Episode 3024 CWSA 11/20/25

Hello.

Do you hear this music?

breath.

>> Well, that is a Kira the Dawn working on his new album based on me.

So what he does, if you haven't heard it, it's pretty amazing.

He takes podcasters or notable people, and he takes their voice and he puts it to music and beats and video, and next thing you know, you've got this amazing piece of art that uh people have been telling me is not like other art.

So, it's not just like music.

It's not just like video music.

It apparently fills some kind of slot you didn't know needed to be filled.

So, uh, that'll be, uh, apparently that'll be available around Christmas and I'll remind you when that happens.

I will remind you.

Don't worry, you will be reminded.

All right.

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

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

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

All you need is a copper mugger, a glass of tankered shell cysteine, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

Happens now.

Go.

Yep.

That's the noise I make when I drink coffee and I don't apologize for it.

Well, we got quite a show today.

I'll be making you smarter.

Come on.

I should be seeing those comments right now.

There they are.

I got you.

I got your comments right there.

All right, let's move that over there.

And my god, this is good.

So good.

All right, people.

Whoa.

Stop it.

So, I saw Joshua Lysk did a post on X asking people if they think that You.

Tube has suppressed my content.

How many of you think You.

Tube specifically has suppressed my content?

Is that possible?

Well, all we know for sure is what Joshua pointed out that for reasons that are hard to understand, I seem to get about 25,000 viewers every day no matter what I'm doing.

What are the odds of that every day?

25,000 roughly.

No, it doesn't look real, but stranger things have happened.

So, I wouldn't accuse them of anything because I can't prove it.

But it would be pretty weird if I had the same number of uh viewers for 10 years at the same time that my number of subscribers went up by 100.

So the people who voluntarily said, "Hey, I'll click that because I want to see more of your stuff." That's like over a 100,000, you know, started at a thousand.

And and yet the total number of traffic total traffic numbers about the same.

Speaking of numbers, there's some new uh employment numbers that people are liking.

So we'll see what that does to the stock market today.

Uh, I guess unemployment edged up a little bit, which means that there's a slightly greater chance that the Fed will lower interest rates, which is good for the stock market, too.

So, probably this is all good news.

We don't know how much of it is real.

How much are you going to believe about employment numbers?

There's a problem, right?

>> >> If your government tells you that they got some brand new numbers and it sure makes the current administration look like they're doing a great job, well, you probably should ask some questions about that.

I say um a judge has dismissed an FTC antirust case against Meta, claiming according to Reclaim the Net uh that the uh social media company had plenty of competition or at least enough.

They had enough competition.

So, Judge Boseberg, huh?

Huh?

You said the FTC failed to prove that Meta is ownership.

Oh, surprise.

Judge Boseberg.

We've we've dealt with him before.

Surprise.

He's uh he thinks uh Facebook can do what they want here in terms of competition.

I think he's probably right on this.

Does it seem to you that Meta has a competition on social media?

Doesn't really.

Does it?

Maybe it's cornered the market on your grandma, but I don't know.

So, wouldn't worry about that one.

Um, so for the first time, an entire nation has adopted a specific AI and it's Saudi Arabia.

You know, they the Saudis visited the White House yesterday.

They got the the great royal welcome from Trump.

They get along tremendously.

They do.

Um, did you say that I think this is real that Alexander Vinman, you remember him from all the Ukraine business, he's trying somehow to get access uh to Trump's transcript of phone calls with uh who was it with?

I forgot.

But anyway, the uh I'm looking at your comments at the same time.

I'm trying to think.

It's not working at all.

All right, let's just go to the next thing.

Uh so, so Grock uh as the AI will be adopted by Saudi Arabia.

And I always thought, you know, it wouldn't make sense for a country like Saudi Arabia to build their own AI if they can just lease one and have the have the best one you can have, but they're just leasing it.

That seems like a good idea.

You don't like venommen at all, do you?

According to the comments, you're very anti- Venamman.

You know how uh China and the United States try to influence all these third world countries by giving them loans that they have trouble paying back and you know weasling weasling into their structure so that they depend on us one way or another.

Well, it's the same with AI.

So one way to influence some country that's smaller than you is to be their main investor so that they need you.

It's sort of the old way of doing it.

But the new way the new way of influencing a a country is to be their AI provider because once you're the AI provider, you get to have a say on what's true and what's not true.

And what can be more powerful than that?

controlling what's true.

And how in the world do the Saudis uh get AI or any AI, how did they get X AI to not do things that would be inappropriate in their particular country and culture?

But those conversations are interesting.

Would you like to have an AI?

Yes, we would.

Would you like to buy our Grock uh or lease it?

Yes, we would.

Uh, is there anything we should change?

Well, I got a little bit of a list of things you might want to look at.

Uh, or or and this is possible.

Does uh does Musk say to Saudi Arabia, you know, this whole thing would be useless unless you let it be completely free, you know, f free speech, free.

And uh could it be that even Saudi Arabia would say, you know what, this is not historically how we operated, but it's the AI, it's the age of AI.

It's the golden age.

Maybe maybe they'll embrace free speech and accurate information.

One of the things I uh I love about listening to Elon Musk explain stuff is that he can explain technical things that you always wondered about, but he can explain them in a way you actually understand them.

And he did that again with uh creating electricity energy in particular in space.

Now you've heard of this before, right?

that you could put a solar panel in space and it would automatically have a few advantages.

One is that you would not need to pay to cool it because the you know the uh temperature of space is nothing.

So it's self-cooling.

Secondly, you don't have to worry about a cloudy day because it's in space and it's above the clouds.

And then thirdly, you don't have to wonder, you don't have to worry about it being nighttime and there being no sun.

You can just put your satellite solar panel where the sun is always has access to it.

So the potential energy, as Elon explains, potential energy of space is phenomenally more than all you could do on Earth if you did everything right as fast as you could.

Now that those are my words, but I think that's pretty close.

Did you know that and that if you looked at the next five years, this is Elon again, the odds of our energy coming mostly from the the the land, the Earth is actually really small.

and the odds that we'll get not only the vast majority of their electricity from space by then, but that for forever more that will be where it comes from.

Like it'll never be from anywhere else because the economics will be so compelling that nobody would do it any other way.

Now, a big part of this, as you know, is that it costs a lot to put a satellite into space.

But that's what Elon's been working on for the last what, 10 years, 20 years.

So, he's got the reusable rockets now.

So, at this point, the cost of putting a solar panel in space goes from, you know, a thousand times more than it was to whatever it is now and dropping.

So, it's going to be relatively easy and cheap to put stuff in space.

It will have all these advantages over terrestrial stuff.

And what happens if there's only one AI company that can access that uh energy?

Now obviously uh Tesla and SpaceX I guess SpaceX uh would be at least open to you know leasing or or selling some of their process to other companies but they don't have to.

They could just say all right we'll uh we'll sell you our rocket uh access so you can put your own panels in space and then you can have inflated energy like we do.

Uh, but we're going to charge you way more than we charge our own companies.

So, it's still going to cost you way more to do AI than does us.

So, it feels to me like while the FTC is chasing uh Meta and and losing, Meta actually won, that uh the company that has the greatest chance of completely capturing the only industry that matters, AI and robots, is just one company, Tesla.

Because if you have a great technology, but you don't have access to infinite energy, you don't really have anything.

So Tesla might be the only ones who have the right technology theoretically uh and infinite access to energy.

There's might only be one company that can do that.

So would you say that they would have a monopoly?

Well, obviously Musk would be completely aware of that that risk.

So if he is smart, la of course he's smart, he will organize his company in a way that competing AIs have a a genuine chance of getting into the infinite energy business even if they don't own their own rocket companies.

So that's coming.

There's a new uh poll by Fox News uh about uh how many of the people think that uh to disapprove of the job that Trump that Trump is doing.

So most voters believe the White House is doing more harm than good on the economy.

Is that what you think?

How many of you think the White House current administration is currently doing more harm than good to the economy?

Does that track with what you observe?

Where exactly is the harm?

I don't know.

I'm not even sure what the argument is that they're doing more harm than good.

