My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Apple Store Service, Mouse Jigglers, Gratitude, Pain Management, Optimism Intelligence, Grandiose Narcissism, Jake Tapper, Hur Tapes, Dan Goldman, Democrat Professional Liars, Election Censorship, ChatGPT, Charlamagne Tha God, Democrat Policies & Messaging, Gavin Newsom Border NG, President Trump, ET Whistleblowers, Thank You Notes, Biden G7, OpenAI Board Members, Anti-Nuclear Preachy Women, Thomas Massie, Congressional Hush Fund, Putin's Peace Conditions, Ukraine NATO, President Putin, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
If you'd like to enjoy this experience at the maximum possibility, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker gels, a stand, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's the special Friday edition.
The show is going to be great today.
Happy birthday, President Trump.
Go.
I think there was a little extra simultaneity in that one.
Makes the sipping so good.
Well, let's see what we've got going.
I almost didn't have a show here because I had, again, major computer failure.
Do you remember when Apple was accused of slowing down their phones to make you think you needed a new one?
And then people were thinking, ah, that can't be a real thing.
And then we found out it was a real thing and they admitted it.
Well, I've got a desktop, you know, a Macintosh that suddenly, suddenly it tells me I don't have the right operating system when it's the new one.
It tells me I don't have application, uh, application memory, which I do.
It tells me I don't have a room on my hard disk.
Which I do.
Lots of it.
Now anyway.
And it's basically crashing all of my applications all the time.
So I said to myself, well, I'm going to go to the Apple Store.
Cause I don't get out much.
Since the pandemic, I don't have much human activity outside the house.
So I thought, you know what I'm going to do?
I'm going to go see what it's like to be with people.
Like actually go to a store.
You know, where they're human beings in the same room and stuff?
Because I don't really do that.
It's been so long since I've been in a store.
I guess I've done grocery shopping, but that's about it.
So I go to the Apple store and what I was expecting, of course, is Apple's usually, you know, blue star amazing service.
Because their service is so good.
That in the Apple Store, they literally called the job description of the people who work there, genius.
It actually says genius right on the business card.
Literally, that's just the name of the job.
They're called geniuses.
And I remember the first time I went to an Apple Store several years ago, and I remember they were called geniuses.
And I thought to myself, they're not going to be geniuses.
Watch this.
It's just going to be like every other employee.
They won't be able to know how to do anything.
And then it turns out they were really, really smart.
And they could solve anything.
Every time I went in, they had immediate solutions.
So they were, in fact, geniuses.
I mean, way smarter than the average person, anyway.
So that's the experience I expected when I went there yesterday.
So I go in there and sure enough, I'm greeted at the door by sort of the host type person with a, with a phone who's going to put me in it and make sure that somebody comes and helps me right away.
And I'm like, this is what I remember.
Yeah, this is good stuff.
So she tells me to go wait by the computer I wanted to buy.
Cause I literally walked in and she said, can I help you?
And I said, yes, I'd like to buy your finest computer.
Now I meant that literally.
Because I don't like to mess around.
I just want to know what's your one that has the best memory and the fastest processor.
Okay, wrap it up.
That's what I plan to do.
Because when you do it professionally, you don't really buy the second best computer.
It's nothing really to decide.
Because you know you're going to appreciate every little bit of extra, you know, power it has.
So she goes, stand by the computers.
So she goes, well, you can while you're here, you can compare this one.
To this other one.
Now already she's not understanding my request.
I said, show me your finest computer.
That's very different from, show me some computers of which I can spend some time comparing them.
No, not really interested in the second best computer.
So already they're kind of not understanding the mission.
No, only the best computer.
That's the only reason I'm here.
So I wait by the computer, which seemed like a little longer than they usually make you wait, especially since there were a whole bunch of geniuses wandering around not helping any people, but often just talking to themselves in little groups.
Now that was the first thing that caught my attention.
I thought, huh, there's a group of three of them over there doing nothing for customers when I'm standing here with my finger up my ass.
But eventually a genius did show up.
And the genius showed up wearing a N95 COVID mask in 2024, in the summer.
And I said to myself, I've got a bad feeling about this genius.
There's something this genius is signaling that says it's different from the other geniuses.
It could be the COVID mask in 2024.
And so the COVID mask genius came over to me and he said, can I help you?
And I looked at him and I said in my strongest, clearest voice, yes.
I was going to give him the easiest transaction of his day.
So you see this computer?
This is your best one, right?
Yes.
Wrap it up.
Here's my credit card.
That's how I thought things would go.
Instead it went this way.
Can I help you?
Yes.
Great.
And then he walked directly over to another young couple.
Well, I'm not a young couple.
And said, uh, how can I help you?
And then he helped him.
So, so now you're saying to yourself, but Scott, probably he misheard or you misheard or something.
You know, it's easiest thing to fix.
You just walk up to one of the other geniuses who's not busy.
And saying, Oh, it might've been some miscommunication, but I still need some help.
And I see there are plenty of geniuses, so I'm still in good shape.
So I walk up to the first genius and I realized that I'd been away from people for too long.
I was so pissed off.
Not only the Apple, as far as I can tell, is intentionally crippling my computer and totally fucking up my operation.
That I do in front of live people every day.
But now they've apparently introduced some level of incompetence into their genius system.
And I looked at the very next guy.
And I had to stop myself and leave the store.
Because I realized I was going to go off on him.
For no reason at all, he hadn't done anything.
And I realized that I'm not, I can't be around people anymore.
People just piss me off too much.
And are you going to say to me, was it a DEI situation?
Well, not that I know of, right?
I mean, the employee in question was among the diverse population, but that doesn't mean that's what was going on.
But I do assume that Apple has been destroyed by the same DEI that the other big companies have been.
So my presumption is that DEI destroyed their high level of service.
