Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Kardashev Scale, Stem Cells Diabetes Cure, Climate Change Propaganda, CA Slavery Apology, Husband Apology, Mark Zuckerberg, Old School Democrats, Female Voting Majority, New-Style Masculinity, Election Integrity, Election Multiple Oops Strategy, Kamala Border Visit, Trump Zelensky Meeting, Fair-Share Taxes Illusion, Mayor Adams Indictment, BLM of Greater NY, Hawk Newsome, AG Bailey Lawfare Pushback, Anti-Trump Iran Terrorists, Soros Radio Stations Purchase, Penn Professor Culture Controversy, Amy Wax, 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
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass.
A tank of gels of stein again, a tin 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 called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go. So good.
Thank you, Paul.
Always appreciate it.
Well, I'd like to start with the news that will make us all feel dumber.
Are you ready?
Elon Musk posted this on X. He said, once you understand the Kardashev scale, it becomes utterly obvious that essentially all energy generated will be solar.
All right.
Okay.
So everybody good on that?
I mean, I assume you all understand the Kardashev scale.
Wait, what?
You don't?
Oh, come on.
I thought everybody knew the Kardashev scale.
All right, well, I looked it up for you just in case you didn't know.
According to Google, The Kardeshev scale, which I still can't pronounce smoothly, it's a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy it is capable of harnessing.
So now it all makes sense.
So it's a scale of the advancement based on the amount of energy.
Okay, now that we understand that, once you understand that, it becomes utterly obvious That essentially all energy generation will be so- Oh, okay.
Got it.
Everybody got it?
I have no fucking idea what any of that means.
Yeah.
No idea.
So, um, but, but apparently when you dig into it a little bit and you look at the arguments, so the argument is that, uh, it wouldn't take much space in the United States to generate all of the power we'll ever need.
Now, I don't know if that calculation was done before AI said we'd need 10 times as much power.
I also don't think.
That they had ability to compare solar power over the next, I don't know, 50 years versus nuclear power.
Because you'd have to make all kinds of assumptions that nuclear power doesn't do so well.
But solar power keeps improving?
I don't think that's true.
It has been true for 20 or 30 years, but I don't think it's true now because there's a lot of attention to the nuclear field.
So if you, uh, if Rolls-Royce or somebody comes up with a really good economical, small, portable nuclear energy thing, that changes everything.
So I'm not sure that this is as true as it might have been before nuclear got a renaissance.
Well, here's something that's amazing, possibly, according to Nature, the publication, not, you know, not Mother Nature, but the publication Nature.
There was a experiment in which they used stem cells to treat a woman's diabetes.
And not only did it work, She can eat sugar again and she's making her own insulin.
This is somebody who couldn't make insulin and they did stem cells and now she can make insulin and she can eat normal food.
What?
How big a deal is that?
Now, again, this is a limited test.
It's not proven for any large population, but if you can get even one diabetic who could not make insulin, And you can make them make insulin with stem cells?
Holy cow!
Wow!
I mean, that's like a wow that's as big as the biggest wow.
Now, is it true?
Well, I guess we'll find out.
So I can't go so far as to say, you know, it's a dumb deal, but I can't imagine it would ever work for one person and not work for other people.
That, you know, my brain can't calculate that.
Because it created an ability that didn't exist.
It's not like it cured a disease.
If the only thing it'd done is cure a disease, then I'd say, well, you know, maybe somebody would have gotten over it anyway on their own, because that happens sometimes.
But I don't think anybody with diabetes has ever regenerated the ability to create insulin.
Has that ever happened naturally?
So, looks like a pretty good sign.
Science.
Here's a fun little study.
New Atlas is talking about it.
Very different than the old Atlas.
This is a publication, New Atlas.
And they tested a specific video game to see if it would make people feel good.
Now, this is not generalizable to first-person shooter games or anything like that.
And we know people like playing video games.
That's why it's so big.