But uh let's see.

uh and they shut down, drag down the approval of both parties.

None of that matters in a short run.

It'll matter by midterms, but 58% of voters disapprove of the job Trump is doing, which is four point more than two months ago.

Do you think that matters?

I feel like the least important statistics in politics would be uh the public's opinion of Trump's economic policies between now and the end of his second term because he's sort of going to just do what he needs to do, isn't he?

He he has the freedom to do what he thinks will be the right thing and maybe three years is long enough to find out he was right or wrong and probably will be right.

I mean that would be his track record so far.

So I think I wouldn't worry too much about public opinion polls of Trump on economics.

I would expect them to be historically low, even if he did better better than anybody's ever done.

All right, I'm seeing you trying to get my attention in the comments, but I'm going to I'm going to stay on track.

Well, Mike Johnson explained one reason why it was incredibly dangerous to to release those Epstein files.

And uh part of the argument is that the only ones who should declassify something is the same entity that classified it in the first place.

Do you do you understand why that's important?

Let's say the CIA said, "Oh yeah, this has to be classified, but then some some other entity was in charge of declassifying it." Would the other entity necessarily have a full appreciation of why the other entity, let's say the CIA, wanted it to be secret?

Not necessarily.

So it it is a good process to make sure that the one who classified in the first place is the only one that declassifies it.

But that also guarantees the things stay classified.

Because if you're if you're in control of your own little domain, you just say, "Ah, keep it classified.

Then I have to worry about it.

I'll never have to worry about it.

It will never be my problem.

Just keep it classified." So, you wouldn't get full disclosure if you kept the rule that only the classifying group could be the unclassifier.

So, but Mike Johnson was saying it's dangerous.

It's dangerous.

Um, and then there's also the question about if there's an ongoing investigation.

That would be yet another reason why we can't see the good stuff, if there's any good stuff.

And of course, there will be ongoing investigations, as there might be into uh uh at least three Democrats.

So, we'll see how that goes.

All right.

And uh I wonder makes me wonder how many of the people who voted to release the Epstein files.

You hear I'm talking about Congress.

How many of the Congress creditors believe that even if they had all voted to release it and even if the president signed it, how many of them believe that they really would have secrets coming out?

Because if I were in Congress, I'll tell you what I would think by now.

By now, I would think that all the good stuff's been removed.

So, you're not going to see anything big and surprising.

So, I'd say to myself, well, I might I might as well look as if I might as well appear as if I want more full disclosure than anybody else because there's nothing that's going to happen.

It'll either be state secrets or it'll be some damn thing.

Somebody will say they lost it.

Somebody will say that's the missing box.

We've got a missing box.

But what I would not expect is that I would vote to release it and then a bunch of stuff would get released and then it would have, you know, significance.

Well, I don't think so.

But what if what if this is just for fun because the Epstein stuff, you know, it's as much about entertainment as it is, you know, seeking justice.

Uh what if all the people who said yes to release it thought they were not releasing it because in other words they they thought something would stop the good stuff no matter what.

Are they just waking up to the fact that they just voted to release it and it's actually going to be get released?

Will it?

I don't know.

I I still don't believe that it will all be released.

That seems ridiculous to me, but maybe, who knows?

Um, then Trump, of course, he uh immediately signed it.

Here's what I love that uh Trump has found a way to shake the box, as he does, and then shake it some more and shake it some more until he's the last person standing.

Because one of the things about Trump is that he can handle chaos better than everybody.

So if you put a put a a Trump and then all the other players into this big box, you said, "I don't know what's going to happen, but watch this." And you just start shaking that thing.

And when you're done, everybody's like wandering around like a bunch of drunks like, "Whoa, what was that?" But if you keep doing it day after day after day, the only person who will be left alive is Trump because he can just handle more chaos.

He, you know, he uses it as basically a beacon to shine on anything he wants.

So when you see Trump say stuff like, "No, let's not release it." Okay, let's release it.

Maybe not release it.

Let's release some of it.

Let's have somebody release it.

As long as he's shaking that box, he's winning.

And I've told you this a million times.

It's not like the one time I've said he shakes the box.

As long as he's creating uncertainty and chaos in this little domain that doesn't affect most people, frankly, uh he's heading toward dominating the the whole domain.

And I've told you before, it's kind of brilliant that he's created this situation where every time the topic comes up, his enemies will think that they're winning, like, "Ah, we're going to bring up this topic again." And then he's going to look at them, he's going to make them sit there in silence while the cameras are running.

And he says, "This is a Democrat problem." Which is one of the all-time great framings.

It's not like it's the only person who said it or the first time it's been said, but once you decide, okay, this is going to be our branding.

It's a really strong one.

And then he says there are three names associated with it, as if as if Epstein wasn't actually more like 1500 names or some huge number.

If the three are the only ones you remember, then it's a Democrat.

It's a Democrat problem because you only remember three people and they happen to be uh famous Democrats.

So you got your Larry Summers, you got your Bill Clinton, and you got your Reed Hoffman.

Now, let me be very clear.

I'm aware of no crimes whatsoever that any of them are accused of that have anything to do with Epstein.

I'm not aware of any crimes.

I'm just talking about the fact that uh Trump has decided to brand this as, you know, those three faces are going to be the faces of this scandal forever.

Or at least as long as you decide to keep it in the news and ask Trump about it every single day.

Hey, Trump, is there anything you want to tell us about this Epstein scandal?

It's a hoax.

It's a Democrat problem.

It's a Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, Reed Hoffman problem.

and then he moves on.

That's not going to change.

You've got three more years of him saying that every single time this this comes up.

And the one the weird thing about Trump, which is weird and powerful, is that he can say something he's said before as if it's the first time he's ever thought of it and then he can do it a thousand times in a row.

Am I right?

when he talks about it being a Democrat problem and he goes through his reasoning like I did, he acts like it's the first time you ever thought of it or the first time you've ever heard it.

He he makes it interesting even though it couldn't possibly be interesting, you know, in a thousandth telling, but he makes it that way.

He's got that power.

Anyway, apparently the Clintons have not responded to the uh request for depositions.

If they don't respond, does that mean that both the Clintons will be subject to legal legal consequences?

How many of you think that the Clintons will have to obey the same laws that Steve Bannon and and others have had to obey or else go to jail?

Is it possible that the Clintons could literally just defy the law and just say, "Nope." Well, now you you have to at least give us a deposition.

Nope.

Okay.

If you don't give us a deposition, we might send the sheriffs or whoever they send.

Nope.

Okay, we're totally sending the sheriff.

Nope.

What would happen?

Would would the law actually drag them away?

Can you imagine Bill Clinton being put in handcuffs?

I don't think that would fly.

I I feel like the left of the country would just go nuts.

Yeah.

And it wouldn't matter how much, you know, evidence there was or anything like that.

And but the thing is that the one thing we could agree they did or did not do is they did or did not respond to a deposition or respond to, you know, showing up at a hearing.

And if they if they put Steve Bannon in jail for anything that was the same, then you have to put him in jail.

Let let me say this as clearly as possible.

If it turns out that Bill Clinton ends up doing the same thing that Bannon did, which is some version of refusing to testify, don't you think the penalty should be the same?

Of course.

Absolutely.

No one's above the law.

So, we'll see how that goes.

But at the very least, Trump has ruined the uh the rest of the year for the Clintons.

And I think we should start keeping score of how many people's lives will be ruined by Epstein.

Like Epstein, the Epstein uh victim list is still growing because we just added Clinton to it.

Now you could say Clinton's a perpetrator, but that would be your opinion.

Um but whether he's a perpetrator or not, he's having a bad year.

So if you just start throwing on the list all the people whose lives are going to not look so good, whether they deserve it or not, separate question.

But then we also hear that Larry Summers uh he confessed to his class on the uh that he was on the Epstein list and apparently he has resigned from the open AI board.

It looks like he's um he opened his class at Harvard by acknowledging he was on it, but is he still teaching?

Uh now Harvard has launched an investigation into Larry Summers.

Uh apparently Epstein coached Summers on a romance in 2018.

Summers was married at the time.

Uh and the men exchanged a trove of messages.

Where did I get this from?