I don't know if that's true, but it would be the reasonable prediction.
Well, on other topics, apparently Wells Fargo has fired what they call mouse jigglers.
There are people who have some kind of technology to move the mouse when they're not at their desk, and it makes it look like they're working if you're monitoring them electronically.
And they're called the mouse jigglers.
Now, if you don't think there's going to be a Dilbert Reborn comic in which Wally is a mouse jiggler, well, you don't know me.
There will be some mouse jiggler.
No stiggler situation will be going on there.
All right.
So yesterday on my show, I asked the provocative question, why do we have voting machines at all, given that they're not cheaper, faster, more reliable, more credible, or anything?
And nobody could make an argument for it.
Well, that went a little bit viral on X, and then I saw RealClearPolitics picked it up.
So the question is there.
Now, do you think that anybody will answer the question?
Let's make your prediction.
Do you think anybody who knows what they're talking about, whether they're from one of the companies that produce machines or just somebody who is knowledgeable, do you think somebody will say, oh, there's an obvious reason?
And then they will tell me the reason.
That we use voting machines when they're not cheaper, faster, more reliable.
And then I'll say, oh, that was very non-obvious, but now that you say that reason, I can see why that would be important.
Do you think that's going to happen?
That's what should happen, right?
It's the most important question in the world, because if we don't get our elections right, the country fails.
There's a ripple effect.
So the most important question in the world, and now it's public, Got a lot of attention.
So now I'll get the answer, right?
Have you seen the answer yet?
No, there's no answer.
I haven't seen one.
If anybody sees an answer to that, please, please alert me.
But I'll tell you, asking the right question is the most dangerous thing in the world.
Because until you ask the right question, people's minds aren't quite focused on the thing maybe they should be watching.
It's a big question.
It's sort of a magic trick to even have those machines in there, and somehow they've convinced everybody that there was a reason.
And maybe there is!
But it's kind of interesting that nobody in the country is aware of what that reason might be.
All right.
There's a study that says that gratitude can make you feel less lonely.
So there's a big old study published in the Journal of Applied Psychologists, and they did a, I think they did a meta-study of studies, Spent a bunch of money and took a bunch of time and they found out that showing gratitude makes you feel less lonely.
Do you know what they could have done instead of a meta-study?
They could have asked me!
Now, I keep finding out that hypnotists are apparently 50 years ahead of science.
And I mean that actually literally with no exaggeration whatsoever.
Hypnotists apparently are learning things that are like 50 years ahead of science.
Because I could have told you this.
Why?
Gratitude releases oxytocin.
Oxytocin makes you feel less lonely.
I knew that.
Did you know that?
Did you know that gratitude releases oxytocin?
And did you know that oxytocin makes you feel less lonely?
They didn't have to study this at all.
I knew it.
You just had to ask me.
Yeah, gratitude, oxytocin, oxytocin makes you feel less lonely.
I made sure I checked with, you know, ChatGPT just to make sure I wasn't insane.
But yes, it confirmed that's true.
Here's another one.
There was a study where they found that people would feel less pain if they were in virtual reality.
And they were looking at an avatar that was muscular.
I think it means their own avatar, like a muscular version of themselves, but I'm not sure that's necessary.
Could be just a muscular avatar.
But it would be better if it was a muscular avatar of yourself.
More muscular than you are.
and it said it reduced pain by 16%.
You know who knew that without doing a test?
you Hypnotists.
I think it was a long time ago the first time I saw that you could make people save more for the retirement if you showed them a altered picture of themselves so they could see themselves looking old.
If somebody can imagine themselves in a different situation, such as old, then they'll change their behavior.
That's been known forever.
Now, does that extend to pain management?
Yeah, every hypnotist could tell you that.
Pain management is one of the things that hypnosis does well.
It's one of the first original things.
So, um, yes, it's completely obvious that if you looked at yourself looking differently, you would have an effect on your body.
There would be psychological, and that includes pain management, because that can be a, there's a psychological element.
Um, but generally speaking, the way you visualize yourself makes a difference.
Now here's how I use this in everyday life.
I imagine myself as more physically fit than I am, which is to say, I imagine that if I took off my shirt and looked in the mirror, it would look better than it actually does when I take off my shirt and look in the mirror.
So I always set my visual, basically my avatar.
So I always have an avatar of myself, except the avatar of myself is a better version.
And I do that intentionally, and I've told you this for years.
You should always set your self-opinion above your whatever you think is real.
Because we have an ability to sort of stretch ourselves into our impression of who we are.
You become the person you imagine.
It's just sort of an automatic process.
So if you imagine yourself being a big loser every day, You probably will do more losing.
You've heard of the power of positive thinking?
The power of positive thinking is basically imagining an avatar of yourself succeeding in the future.
And what happens?
Every study, every personal experience, everybody will tell you, if you imagine yourself being successful, especially at something specific, you're more likely to get it.
It's what affirmations are.
It's why affirmations You know, have lasted a long time that people feel it works.
So yeah, you could ask me, if you had asked me, do you think this would work?
I would have said, yeah, probably.
I don't think you even have to study it.
Here's another one.
Apparently, another research found out that people who have grandiose narcissism, which is one of the two types, very different from the other kind, Grandiose is where you just want to get credit for doing great things, and maybe you think positively of yourself.
And a study found that people with the most grandiose narcissism, in other words the best opinion of themselves and their place in the world, they perform better on intelligence tests when under stress, thanks to a broader distribution of visual attention.
Now, the broader The broader distribution of visual attention.
There's another word for that, but I've talked about this with persuasion before.
So yes, it is true that if you imagine things are going to go your way, you'll simply notice more things and you'll be smarter.
Just by imagining things are going to go your way.
In other words, optimism makes you smarter.
