violate norms to get elected president?

And at least half of the country is

very, very happy that he did. Yeah.

Yeah. And are we getting used to him

when he violates norms? Yes, that the

the the act that he put on in the Middle

East, he violated so many norms, you

know, the way the the way he treated the

other leaders,

you know, you could make your own list,

but he's not really a slave to norms.

Would you want him to be? Now, the

reason I started out by saying that

Pinker is smarter than me and smarter

than you, I mean, if he took an IQ test,

he'd beat me. He'd beat mostly you, too.

Um, the point is that intelligence

doesn't help as much as you think

because he's clearly,

you know, I can't read his mind. So, let

let me be a little bit humble there. I

can't read his mind. And if I could,

maybe I wouldn't understand it because,

like I said, he's smarter than me. So,

here's what it looks like.

What it looks like is that people have

started with the answer Trump bad and

now they're trying to rationalize it

which looks like cognitive dissonance

which looks like Trump derangement

syndrome. When you see somebody this

smart say something that in my opinion

I I won't say it's dumb. It just seems

disconnected from reality to imagine

that violating a norm would

automatically be bad. Now, I think

somebody told me that, you know,

somewhere he softened it a little bit.

So, so if I'm being too harsh, I

apologize in advance, but what I saw was

this was part of what the Democrats are

retreating to. They're trying to retreat

to something they can support because

everything you can measure

is starting to go proTrump.

Right? If you can measure the crime,

Trump reduced it. If you can measure the

number of people coming across the

border, Trump reduced it. If you can

measure how much he's collecting in

tariffs, he's collecting a lot of money

in tariffs. So you see every everywhere

that you can measure it, Trump either

has a good argument or he's just flat

out winning.

So they have to retreat to things you

can't measure which is oh the character.

Oh, I know. What about his norms? What

about his norms? He's violating norms

and character and and we think he's

going to steal your democracy. Do you

see the pattern? They have to completely

retreat to unverifiable

non-measurable

things otherwise they've got nothing.

Now there are some things where you can

argue whether the numbers are right and

you know that they can do that a little

bit but mostly you know overall if you

can measure it Trump is killing it right

and if you can't measure it well that's

where they have to go live because it's

the only way to protect their TDS is

that they're they're really the smart

ones that that's what they think they're

really the smart ones and they can tell

just by reading his find that there's a

bunch of bad stuff in there that's going

to come out any minute.

Well, I don't know if you saw the video

of Gavin Newsome when he was asked on

some podcasts, I guess, uh about his

involvement with APAC.

Now, I usually don't show videos on my

podcast because it's sort of

distraction, but you have to watch this.

I'm going to instead of show video, I'm

going to give you my impression of Gavin

Newsome ask asking about if he uh took

money from APEC.

And it goes like this.

Um you you're like you're like the first

to bring up Apac in years, which is

which is interesting. That's

interesting. It's interesting. It's it's

interesting. I haven't thought about

Apac. Oh, it's been years now. It's but

it's interesting. It's interesting that

he would bring that up. And after he'd

said it was interesting

and he hadn't really thought about it,

after he said it like three times, I

started thinking, "What's wrong with

you? Like, you're acting weird. It's

interesting.

Why are you acting so weird?" And then

after he said it three times,

he couldn't stop saying it. He said it

maybe 10 times in a row.

Now, there are some things that you can

say three times in a row for emphasis,

and everybody gets that. If you can say

it 10 times in a row without adding

anything in between, there's something

going on. There's something wrong.

What's that?

Yeah.

So, um,

here's how not to act. If somebody asked

you if you're being influenced by Apac,

I haven't thought about, well, it's

interesting. It's interesting. I haven't

thought about I I don't even think about

it. Well, it's just not even It's

interesting.

Well, you know, that's interesting.

That's interesting. Don't do that. That

That's my advice. Just don't do that.

Well, the Supreme Court has rejected

Alex Jones appeal. You know, he was

being sued by the San Diego people for

uh I guess it's up to $1.4 billion

judgment that nobody could pay. Well, he

can't pay. And so, at this point, his

personal assets and all of his business

assets are, I believe, forfeited

to the people who won the lawsuit. Now,

here's my question.

Alex Jones has um through his hard work

over the years has developed himself

into an asset

that many many people find very

valuable.