Colin Rug had a good summary of this on X.

Um, so apparently they had a lot of messages.

So these these two were really good friends.

So is Trump smart by throwing Larry Summers under the bus?

Probably because it looks like Summers had a lot of interaction.

So now let's add Larry Summers to the victim list.

Again, I understand completely if you say, "No, Scott, he's that other list." Well, I don't have any evidence he broke any laws, but I can see for sure, you know, there's plenty of evidence that he's having a bad year because of Trump, because of Epstein.

So, and by the way, none of this needed to happen.

Don't you think that Trump warned everybody?

It's not like he didn't warn everybody, and it's not like he didn't give them an out.

He gave them an out.

They could have essentially just said, "Let's, you know, go on everybody.

No harm, no foul.

You know, your team won't won't be attacked.

My team, they could have worked it out somehow.

I mean, you might not have liked it, but they could have, but now there those two are victims." Let's see who else.

Um, all right.

We'll get back to that in a minute.

So apparently Trump is going to meet with uh Zoran mom dummy in the Oval Office on Friday.

And uh Trump is uh teasing him because apparently his middle name iswami K w that's so Trumpian to emphasize his middle name so that you remember he doesn't have an American sounding name.

Now, he doesn't say that that's a crime or that you should like him less or that he's less qualified because his middle name iswaame.

He just makes you think about it, which is really a dirty trick.

Like I I can't say I endorse that, you know, that that method of uh of persuasion, but you you can't argue it doesn't work.

It totally works if it make if it just takes your head to a place where you're like, I don't know.

He doesn't seem that American to me, even though he's obviously American.

Anyway, so he'll be uh meeting with Trump.

What do you think Trump's going to get out of this?

Why would Trump meet with uh Zoron?

Now, they have a lot that they need to work on.

So, there might be a few things he wants to, you know, coordinate with them.

But don't you think Trump wants Zoran to fail?

So if somebody comes into your office and you want them to fail and they want to succeed, what exactly is the middle ground?

There might not be any middle ground.

How in the world do they work anything out?

Well, we'll see.

But I wouldn't uh I wouldn't hold my breath for a good outcome there.

Um, so Elon Musk was uh at that Saudi Arabia conventiony looking thing.

I don't know what the event was, but uh he says something interesting about engineering and poverty.

So here's his quote.

Elon Musk, I see poverty as more of an engineering problem than an unsolvable social issue.

Have I said something like that?

I I've never said that.

But haven't you heard me say that that certain things are engineering problems and they look like they're something else?

They look like social problems, but they're really just engineering problems.

We just haven't engineered well enough.

And the example would be as Musk points out that with Grock and Optimus, so that's the AI plus the robots, we could solve the labor shortage, drive cost to near zero, and create a future where poverty is statistically irrelevant.

Uh M says the scale of what's coming over the next decade is really easy to underestimate.

Yeah, that's really easy to underestimate.

Now I've said the engineering thing about homelessness and I think a few other things that uh those are engineering problems not resource shortages and to hear the smartest engineer say that well makes me feel good.

Sam Harris has uh come back on the scene.

So, whenever Sam Harris uh does a major podcast, then all the right leaning podcast uh universe, including me, we've got stuff to talk about for two weeks because we'll be like, "Ah, Sam Harris, what happened to you?

You used to be so smart, but now we don't know.

What's wrong with you?" Well, he did it again.

And I'm not sure that I I care too much about the opinion as I am amused by the drama, you know, just the human drama of it.

So Sam Harris goes on the trigonometry podcast, which you should all sign up for and follow and watch.

It's one of the best ones.

Triggerometry.

So the first bar is like a a gun trigger triggerometry if you're looking it up.

Uh always good stuff.

So follow them.

Anyway, um I guess I guess Sam Harris believes that around the time of Charlie Kirk's murder, like right around the time that Elon Musk might have posted something that encouraged violence as a response to the uh the murder.

Now, I said to myself, what what what are the odds that Elon Musk um encouraged murder?

What I feel like I would have heard of that.

So, I wondered what the examples were.

And sure enough, there were some examples.

Now, let's say if you see if you think the examples are as he as Sam characterizes them um sort of encouraging, you know, people to act out or is it just a way of talking?

Here's the examples.

Uh Elon posted right about the time that Charlie Kirk was assassinated, he posted on X, the left is the party of murder.

first.

Is that the first time that Sam Harris I heard a notable person say that the left is the party of murder?

That's such a common thing that maybe it's just that he doesn't hear it.

But if you were, you know, if you lived anywhere in the sort of universe that I do, you hear that all the time.

Some of it's about abortion, right?

They just treat abortion as murder and you say one one side's in favor of abortion.

We call it murder.

So that would mean that that side is in favor of murder.

Now if you if you didn't know that the entire right, well not the entire right, but most of the right considers abortion murder and that that's the first thing they think of in this domain.

Well, you'd be a little confused by that language, wouldn't you?

And it would seem extreme.

it would seem extreme.

Um, but there are all there are other examples.

Um, we could go through the, you know, the news and we could argue, well, that seems a little too friendly to murder.

For example, um, is it the left or the right who is more likely to let somebody out of jail before they've served a full sentence?

Which one would more likely do it?

the left probably.

And would that create more murders than if they didn't release these people who may have done some bad things already?

Of course, it would create more murders.

So, you can make these arguments, and I'm not making the argument, by the way, but you can make the argument pretty easily that the one side is the party of murder.

But in any case, does that seem like a call to actual violence to you?

Or is it just if you're used to that style of talking, it's just talking?

I mean, there's a there's a serious point he's making, which is uh he's being opposed he's being opposed to violence.

Now, do you see Elon Musk saying the left is the party of murder?

Is that encouraging violence or is that a speaking out against violence?

Because, you know, I live in this country.

I speak English.

I don't see it as encouraging violence.

I see it as more of a warning that if we keep going this direction, you'll get more violence than you want.

Everybody will, not one side.

He's not saying that the violence will be in one direction.

uh although there might be some initiating thing going on there but no this is just talk and I've I've made this point before if you live in a different you know a different bubble the the things that are just talk in the other bubble are a cult of violence in your bubble but it looks weird from the other bubble but that's not the only thing so not long after he said the left is a party of murder um he said, "If if they won't leave us in peace, then our choice is fight or die." Does that sound like a call to violence?

If they won't leave us in peace, then our choice is to fight or die.

Well, here again, it depends what bubble you're in.

If if you're in the left bubble and you're not accustomed to people routinely trotting out the phrase, give me liberty or give me death or you know I'd rather be dead than I have free speech.

You might not know that the political right just sort of talks this way.

They talk that way and I'll even put myself in that category for this this topic.

I talk that way and I I don't uh apologize for it at all.

You know, the country was founded on a certain amount of force and the entire idea was that we'd rather have liberty uh than life.

So to me, when I hear somebody say, "If they won't leave us in peace, then our choice is fight or die." That's really just a statement of the obvious, right?

If if somebody is going to, you know, continuously torture you in whatever way, you know, doesn't matter the way.

If there's somebody who's going to continually be your problem and you decide not to do anything about it, well, do you think you get more of it or less?

You get more of it?

Yeah.

If you don't do anything about it.

So, that's just a statement of the obvious.

if if you let people take advantage of you and walk all over you and treat you as a secondass citizen and you know maybe even in this case there was an assassination involved if you don't address it pretty aggressively are you going to get more of it or less of it?

And is is that a is that a vi is that a call to violence to point out the most obvious thing in the world?

The the things that are uh not punished you might get more of.

Well, Fischer King made an interesting comment about this.

He said that on X.

He said that Sam Harris is the gift that keeps on giving.

Sort of what I was saying.

You you're going to get two weeks of content out of this.

Uh here he is talking about the murder of Charlie Kirk and he says and he's talking about the same interaction between uh between people on X and he says uh there's no party on the left that supports us.

Uh blah blah blah blah blah.

Oh Sam Harris says there's no party on the left that supports us.

Well, of course a lot of Republicans would disagree with that statement.

But rather than argue that, Fischer King points out that then he blames Trump and Elon for dousing the ground with gasoline to great circumstances where this could happen.