I would say that grandiose narcissism is just a form of personal optimism.
The reason, and I often label myself a grandiose narcissist, because I always think in gigantic terms.
I wake up every day thinking I can change the world.
Every day.
And always have.
Even before I was a public figure.
I always thought, today I can do something that maybe will change the world.
And I've never lost that feeling that I'm going to do something that changes the world.
And I have done a few things that changed the world in some ways.
So now we know that there's a good form of narcissism that just makes you smarter.
It makes you work harder to do good things because you want to get credit for having done good things.
I love credit for good things.
And you might remember there was a time when I said narcissism is fake.
There's no such thing.
That was before I realized there's two completely different ones, and they just use the same word.
So the problem is that narcissism can mean this good kind, where people are just trying to do something great for the world, and it actually makes them better at doing those things.
What's wrong with that one?
So that's the kind that I see Trump as.
He actually feels he has some role to fix the world, and then he goes out and he kind of does it.
So wasn't it good that he had that opinion of himself?
Otherwise he wouldn't have even run for president.
Who runs for president?
Unless you think, I mean, you have to be sort of a narcissist to run for president.
But if you're the bad kind, then you're just a troublemaker looking to destroy everything around you so you feel good.
That's a whole different deal.
So I insist again, That calling this one narcissism is just the wrong label.
Because it's like calling somebody who's a doctor a murderer.
Because you both deal with dead people.
No, one is trying to save the people, the doctor.
The other is trying to kill the people.
So calling them both killers, because, you know, I suppose a doctor can lose a patient by the wrong process.
That's sort of the same thing.
It's just the wrong word for the thing.
So confusing.
Well, CNN continues to find the middle ground here.
Jake Tapper was calling out Somebody who's talking to Dan Goldman was on the show, and Tapper was pointing out that there's no reason for the DOJ to withhold the HER tapes.
H-U-R, HER.
Those are the tapes in which Biden is presumed to sound more dementia than the transcripts would show.
If you had the actual audio, apparently it would sound bad.
People imagine But the two things I want to say about this.
Number one, I do think CNN's move toward reasonableness, which is the middle, is real.
It does look real, but I don't think it's affected every person.
The good news is, Tapper is definitely moving towards something like a sensible middle.
And Smirkonish has always been the most reasonable person at the network.
But I found out the other day, if Chad GPT told me the truth, it might have been hallucinating.
But I think they have the two biggest shows.
So the two shows with the biggest viewers, Are also the more reasonable people on the network.
So that's good.
But Dan Goldman, the guest, I'm going to put him in the category of the professional liars.
The Democrats have a professional liar group, which is the weirdest thing.
And what I mean by that is, in politics, there are exaggerations and sort of normal lies.
But then there are the extraordinary lies.
The ones that really no reasonable person should ever believe.
You know, like Russia collusion, or the laptop is fake.
Or in this case, there's no reason you need to see those tapes from her.
These are just crazy, crazy fucked up things.
So they have this group of people who are apparently either so So blackmailed or they know that they're the worst people in the world But they're the ones who will say anything and and if you don't know who they are You will confuse them with real people, right?
Dan Goldman is just he's an Adam Schiff.
He's an Eric Swalwell.
He's Jamie Raskin he is a He's a James Clapper.
He's a Brennan.
Those are the names that, when you see them, they seem to only appear when there's something so hard to defend that you would need somebody completely shameless to look in the camera and say it's true or not true.
The regular Democrats really don't show up for this stuff.
There must be at least 70% of Democrats who wouldn't say any of this stuff out loud because they know everybody knows they're lying.
But for some reason there are this, you know, five to seven Democrats who will always say the dumbest fucking ridiculous lie and Goldman's one of them.
He's an absurd character.
I remind you that in an election year, all our data is fake.
I guess Jerome Powell, the Fed Chair, basically admitted the other day that the employment numbers are inaccurate.
Right.
So, I'll tell you every day, probably until Election Day, there's no data that you can rely on during an election year.
Probably you couldn't rely on it ever, but in an election year it's just crazy to imagine it's true.
Everything's going to be gamed.
And I find that I've entered this category of humans where maybe 90% of all the people on earth I can't relate to anymore.
Because I can't talk to anybody who thinks that government data, commercial data from companies, the news and history are real.
How do you deal with somebody who thinks the news is still real, wherever it was?
How do I deal with somebody who thinks that data from the government is accurate?
How do I deal with somebody who thinks that they know an election is fair?
I don't even know how to talk to them.
What would you say to somebody who's operating in, it's sort of like I'm a, you know, I'm a base 10 number counter, and I'm talking to somebody who's, you know, base, I don't know what, invisible numbers or something.
It's like, I don't even know how to talk to him.
If you think that news history and government data are real, or that anything that, you know, Goldman, Schiff, Swalwell, Brennan, or Clapper tell you, if you think any of that's real, how can I actually have a conversation with you about anything important?
I don't know what to do about that.
You know, it's so...
It so removes you from the regular world, because the regular world is walking around hypnotized into thinking all this stuff is real.
Anyway.
The Federalist is reporting that the State Department won't say definitively whether or not it's colluding with big tech to censor speech before the election.
Now, wouldn't you call that an easy question to answer if the answer is no?
Hey, Are you colluding with Big Tech to influence the election that we're about to have?
Well, we're doing things, blah, blah, blah.
No, but you didn't really answer the question.
Are you colluding with Big Tech to censor speech before the 2024 election?
2024 election. Well, we believe, oh, but they, oh, but a little bit of a.
So, yes, Yes, of course they are.
Yes, of course there's massive censorship.
They're just going to be a little more clever about it, I guess.
Of course there is.
I have a question for you.
Having now used ChatGPT quite a bit, I can't think of any reason I would ever use a Google search.