But would it have any lasting
Benefit on your happiness and of all the things that they could test They picked the smartest one Yeah, you think about all the different video games that would have an impact and exist They picked one called power wash Now apparently power wash I'd never heard of it But it's a video game where you come upon dirty objects and use a power washer to clean them off and that's kind of it you just
Power wash things until they're clean.
Now, apparently, people who do that have some kind of lasting, small, but lasting improvement in moods.
More than 70% of the participants became happier because they used a video game to wash dirt off of an object.
Now, do you think they needed to do that?
Or could they have just asked me?
Well, if they had been testing something like, you know, generic Regular games, I wouldn't have had anything to add.
But if you came to me and said, hey, I've got a video game where with very little effort, you're going to feel that you accomplished a task.
Do you think that'll make people happier?
I would have said, oh, hold your horses.
You don't need to do that study.
Because one of the things we do know is that people are happier when they have the sense of accomplishing a task.
And then they would say to me, but Scott, they're not actually accomplishing a task.
It's just a video game.
To which I would say, hold on, hold on.
You're talking to a hypnotist.
No difference.
I would have been able to predict that would make you happier.
I guarantee I could have gotten that one right.
Just based on the hypnosis and the fact that fiction and truth will have a similar directionally, not as powerful, but a similar directional effect.
Very well understood.
And we definitely are happier when we complete things.
I think something similar probably could have happened with Tetris.
Do you remember Tetris?
You had to get the little falling blocks right in line so they line up and stuff.
To me, that was a bunch of accomplishing tasks.
And I'll bet you, If you did the same study on Tetris, you would find that it made people happier because they were completing tasks.
Now, I do understand that a regular video game where there's more, you know, story and adventure, you know, there's still completing of tasks, but I feel like those are more about feeling like you're never really done.
So if you're doing sort of a war game with levels and stuff, aren't they trying to make you feel like you never completed it?
I'm not sure that would make me happy.
But if you tell me you've completed the cleaning of the power washing of that dirty car in that driveway, I would actually feel like I did something because I don't have to do that again.
It's not connected to a larger mission.
Anyway, there's another study that says that eating fish is linked to lower risk of cognitive decline.
That's right.
You will get less dementia if you eat fish, suggests the study.
Now, when I say suggests, I'm going to compliment them.
This is in SciPost publication, because the way they worded the headline is eating fish linked to lower risk of cognitive decline.
Thank you.
That is the correct way to put that.
It is not a cause of better mental health.
It's linked.
Now, can anybody come up with anything that would be a reason that eating fish would be linked, but not a cause, of better mental health?
Well, it took me about one second to go to Grok and say, is there any correlation between income and dementia?
And of course there is.
The richer you are, the less dementia you get.
Surprised?
Well, is there a correlation between intelligence and income?
Well, yes.
Or yes.
The more intelligent you are, the higher your income.
The higher your income, the more likely you're going to be eating sushi instead of fast food at McDonald's.
Now, I know that McDonald's can give you a fish stick or some damn thing, but basically, if you're eating fast food, you're eating other stuff.
So it seems to me that smart people are less likely to get dementia because they're going to be using their brains more.
That's what smart people do.
So they become rich and then the rich people eat a lot of fish because rich people eat more fish.
They live, they go on vacations to Hawaii and eat fish and they live by the beach and they eat fish and they can afford more to get fish.
So doesn't surprise me, but it's not a correlation.
I think it's a correlation without causation is my best guess.
Although it might be causation.
It's just you can't tell by the study.
So according to the Daily Wire, there are some big donors like Bill Gates and other liberal mega donors, and they're funding some plans to make sure that the newsrooms around the world have a greater, the Daily Wire says, hysteria.
But literally, there is a funded program To try to convince the news to talk about climate change a lot more.
And they literally say to try to work it into every conversation.
So, you know, you always joke about the news says, uh, it rained all because of climate change.