Well, probably everybody's a little bit guilty of a little hyperbole.

But what I'm introducing today is that the things that seem like hyperbole on the right don't seem like hyperbole to the people on the right.

To them, it's just talking.

And likewise, the people on the left, I suspect that if they just stay in their own little bubble, it doesn't look like they're doing a call to violence as much as it does if you're looking at what they're doing from your own bubble.

So, just just be aware of that.

There some of it is which bubble you're viewing it from.

And I know it's fun to claim that the other side is worse and maybe they are, and but that doesn't buy you much.

But uh this whole thing was to get to this part where Elon Musk, you must have had enough of Sam Harris.

And then he he responds on X, Sam Harris took the fast train to down years ago.

Never coming back.

Never coming back.

He took the fast train to town.

Now Elon has like 230 million followers.

Can you be Can you imagine being insulted by somebody who has 230 million followers?

That's pretty That's fun.

All right.

Um, apparently, uh, Trump and MBS, the crown prince who was in town yesterday, uh, have signaled, but I don't think this is confirmed, that uh, that there might be some kind of breakthrough, a conditional breakthrough for a Saudi Israel deal, like a peace deal.

Uh, I don't think we're quite there, but one of the things that, uh, the Saudis want is a two-state solution, and one of the things that Israel wants is not that.

So, is there any way that we could ever have a Saudi Israel deal if the two-stage solution is somewhat off the off the table?

I don't know.

But would it make sense for Trump to be trying to work on some kind of a side deal with Saudi Arabia?

Uh, and then if we get one we like, he just shoves it down Israel's throat.

As in, you better take this.

No, I know you want I know you don't want a two-state solution, but take this.

So, we'll see.

It Yeah, it doesn't seem likely, does it?

It seems like Israel, of course, can control its own fate in in this particular way.

So, I don't think we're that close to a two-state solution, but it would be fascinating to see if Trump uses his technique that worked on Gaza.

Gaza on Gaza.

Didn't he make the deal before he had the deal?

So, the the Gazins had not agreed to it at all and he still made a peace deal.

How do you do that?

How how did he force them into a peace deal when one group didn't want it at all and and they somehow agreed that they would, oh yeah, we'll have peace even though this isn't what we agreed to.

Could it be that Trump is has invented a whole new way to do peace deals when the when the situation is impossible?

Well, the only way you could get a deal when the situation is impossible is you get people to agree to things that they don't agree to, which is what he did with Gaza.

But maybe he could do it with this.

Can Can he get Israel and Saudi Arabia and maybe maybe half a dozen other countries?

Can you get them to agree to something that they definitely don't agree to, but then they get a little bit pregnant because they're already celebrating that they made some kind of agreement even though they haven't agreed to it.

And even if they said, "No, no, we don't really agree to everything you're saying.

We still need to negotiate this two-state thing." And then then suddenly the the ship is just moving and it's too hard to move it back.

If that's what Trump is doing and he's doing it intentionally, he's just inventing a whole new way to solve problems, something we've never seen before.

Now, I'd have to see him do it more than once before I'd conclude it's any kind of an intentional thing.

Uh, but he seems to be tapping on the door of doing it a second time.

We'll see.

Anyway, um, China is allegedly, according to Natural News, Kevin Hughes is writing about this, China has some kind of a technical breakthrough in a space-based particle beam weapon that they could just park up in the atmosphere, not outside the atmosphere, and uh, blast away at everything.

Now, I already told you that the the space might be the cheap way to get unlimited energy.

Well, suppose you needed unlimited energy because you developed a uh let's say a network of particle beam weapons that require enormous amounts of electricity.

Well, here again, you're in luck because if you can only get that enormous amount of electricity from space and enormous solar panels, is China going to be able to park literally a bunch of particle beam weapons that are just sort of pointed at us and they're and they could uh go from space to the ground in I don't know how long would it take, 5 seconds, you know, even at the speed of light or faster, right?

Faster than 5 seconds.

I'm not quite sure.

But how in the world would you defend against that?

I mean, you would have to attack it preemptively.

And if you missed even one node, it could just sit up there all day long creating infinite energy and just destroying everything in your entire nation, you know, right?

If you tried to send a rocket up to knock it down, the particle beam would knock the rocket down first.

I don't know.

We're we're in a we're in all new territory here.

But uh I also don't believe stories about any country with a uh advanced particle beam weapon.

I feel like if we know about it, it can't be true.

Wouldn't you say?

It can't be their best secret weapon if we know about it.

Um, so you you have to basically take whatever it is you think you know and then make some assumptions about how good the real stuff is and uh it's going to be real good.

All right.

Um, did you know that most Americans believe that migrant farm work farm workers should be allowed to remain in the USA?

Um that's according to physicians committee for responsible medicine.

You disagree.

I know.

But uh 65% of adults support establishing some kind of program where the people who pick our food can be happy and we'll be happy too.

I don't know what that looks like.

Uh, who was it who was who was doing a great job the other day explaining why you can't Oh, I think it was Trump explaining why you can't just hire Americans for things because you want Americans to do it.

How many of you think that's a real thing?

Now, Trump says it's not.

It's just not a thing.

that if you if you wanted to, let's say, import some high-tech industry that we don't already have skill at, it's not a thing that we could just train our own people.

You you just build the factory and by the time it's built, oh, we trained everybody, so it's now we can do this high-tech thing.

We'll make our own chips.

That's not a thing.

it it takes a lot of work to, you know, prepare a country or or anybody to to take on a whole new industry.

So, I think Trump is the one who has the closest view to reality about the H-1B stuff, which is there is no world in which you can just hire Americans on day one.

Now, if your if your ambition is to make sure that you know in five years or however long it takes that it's 100% American, that might be doable.

Three years depends on the industry.

But yeah, totally doable in the long run.

But to imagine that you could just jump into it, that's not a that's just not a feature of the real world.

And uh Trump seems to understand the real world well enough to to know that he has to make some concessions.

So I got to say he's it seems he's completely right.

Okay.

Uh there's a report that the US and Russia are planning some kind of Ukrainian peace deal that does not involve the Europeans negotiating.

What does that sound like?

H that sounds just like the last story, doesn't it?

Where the question is, wait a minute, did Trump find a way to negotiate peace deals by just leaving out the part that they don't like?

So the part they don't like is, you know, Europe might not agree with something, so he just leaves them out.

Is he going to make a peace deal in which the Europeans say, "Oh, no.

We we don't agree to that." And they just force them into it.

Would would that be the third peace deal that Trump did where he just pretended that people were on the same page when they weren't?

Because this goes back to what I was saying.

Did he invent a whole new way to to make deals?

It's kind of weird.

All right.

Um, I am in so much pain that I think I'm gonna have to end early.

Oh my god.

I I have to Oh, it's a muscle pain.

So, don't worry too much.

Wow.

Yeah, I might have to What time is it?

A yeah, I can't do the rest.

Too much pain.

Wow.

I I'll be fine, by the way.

You You don't need to check on me, but I'm in massive pain right now.

And I'm just going to go take some pain pills.

All right.

Bye for now.

Hello.

Do you hear this music?

[music]

[singing and music]

breath. [singing and music]

[music]

[singing]

>> Well, that

is a Kira the Dawn working on his new

album

based on me.

So what he does, if you haven't heard

it, it's pretty amazing. He takes

podcasters or notable people, and he

takes their voice and he puts it to

music and beats and video, and next

thing you know, you've got this amazing

piece of art that uh people have been

telling me is not like other art. So,

it's not just like music. It's not just

like video music.

It apparently fills some kind of slot

you didn't know needed to be filled.

[clears throat] So,

uh, that'll be, uh, apparently that'll

be available around Christmas

and I'll remind you when that happens. I

will remind you.

Don't worry, you will be reminded.

All right.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

this experience up to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains. All you need is

a copper mugger, a glass of tankered

shell cysteine, a canteen jugger flask,

a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join

me now for the unparalleled pleasure of

the dopamine hit of the day. The thing

that makes everything better. It's

called the simultaneous sip. Happens

now. Go.