Which seems like a really big problem for Google, doesn't it?
Because my normal habit would be lots of Google searches during any given week.
It's just the most common thing.
Now, probably I would only use it if I knew the URL or the name of the website.
Because, you know, it will auto-fill the website.
So that's useful.
But besides auto-filling the thing I want, ChatGPT gives me all kinds of context.
You know, I can do follow-up questions.
I can do it in audio.
Now, what happens when I've got that on my phone?
Apparently, ChatGPT and Apple are not paying each other.
There's enough of a strategic interest that ChatGPT is basically free to Apple.
Not just free to the users, but even Apple isn't paying for it.
Now, I don't know what's behind that, but it looks like they may be trying to take Google down.
That's what it looks like.
Because how does Google survive If I can pick up my phone and ask any question and ChadGBT will just take it over to presumably Bing to get my answer.
I don't know.
I think Google has a existential threat that just popped up out of nowhere.
All right.
Charlemagne, the God, the God.
He's being interesting again.
And he was saying that, I guess he was on the Daily Show.
He said that in the age of hate, Democrats need a messaging makeover, and that they should learn from Republicans how to talk like real people.
Now that part sounds really smart, but he can't quite leave the illusion.
Here's what else he said.
There's nothing wrong with the policies of the Democrats, it's their messaging.
Every time you think Charlemagne is going to make the leap?
No, Charlemagne.
The policies are goddamn fucking garbage.
It's not about Joe Biden's personality.
There's nothing about his... I don't even care that he walks like a statue.
I don't care.
I wouldn't even care if he was stealing money from Ukraine.
I wouldn't care if his son was coked up and Firing bullets in the air.
If their policies were even a little bit okay.
The border is open.
Are you kidding me?
We're spending our money in Ukraine for God knows what.
Are you kidding me?
Inflation through the roof.
It's crazy.
Really, Charlemagne?
The policies are good?
It's just the way they're talking about it that's the problem?
No!
Nobody thinks that.
All right.
But what he said about the messaging was funny and good.
He says he used three examples of good messaging from Republicans, and you'll be amazed who he picked.
He picked Senator Kennedy, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Trump as three examples of good messaging and a way to talk to the public.
Specifically, what he said is you should talk like people talk.
And that people don't want to hear a politician talk, they want to hear a real person talk.
And that whether you like it or not, so he's not endorsing what they said, just the quality with which they said it in a way people can relate to.
Totally agree.
That was a good observation, I think.
And by the way, I've been saying that since Trump came on the scene.
Remember in 2015, everybody said, he's talking like Sixth grade vocabulary.
And I kept saying, you mean the best way you could ever talk?
Well, but you don't understand.
He's talking like a sixth grader.
And then I would say again, OK, but you're complimenting him, right?
Don't you understand?
He's he's communicating like a sixth grader.
OK, I'm hearing you.
But do you understand that's the best way to talk to the public?
And eight years later, Charlemagne says, you know, that's the best way to talk to the public.
Trump did that to you.
He went from, why is he talking like a child?
To, we should all be talking like that.
I mean, that's the way to talk.
That's what works.
And he's right.
Gavin Newsom being Gavin Newsom at the board.
He's in full lizard mode.
And he's got a little video in which he's talking about how he's doubled the California National Guard at the border.
And they're working to stop the flow of fentanyl.
Wow, that sounds good.
That's a man of action.
He's getting stuff done.
And then he contrasts it to the GOP that are like playing games and Mike Johnson searching for his spine.
And meanwhile, as Gavin Newsom points out, he's out there doing real work.
He's there with the National Guard.
They're closing the border.
Now, the National Guard wasn't shown in the video.
And Fox News' Bill Malugin Weighs in and said, you know, none of that's happening.
Not a single person he's ever talked to, and he's down at the border all the time, and he checked with the Border Patrol.
None of them have seen any National Guard.
As in any?
As in none?
Nobody's ever seen one?
The people who actually do work on the border?
It's like, National Guard?
We haven't seen them.
They're here?
So Gavin Newsom actually just does a video and says he's controlling the border.
Apparently none of that's happening.
Now what happens when I talk to the next Democrat I run into who thinks that that's true?
How do I have a conversation with somebody who thinks Gavin Newsom is closing the border with the National Guard?
That's literally just like a fictional story.
All right.
Well, happy birthday to Trump, he's 78.
And, you know, I just saw another interview with Jake Paul, we'll talk about that, made some news.
But he looks completely on the ball.
Am I wrong?
I don't see Trump losing a step.
Now, I think he's too old, because I think everybody that age is at a certain risk.
But I gotta say, he looks 100%.
For what that's worth.
It's just not my preference to have people that age in that office.
But lots of individual differences.
All right.
So he's talking to Jake Paul, who's going to be fighting against Mike Tyson in a few months.
And here are some of the things he talked about.
Actually, before I talk about that, apparently Trump said in a meeting with Republicans He's considering, or that he would consider, replacing the federal income tax with an all-tariff policy.
In other words, 100% of the money coming into the government would be charging other countries for the privilege of trading with the United States.
Now, could that work?
Because I don't know.
Wouldn't they just increase their tariffs on us?
Or would we only be increasing tariffs on people who are already in an unbalanced situation, so we'd just be bringing it to even?
I don't know how that would work.
So I'm not for it or against it.
Here's what I'm going to say.
Donald Trump turned 78 years old.
He's the one who suggested building new cities on federal lands.
One of the most radical and forward-thinking things I've heard from a president ever.
He also is considering completely removing the federal tax code.
He hasn't decided to do it, but he's looking into an idea that's so radical and so different, I'd never even heard of it.
Can you imagine that there was a potential tax policy that I'd never even heard of?
Now, whether that's a good idea or a bad idea, If you think that being 78 is hurting Trump's ability to be flexible intellectually, you're wrong.