Do we lose that? I mean, there there's a

human element, too, which is I care

about him as a person. I like Alice

Jones. Uh he's been nice to me, right?

So, everybody who knows him likes him.

So in person apparently he's very

likable. Um so I want him to do well and

I don't want him to

uh if you call this a mistake and I

think that would be fair. The San Die

thing it does look like a mistake but do

you want to lose everything he has to

offer to the world which I think is lot

because of that one mistake.

And it's not like he's he's going to

jail, but how in the world is he allowed

to make a living and also contribute,

you know, contribute to taxes,

contribute to the world, contribute to

the way we see or think.

So that that's an actual question. How

how do you go on? Because it looks like

they would take whatever. So his

business is gone, but let's say he

reconstitutes a new business. that

wouldn't be the hardest thing.

But if he starts making money again,

isn't that all attached? Like all the

money that comes in just goes right to

the the lawsuit people. So how do you is

there any path to recover from that?

So the question I'm going to ask is is

there a way given that he has extensive

you know extensive u network of people

who would probably help him is there a

way that you could structure it so that

he would be let's say reimbursed for

expenses

in a way that would you know allow him

to have a a decent lifestyle. Um that

wouldn't look like income because if

it's income he's got to he's got to give

it up. But if it's not income, so for

example, could he build a world where he

appears on podcasts?

Uh, and he gets a an expense account

from the podcasters, you know, maybe

some of the big ones. Um, is there any

model that he can make that work? I'm

concerned about him.

Anyway, we'll see.

Um, EUR Europe's having a drug shortage.

So, I guess thearmacies are running on

empty and that has to do with their own

regulations getting in the way, but

China must be restricting some things.

So, is this going to come to us? Because

I haven't noticed any drug restrictions

in the US and I get a lot of meds at the

moment. Um, but that's scary. So,

apparently Europe there there are people

who need these drugs who just can't get

them, just not available. That's really

scary. Wired says that uh satellites

maybe a lot of the satellites that are

already in the air, believe it or not,

don't have encrypted data. So,

apparently with a very small investment,

you can start taking the private data

off of the satellites. Not all of them,

but a huge number of satellites are not

encrypted and you can just get all their

stuff. Did you know that? Did you know

that you could just read the satellite

messages if you had what an $800 piece

of equipment? Well, that's bad.

Um, ex admiral. I guess maybe are you

always an admiral? Um, but the former

NATO Supreme Allied Commander, guy named

uh Admiral James

Stridus,

he was telling News Nation that uh that

uh Trump should definitely give Ukraine

Tomahawk missiles so it can go after

Putin's oil and gas capabilities.

So, what do you think of that? I think

he's with the Carlilele group now. So,

do you trust that or is that just a

militaryindustrial complex kind of an

opinion and uh less of a military

opinion?

But, uh he does say that the key is to

go after the oil and gas capabilities. I

you know, I've been telling you for a

while that it's a robot versus energy

war. So the robot drones and other

robots from both sides are going hard at

the energy resources of the other

especially because winter is coming. So

uh that's what the war is now. The war

is energy energy versus robots.

Have you been following the story of the

uh Pentagon press policy? I guess Hagath

has a new policy that says um if you

want to be in the Pentagon and talk to

people and get information, you got to

you got to sign this 10-page agreement

that says

uh that you won't be soliciting people

for tips or insider stuff. I guess if

you get your information not from asking

the people in the Pentagon, you can

still publish it, but they don't want

you pestering them and then reporting on

it. Now, uh to their credit, it appears

that both the leftleaning and

right-leaning, including Fox News, have

said uh no way, First Amendment, we do

not sign on to this. So there there's

almost complete unonymity on the left

and the right that this is an overreach.

I guess OA agreed, but they're a small

entity. And

so this is an example of why I'm not

worried.

Um, this is why I'm not worried about u

an authoritarian takeover by the right

because the right has what I call a sort

of an internal idea of where the line is

but the left can't see it

and the ear the internal line is the

constitution.

If you violate the constitution

conservatives are not going to put up

with any extra authoritarian stuff that

violates the constitution and this is

that. So as soon as as soon as you see

that the administration has in fact gone

too far and I I feel like you know again

Jonathan Turley is on the side of this

goes too far and I think all the

reasonable people are on that same side.