And you're like, really?
It's not, everything's not about climate change.
There's a war in Ukraine.
Oh, it's going to get worse because of climate change.
And you say, really?
Really?
How are you jamming climate change into the Ukraine war?
I don't see it.
And trade routes are going to change because of climate change.
Really?
International trade?
You work climate change into that conversation?
It turns out that's a strategy.
And it's highly funded.
And it's from people who definitely have an influence on the news.
So that's terrible.
Now, the way you would look at this story is if you believe that climate change was a genuine existential risk, you might say, well, it's about time we got more serious about this with our news so that we'll convince the people to be more serious.
But if you think it's not true, and you think that even if the temperature is going up, it's not an existential problem, then this would be nothing but fake news and propaganda.
So since I'm closer to that second view, where I don't know if the temperature is going up from human activity or not, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to kill me.
And there's not going to be an existential threat.
Um, so that's where I'm in.
That's where I'm at.
So to me, it looks like propaganda, not helping the world.
Well, here's some good news.
Thank God.
Finally, California apologized for slavery.
They did it in writing.
And Joel Pollack in Breitbart is writing about this.
Here's the actual apology.
Resolved, the state of California apologizes for perpetuating the harms that African Americans faced by having imbued racial prejudice through segregation, public and private discrimination.
So, have I ever explained what a, quote, husband apology is?
Have you ever heard me say that?
If you've never heard this, perhaps you've never been in a marriage with a man and a woman.
Husband, you stupid husband doing that thing you did, whatever that thing is you did, you owe me an apology.
What'd I do?
The thing you did.
Now you're thinking to yourself, I wasn't even in that room and I didn't have anything to do with it, but I definitely don't want to be in this conversation any longer.
So what do you think I did?
Well, you moved the scissors from the good drawer into the other drawer.
And even if you didn't, what do you say?
Use the husband apology.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I shouldn't have moved those scissors.
And then you're done.
Because you said the apology.
Did you mean it?
No, of course not.
Does it matter?
Not much.
You just made the problem go away.
So it's really about just making the problem go away.
So California apologizes for its role in slavery, which was basically close to nothing, because it was not a slave state.
But it did have some sketchy behavior, to be fair.
For example, I believe that California would return escaped slaves.
That would be supporting slavery.
So that's part of the apology.
So, um, Governor Newsom, whatever you want to say about him being, you know, slimy and lying and any of that other stuff, he is really good at the politician stuff.
And from the very beginning, it was obvious that they weren't going to get money and that he was just setting them up For a husband apology.
He just wanted to send them away for a year, so he doesn't have to deal with it.
Because the main thing is, I don't want to deal with it.
So he buys a year or so, because they're going to study it.
Then they come back and say, oh, we'd like a trillion dollars, or whatever it was, something ridiculous.
And then he says, yeah, that's great, but we don't have that money, so I can't give that to you.
It's politically impossible.
Oh.
Well, go back and study some more.
See what we can do that doesn't involve giving you a bunch of money.
They go back and study it some more.
And in the meantime, Newsom has solved his problem because they're not talking to him.
Then they finally come back and they've got this idea for what I call a husband apology for slavery.
And Newsom says, husband apology?
Can do.
Sure.
Yeah.
And on behalf of all the residents of California, I would like to offer my insincere apologies as well.
So to all descendants of slavery and everybody who was impacted by systemic racism, on behalf of California, you have my insincere apology.
I'm sorry I did that to you.
I really am.
I won't do it again.
I swear I will not introduce slavery again.
And if any, any escaped slaves ever come into my state, I'm not turning them over.
I promise you that.
So, anyway, racism has been solved in California.
The rest of you loser states need to catch up.
You wonder why I live in this state?
People say, why do you live in California?
It's the only state that solves racism.
I'm not going to move to your segregated, stupid-ass states with all your racism.
Come to California.
We've solved that shit.
We're way ahead of you.