He's got the goods, and he's bringing them right in front of you.
The goods are 78-year-old people don't think like this, but he does.
He does.
And that's really kind of notable.
When was the last time you saw a 78-year-old have the newest ideas in the game?
I've never even heard of that.
This is really unusual.
And he's doing it, you know, more than once.
It's fairly consistent.
He is an innovator.
And he said in a recent interview that the government needs to be helping the entrepreneurs more, which caused, you know, Jason from the All In podcast to go, yes, there you go.
That's exactly what we should be doing.
So on almost every topic, he has a young man's opinion.
You can't overlook that.
That's a big deal.
If you're concerned about age, that's a really big deal.
All right, but here's my favorite part.
So Jake Paul asked him about UFOs.
Now, as you know, if you're the president, you get to see all the good stuff.
So a president, in theory, Should be able to find out, does the United States have any captured spaceships?
Do we have any aliens?
And here's what Trump said.
It's possible that there could be alien life, because it's a big universe.
So that's good.
That's a very Trumpian, open-minded thing, which is, how do we know?
It's a big universe.
So he's open to the possibility.
Now, why would you put it that way?
Why would you say anything's possible if you actually knew we had aliens?
Well, you wouldn't.
So one of the things we can be sure about, I think, I can be sure, nothing's 100%.
But he talked about how pilots had seen things, and they were very credible pilots, and there were multiple of them, and he talked to them personally, and he had every reason to believe that what they were seeing Was at least not a lie.
Doesn't mean it's aliens.
But he was convinced that their stories were accurate observations of what they saw.
But what they saw is still, of course, a question.
So he's open to it.
He thinks that the people reporting it are credible.
But here's the thing.
Isn't the real story whether or not we do have warehouses with 12 alien captured ships, as the news and certain whistleblowers keep telling us?
Well, he said directly, Trump did, that he does not personally believe that aliens have been presented in Earth.
Now think about those things.
That's actually a perfect answer.
The perfect answer is, here's the evidence, they're very credible, it's a big world, anything's possible, but personally I'm not convinced.
Do you think he would say personally he wasn't convinced?
If he'd taken a tour of UFO debris?
No.
I think Trump doesn't know.
If there are aliens, nobody's telling him.
And he was asked that directly.
Do you think they would tell you?
You know, what if they were there and it's like one of these, you know, John Brennan secrets they don't tell you?
I feel like they would tell him.
And I don't think he's lying.
I think that the government literally doesn't have any captured UFOs, because he would know about it.
You don't think he could figure that out?
So, in my opinion, this is confirmation that the whistleblowers are full of shit.
Which always seemed obvious to me, by the way.
All right, then Trump talked about Elon Musk.
And had very positive things to say about him and how impressed he is about the rockets landing to be reusable and everything.
Very, very praising him.
But then separately, Elon was asked at some event about Trump, and he said this.
Elon said about Trump, he goes, quote, he does call me out of the blue for no reason.
He's very nice when he calls.
I think a lot of his friends now have Teslas, and he's a huge fan of the Cybertruck.
Now, I saw Cernovich comment on that, that it's sort of a Trump superpower, that he will call people, and he works the Rolodex, as Mike said, that he does this thing where he just connects to people that are good to connect to.
I can tell you from personal experience that once he personally connects with you for anything, it's very persuasive.
So any personal contact, no matter how minimal, just bonds you to him because he's so important.
When he uses his time to give you a little bit of it, that has such an impact because he's not a regular person.
He's somebody who should be doing important stuff.
So if he takes one second to give you some attention, You change forever.
And apparently it's just part of his lifelong process of sending people notes, long before he was president.
George Bush Sr.
was famous for this.
I saw a story once where every night before bed, he'd dash off a whole bunch of private thank yous.
And, you know, just nice to have you in my life and stuff like that.
And people would wake up, you know, in a few days and open the mail and it would be George Bush, you know, even when he was a much lower level, um, successful candidate, you know, from the early days, you just write thank you notes.
Now I have a, I have a friend who does the same thing and has been doing it for years.
Very effective.
Uh, and I can tell you from my own experience, um, several months ago when I mentioned, The idea of Trump and the building the cities from scratch, which I loved.
Somebody printed that out and showed it to Trump, and then he signed it and thanked me for liking the idea, and then somebody mailed it to me.
When you open your mail and you see a personal message from somebody who had recently been president and might again, it changes you.
You can say, oh, I'm objective, but you can't be.
It's just too powerful.
And I feel it like it's like a weighted vest that I wear.
Oh, I feel his influence on me.
And that personal touch is just so strong.
And I imagine that's the same thing he's doing with Elon, because he likes everything that Elon's doing.
Many of us do.
And he's just giving him a touch.
And Elon's feeling it.
Well, you probably saw the video of Biden at the G7, where he was wandering away, apparently, from the group like he was lost.
And then Italy's prime minister had to kind of go get him and turn him back toward the camera and stuff.
I have two comments about that.
Number one is they're renaming the G7 to the G6.1.
Anybody?
Anybody?
It's no longer the G7, it's just 6.1.
Okay.
But the second point about G7 is, I think there's a little bit of a Rupar video edit problem.
Because when it looks like Biden is just turned backwards to the rest of them and looking at nothing, he's not looking at nothing.
There's something over there outside of the camera's view.
And what I think it is, there were people on all sides who were doing different things, and some of them were interesting, and he was looking at these other people, and then it was time to take a group photo, and he was still looking at the other people, and so they said, oh, we'll get your attention, we're taking the photo now.
I'm not defending him.
He does look like his brain is shot.
There's no doubt about that.
But I think the video made it look worse.
And the reason I call this out is not because I want him to win the presidency again.
It's because we need to be better than the other side.