Um you can depend on the conservative

press and also the conservative public

saying that's too far.

So what? Imagine if you were a Democrat

and you don't have the same, let's say,

reverence for the Constitution and you

also don't know how any conservative

thinks.

If you did not know the inner thoughts

of conservatives,

you wouldn't know that there's an

automatic very reliable um guard rail to

make sure that a Republican or

conservative president doesn't go too

far. We like him to push the door a

little bit. Right. We we like him to

test things. We we don't mind if he's

testing the edge,

but as soon as he steps over the edge, I

I think everybody recognizes it at the

same time. And this would be an example.

So, if the combined left and right um

media

succeeds in getting this dropped, or

possibly maybe it doesn't matter. It

might be one of those things that you

think matters, but doesn't really

matter. But I think they'll deal with

it. And uh you can you can see how a

Democrat would be possibly panicked

about authoritarianism because they

don't know that the people who will stop

that authoritarianism are really dead

set on stopping it if it has to be

stopped. That they will stop it. But you

know, you don't trust the other team to

to do what you want. So, I can see how

that'd be scary if you didn't know that

conservatives aren't going to put up

with losing free speech.

Not not for the long run.

Yeah. CNN's reporting, you've heard this

before, the Supreme Court, I guess now

is um getting ready to vote on that

Voting Rights Act, which included some

special set aside districts for

minorities just to make sure they

weren't completely closed down from

representation. That was part of the

Voting Rights Act from way back. But I

guess that will be reassessed. And if

it's struck down as being racist, which

it is, by design is racist, uh it it was

the kind of racist that was supposed to

be the good kind,

but you know, time goes by, so maybe we

don't think it's the good kind anymore.

Um it would give up to 19 extra seats to

Republicans. So here's my here's my

quibble.

Do I like it that Republicans will get

19 extra seats, which might be enough to

keep the midterms from flipping? Okay, I

like that. Like, like that feels like

that would be good for the country. But

here's what I don't like. How many

elections are we going to have

determined by rule changes?

By rule changes. It wasn't the 2020

election mostly because of rule changes

around COVID and you know mail and

voting and stuff like that. Now we're

looking at getting rid of maybe voting

machines. That would be a rule change.

Maybe requiring driver's licenses or

IDs. That would be a rule change. Now I

I might be in favor of every one of

these changes except for the vote by

mail one. Um, I might be I might be in

favor of them, but do you want to live

in a world where the president is

determined by the most recent rule

change?

Like that's what what kind of system is

that?

We we've developed a system that's

completely immune to voting. It's only

it's only immune it's only sensitive to

rule changes. And this would be another

one.

So, even though I'm even though I'm in

favor of dropping that uh those racial

set aides,

uh I'm not comfortable

with our democratic republic turning

into basically a lawyer contest. I'm not

comfortable with that.

Anyway, Argentinian President Javier Mle

visited and was smart enough to bring

with him a letter nominating Trump for

the Nobel Peace Prize. I I feel like all

of his buddies are going to do that now.

I wonder how many nominations he'll get.

It could be a lot. You know, if people

see that he likes it, they'll just keep

doing it. Um, but Trump uh uh very

publicly decided to interfere with

Argentina's elections and and somehow

people are just sort of ignoring that.

He said that if MLE didn't get reelected

that he wouldn't be nearly as kind to

Argentina.

Now, isn't that directly interfering

with their election? Um, and then he's

with Scott Bessant, which I think is

probably a good idea just because

Bessant is involved and he he

understands this world. If he were not

involved, I don't know if I would be in

so supportive of it, but they're going

to do some kind of currency support that

Argentina needs. It's been pointed out

that Argentina often needs uh some

currency problem because they have all

kinds of emergencies. So, I wouldn't

assume that this one intervention solves

their currency problem. It might get

them past a a bad phase, but I don't

know if it's the end of their problems.

However, um I am not I don't have a

problem with Trump interfering with

their elections

uh either through the currency support

or through just threatening that he

won't be so friendly if somebody else

wins. And the reason is that I think

this falls under the Monroe doctrine,

doesn't it? You know, the the Monroe

doctrine says, "Don't mess around with

our hemisphere. We're the big dog."

Trump is basically just Monroe doctrine

all over this thing. So, yes, he's

interfering in their elections.