Yep. That's the noise I make when I

drink coffee and I don't apologize for

it. Well, we got quite a show today.

I'll be making you smarter.

Come on. I should be seeing those

comments right now. There they are. I

got you. I got your comments right

there.

All right, let's move that over there.

And my god, this is good.

So good.

All right, people.

Whoa. Stop it.

So, I saw Joshua Lysk did a post on X

asking people if they think that YouTube

has suppressed my content. How many of

you think YouTube specifically has

suppressed my content? Is that possible?

Well, all we know for sure is what

Joshua pointed out that for reasons that

are hard to understand, I seem to get

about 25,000 viewers every day no matter

what I'm doing. What are the odds of

that every day? 25,000

roughly.

No, it doesn't look real, but stranger

things have happened. So, I wouldn't

accuse them of anything because I can't

prove it.

But it would be pretty weird if I had

the same number of uh viewers for 10

years at the same time that my number of

subscribers went up by 100.

So the people who voluntarily said,

"Hey, I'll click that because I want to

see more of your stuff." That's like

over a 100,000,

you know, started at a thousand.

And and yet the total number of traffic

total traffic numbers about the same.

Speaking of numbers,

there's some new uh employment numbers

that people are liking. So we'll see

what that does to the stock market

today. Uh, I guess unemployment edged up

a little bit,

which means that there's a slightly

greater chance that the Fed will lower

interest rates, which is good for the

stock market, too. So, probably this is

all good news. We don't know how much of

it is real. How much are you going to

believe about employment numbers?

There's a problem, right?

>> [laughter]

>> If your government tells you that they

got some brand new numbers and it sure

makes the current administration look

like they're doing a great job, well,

you probably should ask some questions

about that. I say

um a judge has dismissed an FTC antirust

case against Meta, claiming according to

Reclaim the Net uh that the uh social

media company had plenty of competition

or at least enough. They had enough

competition.

So, Judge Boseberg, huh? Huh? You said

the FTC failed to prove that Meta is

ownership. Oh, surprise.

Judge Boseberg. We've we've dealt with

him before. Surprise. He's uh he thinks

uh Facebook can do what they want here

in terms of competition. I think he's

probably right on this. Does it seem to

you that Meta has a competition on

social media? Doesn't really. Does it?

Maybe it's cornered the market on your

grandma, but I don't know.

So, wouldn't worry about that one. Um,

so for the first time, an entire nation

has adopted a specific AI and it's Saudi

Arabia. You know, they the Saudis

visited the White House yesterday. They

got the the great royal welcome from

Trump. They get along tremendously. They

do. Um, did you say that I think this is

real that Alexander Vinman, you remember

him from all the Ukraine business, he's

trying somehow to get access

uh to Trump's transcript of phone calls

with uh who was it with?

I forgot. But anyway, the uh

I'm looking at your comments at the same

time. I'm trying to think. It's not

working at all. All right, let's just go

to the next thing. Uh so, so Grock uh as

the AI will be adopted by Saudi Arabia.

And I always thought, you know, it

wouldn't make sense for a country like

Saudi Arabia to build their own AI if

they can just lease one and have the

have the best one you can have, but

they're just leasing it. That seems like

a good idea.

You don't like venommen at all, do you?

According to the comments, you're very

anti- Venamman.

You know how uh China and the United

States try to influence all these third

world countries by giving them loans

that they have trouble paying back and

you know weasling weasling into their

structure so that they depend on us one

way or another.

Well, it's the same with AI. So one way

to influence

some country that's smaller than you is

to be their main investor so that they

need you. It's sort of the old way of

doing it. But the new way the new way of

influencing a a country is to be their

AI provider because once you're the AI

provider, you get to have a say on

what's true and what's not true. And

what can be more powerful than that?

controlling what's true. And how in the

world do the Saudis

uh get AI or any AI, how did they get X

AI to not do things that would be

inappropriate in their particular

country and culture?

But those conversations are interesting.

Would you like to have an AI? Yes, we

would. Would you like to buy our Grock

uh or lease it? Yes, we would.

Uh, is there anything we should change?

[laughter]

Well, I got a little bit of a list of

things you might want to look at.

Uh, or or and this is possible.

Does uh does Musk say to Saudi Arabia,

you know, this whole thing would be

useless

unless you let it be completely free,

you know, f free speech, free. And uh

could it be that even Saudi Arabia would

say, you know what, this is not

historically how we operated, but it's

the AI, it's the age of AI. It's the

golden age.

Maybe

maybe they'll embrace

free speech and accurate information.

One of the things I uh I love about

listening to Elon Musk explain stuff is

that he can explain technical things

that you always wondered about, but he

can explain them in a way you actually

understand them. And he did that again

with uh creating electricity energy in

particular in space. Now you've heard of

this before, right? that you could put a

solar panel in space and it would

automatically have a few advantages. One

is that you would not need to pay to

cool it because the you know the uh

temperature of space is nothing. So it's

self-cooling. Secondly, you don't have

to worry about a cloudy day because it's

in space and it's above the clouds. And

then thirdly, you don't have to wonder,

you don't have to worry about it being

nighttime and there being no sun. You

can just put your satellite

solar panel where the sun is always has

access to it. So the potential energy,

as Elon explains, potential energy of

space is phenomenally more than all you

could do on Earth if you did everything

right as fast as you could. Now that

those are my words, but I think that's

pretty close. Did you know that

and that if you looked at the next five

years, this is Elon again, the odds of

our energy coming mostly from the the

the land, the Earth is actually really

small.

and the odds that we'll get

not only the vast majority of their

electricity from space

by then, but that for forever more that

will be where it comes from. Like it'll

never be from anywhere else because the

economics will be so compelling

that nobody would do it any other way.

Now, a big part of this, as you know, is

that it costs a lot to put a satellite

into space. But that's what Elon's been

working on for the last what, 10 years,

20 years. So, he's got the reusable

rockets now. So, at this point, the cost

of putting a solar panel in space goes

from, you know, a thousand times more

than it was to whatever it is now and

dropping.

So, it's going to be relatively easy and

cheap to put stuff in space. It will

have all these advantages over

terrestrial stuff. And what happens if

there's only one AI company that can

access that uh energy? Now obviously

uh Tesla and SpaceX

I guess SpaceX uh would be at least open

to you know leasing or or selling some

of their process to other companies but

they don't have to. They could just say

all right we'll uh we'll sell you our

rocket uh access so you can put your own

panels in space and then you can have

inflated energy like we do.

Uh, but we're going to charge you way

more than we charge our own companies.

So, it's still going to cost you way

more to do AI than does us. So, it feels

to me like while the FTC is chasing uh

Meta and and losing, Meta actually won,

that uh the company that has the

greatest chance of completely capturing

the only industry that matters, AI and

robots, is just one company, Tesla.

Because if you have a great technology,

but you don't have access to infinite

energy, you don't really have anything.

So Tesla might be the only ones who have

the right technology

theoretically

uh and infinite access to energy.

There's might only be one company that

can do that.

So would you say that they would have a

monopoly?

Well, obviously

Musk would be completely aware of that

that risk. So if he is smart, la of

course he's smart,

he will organize his company in a way

that

competing AIs have a a genuine chance of

getting into the infinite energy

business even if they don't own their

own rocket companies. So that's coming.

There's a new uh poll by Fox News

uh about uh how many of the people think

that uh

to disapprove of the job that Trump that

Trump is doing. So most voters believe

the White House is doing more harm than

good on the economy.

Is that what you think? How many of you

think the White House current

administration is currently doing more

harm than good to the economy?

Does that track with what you observe?

Where exactly is the harm?

I don't know. I'm not even sure what the

argument is that they're doing more harm

than good. But uh let's see. uh and they

shut down, drag down the approval of

both parties. None of that matters in a

short run. It'll matter by midterms, but

58% of voters disapprove of the job

Trump is doing, which is four point more

than two months ago. Do you think that

matters?

I feel like the least important

statistics in politics would be

uh the public's opinion

of Trump's economic policies between now

and the end of his second term because

he's sort of going to just do what he

needs to do, isn't he? He he has the

freedom to do what he thinks will be the

right thing and maybe three years is

long enough to find out he was right or

wrong and probably will be right. I mean

that would be his track record so far.