We should be better than them in some ways.
And I think calling out when the video looks a little bit misleading, you know, even if the main story is still the same.
He's lost his brain.
Everybody can see that.
But maybe a little misleading.
All right.
Post Millennial is reporting that Biden's ghostwriter deleted all of the audio recordings of his interviews with the president so they could not be used as evidence by the special counsel.
Why would you delete your audio of the President?
What exactly did he say that could put him in jail?
How bad was it?
Was it because he was stumbling over his words?
Or did he actually say something illegal that would change how we understand history?
Well, have I ever mentioned to you that Democrats have a problem with Keeping any of their records or files intact.
Starting with Hillary, you know, in her bleach bidding her server and all that.
There's been this long history of every time you need something from a Democrat, they can't find it, won't give it to you, or they recently deleted it.
How are we supposed to not notice that after a while?
The trend is just so obvious.
And I think they've just figured out that you don't get in trouble for deleting things, but you could definitely get in trouble for what that those things are.
So it's just an obvious choice.
We'll just delete them.
Now, let me ask the second question.
If you did a personal interview with Biden, who I think it was before I became president, then he became president.
And you've got this terribly important historical document.
Let's put them on the lie detector.
Did you really delete it?
Really?
You didn't keep a copy?
You don't have it on a thumb drive in a safe deposit box?
Because if you don't have it on a thumb drive, where you gave it to your relative to hold onto it or something, you're a fucking idiot!
Can I say this clearly?
It's one thing to say you deleted it, and maybe that's smart, so nobody can get it, But to actually delete it?
To actually not keep a copy?
Of a long-form hours of interview with the guy who became president.
One of the most historically relevant documents, or audios, of all time.
And he just got rid of all the copies.
No, that didn't happen, people.
I'm sorry.
Nobody in that situation gets rid of all the copies.
Didn't happen.
I feel confident in saying somebody's got a thumb drive.
All right.
Kim Dotcom is telling us that OpenAI just hired a new person for the board.
Well, if you call it hired, but they're on the board of directors.
And it was the same person who was in charge of mass surveillance at the NSA.
Oh.
Well, that's exactly what you thought it was.
Remember I told you that if the intelligence entities of the United States have not already captured the big AI companies, maybe Grok will be different, we hope.
But certainly OpenAI, and certainly Google's Gemini, I think you can count on them being completely captured.
And the reason is they have to.
They can, and they have to.
Would you agree?
The two statements that guarantee it.
They have the ability and they really have to.
It's basically their job.
Their job is to make sure Americans don't get wrong information.
Wrong information, quote, quote.
And they've been doing it for decades.
They're not going to stop doing it.
It's within their, probably within their scope.
Of course they're doing it.
And maybe it's exactly what it looks like.
They put their own people on the board and that's how they control things.
Now, if it went any other way, I'd be amazed and a little bit disappointed.
Because the AI stuff is dangerous.
If the people who manage risk for the United States are intelligence people, if they're not embedded by now, they're just not doing their job.
Honestly.
So I have mixed feelings about it.
On one hand, I'm like, ooh, this seems terrible.
Getting the bad people in charge of our good things.
On the other hand, I think it really is an existential threat.
It really is.
So you need some kind of adults watching it pretty carefully.
One could also imagine that there was some dealing, and I don't have any information about this, but just common sense, that there must be a big push for regulations on the AI companies.
It could be the OpenAI negotiated, so how about less regulation, but we'll put one of your trusted people on the board.
And, you know, later we can talk about regulation, but it's too soon.
You know, America needs to move fast so we don't get lapped, which is a good argument, by the way.
The best argument for moving fast on AI instead of moving safely is that our adversaries will move fast.
And the only thing that will protect you from their AI Is our AI.
So yes, I'm on the move fast and risk civilization versus move slow and guarantee you lose civilization.
Those are your two choices.
China and India are building tons of nuclear facilities.
The United States is far, far less, but at least we're moving in the right direction.
Why is it that China and India are building nuclear like crazy?
Well, now we know.
James Carville told us it's preachy women.
getting a late start and massive buildup.
Well, now we know.
James Carville told us it's preachy women.
And it turns out that when you look at the difference in support between male and female in the United States for nuclear power, men are very much for it, clear, clear, strong majority.
Women are completely against it, not completely, but they're against it by a big majority.
So women are preventing us from having a nuclear energy program.
That will put us at great security risk because it'll hurt our economy, and within an economy, You don't have a national defense Here again, I remind you, because I'm cancelled so I can say the things you can't say.
You can't put women in charge of national defense.
Collectively.
Individual women might be the best you ever had, you know, Margaret Thatcher.
You can name ten women who would be great.
But you can't use the opinion of women collectively on a national security issue.
They might be more in favor of open borders.
Bad idea.
They might be more in favor of solar and letting nuclear, you know, sort of rot in the background.
Bad idea.
Here's something that every man knows when they're born, I think.
It's just an instinct.
That you can't have a military unless you have an economy.
You can't have an economy unless you have energy.
And we don't have enough energy.
Connect the dots.
Our entire situation is going to fall apart unless we're massively aggressive in nuclear, because there's nothing else that looks like it's going to get us to the energy state we need.
Because AI especially will just be sucking up energy like crazy.
So yes, Karvelu is right.
It's preachy women preventing us because of, you know, because public opinion does sway these things.
And that's why we have such a late start.
It's women.
Now, if you're new to my program and that sounded sexist to you, let me balance it out by saying I'm the only person who has this opinion of abortion.
As far as I know.
I've never met another person.
My opinion is that women should take the lead on that because they have the most skin in the game and there's no right answer.
Now you say, but there is a right answer.
You don't kill babies.
And the other side says, but there is a right answer.
You can't take freedom away from the woman's bodily autonomy.