But I think he I would go even further.

if they elected some, you know,

pro-Chinese

communist leader, I think he would go

further than talking, you know, that

they might get kinetic. The CIA might be

setting up a government overthrow

function there. So, I feel like it's all

I think that the Monroe doctrine works.

It's good for the US. It's it's

definitely America first. Uh, so I'm

okay with it, but but it definitely is

interfering with their elections.

Um, Dan Driscoll, he's a US Army

secretary.

He described Ukraine as quote the

Silicon Valley of warfare.

meaning that uh uh at this point the uh

the Ukraine military might be one of the

might be the strongest military in

Europe because of all the practice and

all the weaponry, but also their

innovative um system

uh appears to be just way better than

Russia because you know Russia is you

get a paycheck no matter what you do. Uh

the Ukraans have all these incentive

systems and uh various ways probably to

get rich as well um for building better

drones. So what you should see, as I've

warned you, is that you're going to see

the Ukrainian innovation start to make a

big difference. The Russians still have

the human power, the missiles. They've

they've got a range of, you know,

advantages, but those advantages should

be disappearing entirely because the

innovation thing just keeps going.

Russia isn't making lots of new

soldiers, but Ukraine might be making

lots of new innovations. So, one of them

is going to, you know, improve faster

than the other one could improve.

And I guess uh they bombed each other

last night. their energy facilities are

both going after them. Breitbar London

says Russia hammered Ukraine with glide

bombs and they struck a hospital and

energy facilities and meanwhile Ukraine

struck

um I guess St. Pet according to Grock um

St. P St. Petersburg is already having

blackouts.

So Ukraine's being successful there. And

uh Russia's low on diesel and aviation

fluid um fuel. Uh trains are late.

Planes some planes are grounded because

they don't have aviation flu fuel. And I

guess Siberia is going to have a special

problem um because they would be the you

know most vulnerable. So I don't know

that that comes from Grock. I don't know

if we really know what's going on over

there at all.

But there's a poll according to

Breitbart John Hayward

that 75% of Ukrainians want Zilinski to

leave office after the war. So do you

think the war is going to end if the guy

in charge of the war knows that 75% of

the people want him to leave office

after the war? Is he going to end the

war?

Probably not. So that's a problem. Um, I

was going to ask you what percentage of

people think you should stay, but I

think you already figured out 25%.

Hong Kong's going to install 60,000 AI

enabled cameras in public.

So, did you think there was any chance

we wouldn't get to a future where there

were cameras everywhere in public that

could do facial recognition and connect

it to your entire life? Well, it's

definitely happening. It's happening in

Hong Kong. And uh I'm pretty sure it's

just going to happen everywhere. Now,

sometimes people say, "Scott, why are

you in favor of losing all the privacy?"

I'm not in favor of losing all the

privacy. It's just going to happen.

There there's no world in which we don't

lose all of our privacy. I hate to say

it. I mean, it might take longer, it

might take shorter, but you're going to

lose all your privacy. Or somebody is,

maybe your children.

Uh there there's literally nothing you

can do about it. The technology will

just make it too easy.

And then this is kind of cool. Direct TV

uh has worked down some deal with

another company. Ars Technica is talking

about this. Another company called uh

called the thing I didn't write down.

Glance. glance. But what it'll do is

make the screen saver on your TV or

whatever it is you're watching uh for

Direct TV. Um it will put you in the ad.

So I think you have to give it approval,

but you can take a picture of your face

and then from that point on some of the

ads will have you in the commercial with

AI. Now, how cool is that? That is one

of the best advertising ideas I've ever

seen. If you put if you put the

consumer's face in the picture, the odds

of them buying that product go way up.

Yeah. You know, you don't have to do a

study on that one. I can tell you for

sure that you because people care about

themselves more than they care about

anything else. So, if you put me in the

commercial and then you show me enjoying

the product,

that's going to be really influential.

That'd be a great ad. All right, that's

what I got for you today.

Uh, thanks for joining everybody. Um, I

hope I didn't look too whacked down on

painkillers today, but I'm feeling good.

Um, I'm going to talk to the uh locals

people privately if my button works

today. And the rest of you, thanks for

joining. It's always a pleasure to see

you. Hope you come back tomorrow, same

time, same place. Right. Locals. If this

button