So I think I wouldn't worry too much

about public opinion polls of Trump on

economics. I would expect them to be

historically low,

even if he did better

better than anybody's ever done.

All right, I'm seeing you trying to get

my attention in the comments, but I'm

going to I'm going to stay on track.

Well, Mike Johnson explained one reason

why it was incredibly dangerous to to

release those Epstein files. And uh part

of the argument is

that the only ones who should declassify

something is the same entity that

classified it in the first place. Do you

do you understand why that's important?

Let's say the CIA said, "Oh yeah, this

has to be classified, but then some some

other entity was in charge of

declassifying it." Would the other

entity necessarily

have a full appreciation of why the

other entity, let's say the CIA, wanted

it to be secret? Not necessarily.

So it it is a good process to make sure

that the one who classified in the first

place is the only one that declassifies

it. But

that also guarantees the things stay

classified.

Because if you're if you're in control

of your own little domain, you just say,

"Ah, keep it classified. Then I have to

worry about it. I'll never have to worry

about it. It will never be my problem.

Just keep it classified." So, you

wouldn't get full disclosure

if you kept the rule that only the

classifying group could be the

unclassifier. So, but Mike Johnson was

saying it's dangerous. It's dangerous.

Um, and then there's also the question

about if there's an ongoing

investigation.

That would be yet another reason why we

can't see the good stuff, if there's any

good stuff. And of course, there will be

ongoing investigations, as there might

be into uh uh at least three Democrats.

[clears throat] So, we'll see how that

goes.

All right.

And uh I wonder makes me wonder how many

of the people who voted to release the

Epstein files. You hear I'm talking

about Congress. How many of the Congress

creditors believe that even if they had

all voted to release it and even if the

president signed it, how many of them

believe that they really would have

secrets coming out? Because if I were in

Congress, I'll tell you what I would

think by now. By now, I would think that

all the good stuff's been removed.

So, you're not going to see anything big

and surprising. So, I'd say to myself,

well, I might I might as well look as if

I might as well appear as if I want more

full disclosure than anybody else

because there's nothing that's going to

happen. It'll either be state secrets or

it'll be some damn thing. Somebody will

say they lost it. Somebody will say

that's the missing box. We've got a

missing box. But what I would not expect

is that I would vote to release it and

then a bunch of stuff would get released

and then it would have, you know,

significance. Well, I don't think so.

[laughter]

But what if

what if this is just for fun because the

Epstein stuff, you know, it's as much

about entertainment as it is, you know,

seeking justice. Uh what if all the

people who said yes to release it

thought they were not releasing it

because in other words they they thought

something would stop the good stuff no

matter what. Are they just waking up to

the fact that they just voted to release

it and it's actually going to be get

released?

Will it?

I don't know. I I still don't believe

that it will all be released. That seems

ridiculous to me, but maybe, who knows?

Um,

then Trump, of course, he uh immediately

signed it. Here's what I love that

uh Trump has found a way to shake the

box, as he does, and then shake it some

more and shake it some more until he's

the last person standing. Because one of

the things about Trump is that he can

handle chaos

better than everybody. So if you put a

put a a Trump and then all the other

players into this big box, you said, "I

don't know what's going to happen, but

watch this." And you just start shaking

that thing. And when you're done,

everybody's like wandering around like a

bunch of drunks like, "Whoa, what was

that?"

But if you keep doing it day after day

after day, [laughter] the

[clears throat] only person who will be

left alive is Trump because he can just

handle more chaos. He, you know, he uses

it

as basically a beacon to shine on

anything he wants. So when you see Trump

say stuff like, "No, let's not release

it." Okay, let's release it. Maybe not

release it. Let's release some of it.

Let's have somebody release it. As long

as he's shaking that box, he's winning.

And I've told you this a million times.

It's not like the one time I've said he

shakes the box. As long as he's creating

uncertainty and chaos in this little

domain that doesn't affect most people,

frankly, uh he's heading toward

dominating the the whole domain. And

I've told you before, it's kind of

brilliant that he's created this

situation where every time the topic

comes up, his enemies will think that

they're winning, like, "Ah, we're going

to bring up this topic again." And then

he's going to look at them, he's going

to make them sit there in silence while

the cameras are running. And he says,

"This is a Democrat problem." Which is

one of the all-time great framings.

It's not like it's the only person who

said it or the first time it's been

said, but once you decide, okay, this is

going to be our branding. It's a really

strong one. And then he says there are

three names associated with it, as if as

if Epstein wasn't actually more like

1500 names or some huge number. If the

three are the only ones you remember,

then it's a Democrat. It's a Democrat

problem because you only remember three

people and they happen to be uh famous

Democrats. So you got your Larry

Summers,

you got your Bill Clinton, and you got

your Reed Hoffman.

Now, let me be very clear. I'm aware of

no crimes whatsoever that any of them

are accused of that have anything to do

with Epstein. I'm not aware of any

crimes.

I'm just talking about the fact that uh

Trump has decided to brand this as, you

know, those three faces are going to be

the faces of this scandal forever. Or at

least as long as you decide to keep it

in the news and ask Trump about it every

single day. Hey, Trump, is there

anything you want to tell us about this

Epstein scandal? It's a hoax. It's a

Democrat problem. It's a Larry Summers,

Bill Clinton, Reed Hoffman problem.

and then he moves on.

That's not going to change. You've got

three more years of him saying that

every single time this this comes up.

And the one the weird thing about Trump,

which is weird and powerful, is that he

can say something he's said before as if

it's the first time he's ever thought of

it and then he can do it a thousand

times in a row. Am I right? when he

talks about it being a Democrat problem

and he goes through his reasoning like I

did,

he acts like it's the first time you

ever thought of it or the first time

you've ever heard it. He he makes it

interesting even though it couldn't

possibly be interesting, you know, in a

thousandth telling, but he makes it that

way. He's got that power.

Anyway, apparently the Clintons have not

responded to the uh request for

depositions.

If they don't respond,

does that mean that both the Clintons

will be subject to legal

legal consequences?

How many of you think that the Clintons

will have to obey the same laws that

Steve Bannon and and others have had to

obey or else go to jail?

Is it possible

that the Clintons could literally just

defy the law and just say, "Nope." Well,

now you you have to at least give us a

deposition. Nope. Okay. If you don't

give us a deposition, we might send the

sheriffs or whoever they send. Nope.

Okay, we're totally sending the sheriff.

Nope. What would happen?

Would would the law actually drag them

away? Can you imagine Bill Clinton being

put in handcuffs?

I don't think that would fly.

I I feel like the left of the country

would just go nuts.

Yeah. And it wouldn't matter how much,

you know, evidence there was or anything

like that. And but the thing is that the

one thing we could agree they did or did

not do is they did or did not respond to

a deposition or respond to, you know,

showing up at a hearing.

And if they if they put Steve Bannon in

jail for anything that was the same,

then you have to put him in jail. Let

let me say this as clearly as possible.

If it turns out that Bill Clinton

ends up doing the same thing that Bannon

did, which is some version of refusing

to testify,

don't you think the penalty should be

the same? Of course. Absolutely. No

one's above the law. So, we'll see how

that goes. But at the very least, Trump

has ruined the uh the rest of the year

for the Clintons.

And I think we should start keeping

score of how many people's lives will be

ruined by Epstein. Like Epstein, the

Epstein uh victim list is still growing

because we just added Clinton to it. Now

you could say Clinton's a perpetrator,

but that would be your opinion.

Um but whether he's a perpetrator or

not, he's having a bad year. So if you

just start throwing on the list all the

people whose lives are going to not look

so good, whether they deserve it or not,

separate question. But then we also hear

that Larry Summers

uh he confessed to his class on the uh

that he was on the Epstein list and

apparently he has resigned from the open

AI board. It looks like he's

um

he opened his class at Harvard by

acknowledging he was on it, but is he

still teaching? Uh now Harvard has

launched an investigation into Larry

Summers.

Uh apparently Epstein coached Summers on

a romance in 2018. Summers was married

at the time.