To which I say, that's my point.
You both think you have an answer and it's the right answer and it's never going to change.
So when you have a situation that you can't get agreement, you have to take one step back and get the thing you can get, which is a credible system.
A credible system would be a set of laws that women in general were overwhelmingly in favor of, even if you don't like it.
Whichever way that goes.
So it might go different ways in different states.
But credibility requires the people with skin in the game, the people who are most capable, the people who have the most direct knowledge from an experiential level, what's going on.
Plus doctors, right?
We can throw in a few experts, that's fine.
But basically, women need to figure this out and just tell the rest of us what it's going to be.
Likewise, for national defense, ladies, shut the fuck up.
Let the men handle it.
You're fucking everything up.
You're destroying the whole country.
Stay out of the things you're not good at.
Again, this is not every woman.
Plenty of women would be the best at national security.
But you can't take the group opinion.
They're not qualified for defense.
They're not built that way.
They didn't evolve to have an instinct for defense.
You don't believe it?
Walk into a room.
Talk to your man.
Why do you think men think about Rome all the time?
Do you know why we think about Rome all the time?
Because it's relevant to defense.
That's why.
You walk into a room, you're looking for the exits, the windows, you're looking for the most dangerous person in the room.
You're looking for your allies.
You're looking around the room and you're saying, all right, when the fight breaks out, who's going to be on my side?
That's built into us.
Right?
Nobody had to teach us that.
That's just male behavior.
We are instinctively security-oriented.
So you should take the bulk of male opinion, not any individual male, because any individual could be an idiot, but the bulk of our opinion is going to be the better answer for national security every fucking time.
All right, Thomas Massey had some clever things to say, as he often does.
So he was talking about, you probably know that there's a 17 million dollar hush fund for paying off sexual claims against people in Congress.
I think it's funny that they just have a budget for paying off women, usually.
Who are making claims against the men for terrible behavior.
But he points out that wouldn't that hush money payment be considered campaign finance?
Because what's the difference between that and what Trump was doing with the hush money for Stormy?
In both cases, it's money that's being spent so that a politician would look better to the voters.
So aren't they both a campaign contribution?
If one is, Why isn't the other?
And they've already ruled that one is.
And it looks like they were talking to former FEC Commissioner Trey Traynor, and he points out that it was a weird connection to even imagine that Trump had any kind of campaign violation.
In other words, Bragg just sort of came up with a theory that the election people The FEC people would say, hmm, not so much.
But the legal system is a different system, so they get to kind of have their own standard.
Until it gets reversed.
I think it'll get reversed.
So that's the first good point.
And then Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said it will likely be overturned, you know, the Trump conviction on that election, or the election interference stuff.
Or the campaign stuff.
But then Massey points out, the irony here is that Stormy Daniels' trial was all about trying to influence the election.
And by having the trial, they influenced the election.
So in other words, it was a trial about election interference, In which the trial about the election interference was unambiguously election interference.
And I don't think anybody, I just like the way he kind of summed it up.
So yes, Thomas Massey being the adult in the room.
Oh, once again.
Meanwhile, Putin has offered that he would do an immediate ceasefire With Ukraine, and all he's asking is that they withdraw their troops from the four regions that Moscow annexed.
I don't know how much property Australia has in those regions, actually.
If it's a lot or a little, I'm not sure.
But they would also have to renounce plans to join NATO.
What did Ukraine say about that?
Of course, it's a non-starter.
So here's the questions that I asked ChatGPT.
Give me a fact check and see if this sounds right.
In my view, the United States is a pirate ship, you know, a criminal enterprise, and maybe always has been.
And that what we're trying to do is buy a country for cheap.
So we've got, let's just round off $200 billion so far to defend Ukraine and, you know, get ready to rebuild it.
And I thought to myself, is 200 billion cheap?
Because when we're done, we're going to have a controlled state.
And it's a big one.
Right?
The whole idea is that the reason the CIA did the thing is so we could control it.
There was not a CIA-led revolution in Ukraine, so that when we're done, the Ukrainians could elect their own leader and have their own destiny.
That didn't happen.
No, we just overthrew Ukraine.
You all know that, right?
The United States just overthrew a sovereign country, and we're making it look like Putin's fault.
Everybody knows that's what really happened, right?
So the question I asked myself was, if we judge us not as a country, you know, like a republic or all that bullshit, and we're realistic and say, all right, if you're going to be a criminal enterprise, and it looks like that's not going to change right away, are you at least doing that well?
Are you at least being a good criminal?
And so I wondered, is $200 billion a lot to spend if you ended up with a resource-rich country that we would have bases in, we could do all kinds of stuff we can't do in America, and we can threaten Russia and decrease their ability to sell their energy so we get defense benefits, allegedly?
And I wanted to compare it to the Louisiana Purchase.
You know, another time when we bought some land.
And in today's dollars, the entire Louisiana purchase, you know, that center of the country, would only be $3.5 billion.
But I wouldn't say that's a direct comparison to the $200 billion in Ukraine, because, you know, it wasn't that populated, at least with non-Native Americans.
And we made a great deal.
It was a really good deal.
Everybody agrees.
And then I asked, what was the GDP of Ukraine before the invasion?
Now the current GDP, of course, is in the toilet.
But it was 200 billion.
So roughly speaking, very rounded numbers, the amount America has put into Ukraine is equal to one year of their entire GDP.
Which actually sounds cheap, doesn't it?
Is there anybody here who's good at economics?
If I told you we could buy a country that had a $200 billion GDP and we'd only pay $200 billion, would that be a good deal?
Now, of course, it would take a decade.
To get it back to a strong GDP.
So you'd have to, you probably could end another hundred billion in there, at least.
So maybe it's 300 billion or 400 billion to have complete control or functional control of a country with a $200 billion GDP.