Uh and the men exchanged a trove of

messages.

Where did I get this from? Colin Rug had

a good summary of this on X. Um, so

apparently they had a lot of messages.

So these these two were really good

friends. So is Trump smart by throwing

Larry Summers under the bus? Probably

because it looks like Summers had a lot

of interaction. So now let's add Larry

Summers to the victim list. Again, I

understand completely if you say, "No,

Scott, he's that other list." Well, I

don't have any evidence he broke any

laws, but I can see for sure, you know,

there's plenty of evidence that he's

having a bad year because of Trump,

because of Epstein. So, and by the way,

none of this needed to happen. Don't you

think that Trump warned everybody?

It's not like he didn't warn everybody,

and it's not like he didn't give them an

out. He gave them an out. They could

have

essentially just said, "Let's, you know,

go on everybody. No harm, no foul. You

know, your team won't won't be attacked.

My team, they could have worked it out

somehow. I mean, you might not have

liked it, but they could have, but now

there those two are victims." Let's see

who else.

Um,

all right. We'll get back to that in a

minute. So apparently Trump is going to

meet with uh Zoran mom dummy in the Oval

Office on Friday.

And uh Trump is uh teasing him because

apparently his middle name iswami

K w

that's so Trumpian to emphasize his

middle name so that you remember he

doesn't have an American sounding name.

Now, he doesn't say that that's a crime

or that you should like him less or that

he's less qualified because his middle

name iswaame. He just makes you think

about it, [laughter]

[gasps] which is really a dirty trick.

Like I I can't say I endorse that, you

know, that that method of uh of

persuasion, but you you can't argue it

doesn't work. It totally works if it

make if it just takes your head to a

place where you're like, I don't know.

He doesn't seem that American to me,

even though he's obviously American.

Anyway, so he'll be uh meeting with

Trump. What do you think Trump's going

to get out of this?

Why would Trump meet with uh Zoron?

Now, they have a lot that they need to

work on. So, there might be a few things

he wants to, you know, coordinate with

them. But don't you think Trump wants

Zoran to fail?

So if somebody comes into your office

and you want them to fail and they want

to succeed, what exactly is the middle

ground? [laughter]

There might not be any middle ground.

How in the world do they work anything

out? Well, we'll see. But I wouldn't uh

I wouldn't hold my breath for a good

outcome there.

Um, so Elon Musk was uh at that Saudi

Arabia conventiony looking thing. I

don't know what the event was, but uh

he says something interesting about

engineering and poverty. So here's his

quote. Elon Musk, I see poverty as more

of an engineering problem than an

unsolvable social issue.

Have I said something like that? I I've

never said that.

But haven't you heard me say that that

certain things are engineering problems

and they look like they're something

else? They look like social problems,

but they're really just engineering

problems. We just haven't engineered

well enough. And the example would be as

Musk points out that with Grock and

Optimus, so that's the AI plus the

robots, we could solve the labor

shortage, drive cost to near zero, and

create a future where poverty is

statistically irrelevant.

Uh M says the scale of what's coming

over the next decade is really easy to

underestimate.

Yeah, that's really easy to

underestimate. Now I've said the

engineering thing about homelessness and

I think a few other things that uh those

are engineering problems not resource

shortages

and to hear the smartest engineer say

that well makes me feel good. Sam Harris

has uh come back on the scene. So,

whenever Sam Harris uh does a major

podcast, then all the right leaning

podcast uh universe, including me, we've

got stuff to talk about for two weeks

because we'll be like, "Ah, Sam Harris,

what happened to you? You used to be so

smart, but now we don't know. What's

wrong with you?"

Well, he did it again. And I'm not sure

that I I care too much about the opinion

as I am amused by the drama, you know,

just the human drama of it.

So Sam Harris goes on the trigonometry

podcast, which you should all sign up

for and follow and watch. It's one of

the best ones. Triggerometry. So the

first bar is like a a gun trigger

triggerometry if you're looking it up.

Uh always good stuff. So follow them.

Anyway, um I guess I guess Sam Harris

believes that around the time of Charlie

Kirk's murder, like right around the

time that Elon Musk might have posted

something that encouraged violence as a

response to the uh the murder. Now, I

said to myself, what what what

are the odds that Elon Musk um

encouraged murder? [laughter]

What I feel like I would have heard of

that. So, I wondered what the examples

were. And sure enough, there were some

examples. Now, let's say if you see if

you think the examples are as he as Sam

characterizes them um sort of

encouraging,

you know, people to act out or is it

just a way of talking? Here's the

examples. Uh Elon posted right about the

time that Charlie Kirk was assassinated,

he posted on X, the left is the party of

murder.

first. Is that the first time that Sam

Harris I heard a notable person say that

the left is the party of murder? That's

such a common thing that maybe it's just

that he doesn't hear it. But if you

were, you know, if you lived anywhere in

the sort of universe that I do, you hear

that all the time. Some of it's about

abortion, right? They just treat

abortion as murder and you say one one

side's in favor of abortion.

We call it murder. So that would mean

that that side is in favor of murder.

Now if you if you didn't know

that the entire right, well not the

entire right, but most of the right

considers abortion murder and that

that's the first thing they think of in

this domain. Well, you'd be a little

confused by that language, wouldn't you?

And it would seem extreme.

it would seem extreme. Um, but there are

all there are other examples.

Um, we could go through the, you know,

the news and we could argue, well, that

seems a little too friendly to murder.

For example, um, is it the left or the

right who is more likely to let somebody

out of jail before they've served a full

sentence? Which one would more likely do

it? the left probably.

And would that create more murders than

if they didn't release these people who

may have done some bad things already?

Of course, it would create more murders.

So, you can make these arguments, and

I'm not making the argument, by the way,

but you can make the argument pretty

easily that the one side is the party of

murder. But in any case, does that seem

like a call to actual violence to you?

Or is it just if you're used to that

style of talking, it's just talking?

I mean, there's a there's a serious

point he's making, which is uh he's

being opposed he's being opposed to

violence. Now, do you see Elon Musk

saying the left is the party of murder?

Is that encouraging violence or is that

a speaking out against violence?

Because,

you know, I live in this country. I

speak English. I don't see it as

encouraging violence. I see it as more

of a warning that if we keep going this

direction, you'll get more violence than

you want. Everybody will, not one side.

He's not saying that the violence will

be in one direction. uh although there

might be some initiating

thing going on there but no this is just

talk

and

I've I've made this point before if you

live in a different you know a different

bubble the the things that are just talk

in the other bubble are a cult of

violence in your bubble but it looks

weird from the other bubble but that's

not the only thing so not long after he

said the left is a party of murder um he

said, "If if they won't leave us in

peace, then our choice is fight or die."

Does that sound like a call to violence?

If they won't leave us in peace, then

our choice is to fight or die. Well,

here again, it depends what bubble

you're in. If if you're in the left

bubble and you're not accustomed to

people routinely trotting out the

phrase, give me liberty or give me death

or you know I'd rather be dead than I

have free speech. You might not know

that the political right just sort of

talks this way.

They talk that way and I'll even put

myself in that category for this this

topic. I talk that way

and I I don't uh apologize for it at

all. You know, the country was founded

on a certain amount of force

and the entire idea was that we'd rather

have liberty

uh than life.

So to me, when I hear somebody say, "If

they won't leave us in peace, then our

choice is fight or die." That's really

just a statement of the obvious,

right? If if somebody is going to, you

know, continuously torture you in

whatever way, you know, doesn't matter

the way. If there's somebody who's going

to continually be your problem and you

decide not to do anything about it,

well, do you think you get more of it or

less? You get more of it? Yeah. If you

don't do anything about it. So, that's

just a statement of the obvious.

if if you let people take advantage of

you and walk all over you and treat you

as a secondass citizen and you know

maybe even in this case there was an

assassination involved if you don't

address it pretty aggressively are you

going to get more of it or less of it?

And is is that a is that a vi is that a

call to violence to point out the most

obvious thing in the world? The the

things that are uh not punished you

might get more of.

Well, Fischer King made an interesting

comment about this. He said that on X.