And, and, and also the owner of all just immense amount of pipelines that reach into other parts of Europe.
Might actually be worth it.
Yeah.
So I'm not going to say I'm in favor of what we're doing in the Ukraine.
That's a whole different question.
But I wondered if we're at least being good criminals.
And there's an argument that we are, that we're good criminals.
Now, again, I'm not praising them or saying we should be doing what we're doing.
I would rather just make peace right away and get the hell out of there.
But the fact is that we have successfully conquered a major country.
I don't think we're giving it back.
And it has immense strategic value as long as Putin doesn't nuke us.
But here's the conditions upon which I would agree with Putin and work out a deal.
And it goes like this.
If they make an offer and they say we'll give you a ceasefire but you gotta How could you make that work?
Here's how I'd do it if I wanted peace.
which are mostly Russian-speaking and mostly Wando.
How could you make that work?
Here's how I'd do it if I wanted peace.
I would first of all say, your offer is too small.
I would say, I don't want to have a deal just about these disputed territories and just about NATO.
We need like a big forever comprehensive deal about what is Russia to the United States in the future.
Are we still enemies?
Because if we're not going to negotiate being enemies in general, I'm not sure we need to give you grain back You know if the agreement is that even after you negotiate it, you're still some kind of You know still trying to put russia out of business Why don't we just do something bigger Something much bigger In which we say look We can't let you have you know running wild and doing anything you want
But we don't have a problem with you living a good life and selling your stuff into a warm water report Just here's what we need.
Don't build a battleship and put it in our water.
Um, do a nuclear agreement.
make some kind of deal about trade, make some kind of deal about what they would or would not do with China.
So a Trump deal, presumably, would say you're thinking too small.
We need to get much bigger on what this looks like.
We need to make an agreement about space.
We need to make an agreement about the melting, you know, the ice in the north, where the passageways will open.
That's going to be a big war zone.
We should make the big deal.
So the opportunity is not for the small deal.
The opportunity is for the big deal.
I'm talking Abrams Accord size, where just out of nowhere you think, you know what, how about a gigantic comprehensive multi-country agreement that you never saw coming? I think Trump could do it, because he's a utilitarian, right?
Trump is not Russian must die no matter what and a lot of the government is that or we we've got to take over Russian no matter what That's not Trump.
He could just say.
All right, what's real?
What's not real?
And how could we make a deal that's comprehensive and so solves all of our problems?
at the same time Because our biggest problem is that we've decided that Russia's our adversary And maybe they've decided the same.
Now, I'm not going to say we should trust Russians.
But I don't think they should trust us either.
So what you do is you try your best to make a deal that doesn't take too much trust.
You can just observe whether it's working or not, something like that.
So, I don't see any chance of us just making a deal and leaving Ukraine.
I think that we'd have to make the big deal.
But part of the deal would be, I would say to Putin, how about this?
We do a real referendum in those disputed territories, and if we're happy that it was a fair vote, and they actually voted to join Russia instead of Ukraine, it's okay.
And by the way, why wouldn't we be in favor of that?
Why would we want to keep any Why would Ukraine want to keep anything where the people wanted to be in Russia?
Just because it's important land as resources?
Maybe.
Maybe that's why.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is the conclusion of my prepared notes.
Thank you for joining.
If you haven't seen my book, God's Debris yet, it's tearing up the charts.
Well, it's not tearing up the charts because it's a reissue of two books plus a new short story at the end to wrap it all up.
And if you look at the reviews, they're crazy.
And by the way, I would say this is the only book I know that was written to give you a physical reaction as the reader.
And I was just seeing a message I really liked.
Somebody who was just talking about the book to someone else, and they got chills.
Just hearing somebody who read it, describing what the story was, somebody got chills.
Now, That's because it's written as a hypnotist.
And because the ideas are interesting.
So it is written to give you a physical experience, and a lot of people report it to me.
It won't be everybody, because that's not how anything works.
All right.
Did I miss any big stories?
I still need to get the audio version done, but it won't be done in the next month, I don't think.
Best place to buy it, just get it from Amazon.
But watch out for the counterfeits.
There are a bunch of counterfeits selling used copies of the original books.
This is not the new book.
Every part of Ukraine voted more than 50% to leave Russia.
I don't believe that's true.
I don't believe that's true.
I believe that some of the occupied territories voted for Russia, but I also don't believe that they held any kind of fair election on that.
So I'm kind of in the don't believe any data phase.
Yeah, we talked about Trump and Jake Paul.
And once again, Trump is accurately He's actually reading the public.
Something about marijuana.
Top cannabis market.
Oh, Michigan overtook.
That's interesting.
overtook California as the top weed market.
They voted that way.
Yeah, this is right.
Exactly.
All right.
What's happening?
Today?
There are enough good spooks left, they can do it.
Okay.
I'm just looking at some of your... Uh, that's a good question.
If your, if Amazon says you're not going to get the book till December, that is a mistake.
And by the way, my books always feature a mistake.
So since I was doing independent publishing, there's always a mistake that they just, just can't work out.
And what it does is it keeps it from hitting a bestseller list.
Because if all the books sort of hit at the same time, um, it would do much better.
People don't like to buy a book if it says it's not going to be available for six months, but that is a glitch.
It actually is available like next week.
If you order it today, it'll ship and be there by next week.
So I don't know the answer to the question.
Should you cancel it and reorder?
My guess is you don't have to, but that's only an educated guess.
I would probably wait a week.
If you can wait, just wait a week or two and see if it shows up.
And if it doesn't show up in two weeks, definitely cancel it and reorder it.
That's what I would do.
If you can wait two weeks.
All right.
People on Rumble and YouTube and X, thanks for joining.
I will see you tomorrow.
And I'm going to say something to the folks on Locals.