He said that Sam Harris is the gift that

keeps on giving. Sort of what I was

saying. You you're going to get two

weeks of content out of this. Uh here he

is talking about the murder of Charlie

Kirk and he says and he's talking about

the same interaction between uh between

people on X and he says uh there's no

party on the left that supports us. Uh

blah blah blah blah blah. Oh Sam Harris

says there's no party on the left that

supports us. Well, of course

a lot of Republicans would disagree with

that statement. But rather than argue

that,

Fischer King points out that then he

blames Trump and Elon for dousing the

ground with gasoline to great

circumstances where this could happen.

Well,

probably everybody's a little bit guilty

of a little hyperbole. But what I'm

introducing today is that the things

that seem like hyperbole on the right

don't seem like hyperbole to the people

on the right. To them, it's just

talking. And likewise, the people on the

left, I suspect that if they just stay

in their own little bubble, it doesn't

look like they're doing a call to

violence as much as it does if you're

looking at what they're doing from your

own bubble. So, just just be aware of

that. There some of it is which bubble

you're viewing it from.

And I know it's fun to claim that the

other side is worse and maybe they are,

and but that doesn't buy you much. But

uh this whole thing was to get to this

part where Elon Musk, you must have had

enough of Sam Harris. And then he he

responds on X, Sam Harris took the fast

train to down years ago. Never

coming back. [laughter]

Never [clears throat] coming back. He

took the fast train to town.

[laughter]

Now Elon has like 230

million followers.

Can you be Can you imagine being

insulted by somebody who has 230 million

followers?

That's [clears throat] pretty That's

fun. All right. Um,

apparently, uh, Trump and MBS, the crown

prince who was in town yesterday, uh,

have signaled, but I don't think this is

confirmed,

that uh, that there might be some kind

of breakthrough, a conditional

breakthrough for a Saudi Israel deal,

like a peace deal. Uh, I don't think

we're quite there, but one of the things

that, uh, the Saudis want is a two-state

solution, and one of the things that

Israel wants is not that. So, is there

any way that we could ever have a Saudi

Israel deal if the two-stage solution is

somewhat off the off the table? I don't

know. But would it make sense

for Trump to be trying to work on some

kind of a side deal with Saudi Arabia?

Uh, and then if we get one we like, he

just shoves it down Israel's throat. As

in, you better take this. No, I know you

want I know you don't want a two-state

solution, but take this. So, we'll see.

It Yeah, it doesn't seem likely, does

it? It seems like Israel, of course, can

control its own fate in in this

particular way. So, I don't think we're

that close to a two-state solution, but

it would be fascinating to see if Trump

uses his technique that worked on Gaza.

Gaza on Gaza.

Didn't he make the deal before he had

the deal? So, the the Gazins had not

agreed to it at all and he still made a

peace deal. How do [clears throat] you

do that? How how did he force them into

a peace deal when one group didn't want

it at all and and they somehow agreed

that they would, oh yeah, we'll have

peace even though this isn't what we

agreed to.

Could it be that Trump is has invented a

whole new way to do peace deals when the

when the situation is impossible?

Well, the only way you could get a deal

when the situation is impossible

is you get people to agree to things

that they don't agree to,

which is what he did with Gaza. But

maybe he could do it with this. Can Can

he get Israel and Saudi Arabia and maybe

maybe half a dozen other countries? Can

you get them to agree to something that

they definitely don't agree to, but then

they get a little bit pregnant because

they're already celebrating that they

made some kind of agreement even though

they haven't agreed to it. And even if

they said, "No, no, we don't really

agree to everything you're saying.

We still need to negotiate this

two-state thing." And then then suddenly

the the ship is just moving and it's too

hard to move it back.

If that's what Trump is doing and he's

doing it intentionally, he's just

inventing a whole new way to solve

problems, something we've

[clears throat] never seen before. Now,

I'd have to see him do it more than once

before I'd conclude it's any kind of an

intentional thing. Uh, but he seems to

be tapping on the door of doing it a

second time. We'll see.

Anyway,

um,

China

is allegedly, according to Natural News,

Kevin Hughes is writing about this,

China has some kind of a technical

breakthrough

in a space-based particle beam weapon

that they could just park up in the

atmosphere, not outside the atmosphere,

and uh, blast away at everything. Now, I

already told you that the the space

might be the cheap way to get unlimited

energy.

Well, suppose you needed unlimited

energy because you developed a uh let's

say a network of particle beam weapons

that require enormous amounts of

electricity. Well, here again, you're in

luck because if you can only get that

enormous amount of electricity from

space and enormous solar panels,

is China going to be able to park

literally a bunch of particle beam

weapons that are just sort of pointed at

us and they're and they could uh go from

space to the ground in I don't know how

long would it take, 5 seconds, you know,

even at the speed of light or faster,

right? Faster than 5 seconds. I'm not

quite sure. But how in the world would

you defend against that? I mean, you

would have to attack it preemptively.

And if you missed even one node, it

could just sit up there all day long

creating infinite energy and just

destroying everything in your entire

nation, you know, right? If you tried to

send a rocket up to knock it down, the

particle beam would knock the rocket

down first. I don't know. We're we're in

a we're in all new territory here. But

uh I also don't believe stories about

any country with a uh advanced particle

beam weapon.

I feel like if we know about it, it

can't be true.

Wouldn't you say? It can't be their best

secret weapon if we know about it.

Um, so you you have to basically take

whatever it is you think you know and

then make some assumptions about how

good the real stuff is and uh it's going

to be real good.

All right. Um, did you know that most

Americans believe that migrant farm work

farm workers should be allowed to remain

in the USA?

Um that's according to physicians

committee for responsible medicine. You

disagree. I know. But uh 65% of adults

support establishing some kind of

program where the people who pick our

food can be happy and we'll be happy

too. I don't know what that looks like.

Uh, who was it who was who was doing a

great job the other day explaining why

you can't Oh, I think it was Trump

explaining why you can't just hire

Americans for things because you want

Americans to do it. How many of you

think that's a real thing? Now, Trump

says it's not. It's just not a thing.

that if you if you wanted to, let's say,

import some high-tech industry that we

don't already have skill at, it's not a

thing that we could just train our own

people.

You you just build the factory and by

the time it's built, oh, we trained

everybody, so it's now we can do this

high-tech thing. We'll make our own

chips. That's not a thing.

it it takes a lot of work to, you know,

prepare a country or or anybody to to

take on a whole new industry. So, I

think Trump is the one who has the

closest view to reality

about the H-1B stuff,

which is there is no world in which you

can just hire Americans on day one. Now,

if your if your ambition is to make sure

that you know in five years or however

long it takes that it's 100% American,

that might be doable. Three years

depends on the industry. But yeah,

totally doable in the long run. But to

imagine that you could just jump into

it, that's not a that's just not a

feature of the real world. And uh Trump

seems to understand the real world well

enough to to know that he has to make

some concessions.

So I got to say he's it seems he's

completely right.

Okay. Uh

there's a report that the US and Russia

are planning some kind of Ukrainian

peace deal that does not involve the

Europeans negotiating.

What does that sound like? H that sounds

just like the last story, doesn't it?

Where the question is, wait a minute,

did Trump find a way to negotiate peace

deals by just leaving out the part that

they don't like? So the part they don't

like is, you know, Europe might not

agree with something, so he just leaves

them out.

Is he going to make a peace deal in

which the Europeans say, "Oh, no. We we

don't agree to that." And they just

force them into it. Would would that be

the third peace deal that Trump did

where he just pretended that people were

on the same page when they weren't?

Because this goes back to what I was

saying. Did he invent a whole new way to

to make deals?

It's [clears throat] kind of weird.

All right.

Um,

I am in so much pain

that I think I'm gonna have to end

early.

Oh my god.

I I have to

Oh, it's a muscle pain. So, don't worry

too much.

Wow.

Yeah, I might have to What time is it? A

[sighs]

yeah, I can't do the rest. Too much

pain.

Wow. [laughter]

I I'll be fine, by the way. You You

don't need to check on me, but I'm in

massive pain right now. And I'm just

going to go take some pain pills. All

right. Bye for now.