Here's an interesting factoid related to this.
Did you know that when Newsom first signed the authority for the committee to go study reparations, when they came back, among their reparations were separate schools for black kids?
What's that called?
Segregation.
Segregation.
That's what it's called.
So that's what California is apologizing for.
Because the racial prejudice was imbued through segregation, they say, in the apology.
So, we're apologizing as a state for something that the reparation committee wanted to do more of, because the segregation would solve the segregation of the past.
Okay, maybe I don't fully understand this, but there's one thing I do understand, and it's this.
I apologize.
I apologize for all that.
I'm so sorry.
Are we cool now?
Will you leave me alone now?
Please?
All right.
Well, we've got the new numbers.
It's time to celebrate, because the inflation numbers came in at 2.2%, which is... We can celebrate this.
It's below expectations that were 2.3.
Oh, standing ovation.
We came in at 2.2 instead of 2.3.
And let me give you some advice.
Once you're done accurately measuring the temperature of the entire earth from the atmosphere down to the bottom of the ocean, which we've been told we can do, otherwise climate change would just be a big fucking joke.
And we know that's not true.
So we can measure the earth, but did you know, You can look at every transaction in the United States and determine the inflation rate, and you'll get it right the first time, and you can get it to within a tenth of a percentage.
No, you can't measure inflation this accurately.
No, it's going to be revised and is right on the cusp of being on target, which means a tiny little revision would make it from less than you expected to more than you expected.
The tiniest revision.
Do you think that they can measure inflation accurately enough in any given month, I guess, that they can know it's off by a tenth?
No, that's not a thing.
But, of course, we'll pretend it's a thing, and people say that interest rates may be lowered by the Fed because of that, and the stock market's already dancing around because of that a little bit.
Meanwhile, Hillary, the most despicable person in the world, has doubled down on calling Trump supporters deplorable, and she said that for some of them it's too kind of a word.
Yeah.
So what I love is that she pulled out the deplorable thing right before the election, which some people, including me, thought may have been the reason she lost her election.
And so she just saddled Kamala Harris with the deplorable thing because we're going to think it's sort of a general Democrat feeling if Hillary Clinton is willing to say it out loud.
So that might make a difference.
Meanwhile, Mark Zuckerberg has allegedly identified as a libertarian, because, you know, we keep wondering, is he going to endorse Trump?
I mean, he doesn't seem as anti-Trump as we'd expect, but we don't know.
So he's found this weak middle ground of being a libertarian, and he's hired a Republican strategist.
to help with his relationship with the political right.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Um, but I think he's described himself privately as a classic liberal, meaning a Democrat like the old days.
That would be me.
I would say that I would be like an old school Democrat, which is not too far, with the exception of abortion.
It's not too far from Trump, actually, right today.
So it would be anti-war and, you know, a willingness to help the people who need help, but don't go crazy about it.
That's about where I am.
But at the moment, if you are in that category of classic liberalism or something like an old-school Democrat, Trump is by far closer to your view.
By far.
I mean, it's not even a conversation, really.
So that's why somebody like RFK Jr.
and Nicole Shanahan and Bill Ackman and Elon Musk and me, that's why we could be lifelong old Democrat farts and say, you know what?
The closest to that view is Trump right now, if you're just looking at common sense.
We'll see where that goes.
But I would say that Zuckerberg is playing this correctly.
You know, you can say to yourself, I wish people would be different, but that's just your wish.
But if you watch somebody who says, I got a problem, I'm putting some resources toward fixing it, and it's something worth fixing, which is his relationship with the political right, I applaud that.
I think if he can make a better case that he's just here to help both sides, and he doesn't do anything that would be negative for the political right, good.
You know, I've said for a long time, and I'm sort of cribbing from other people who know him better, Zuckerberg will go down as one of the best CEOs of all time.
Would you agree with that?
I mean, you may hate some individual things he's done.
But it's going to be tough to find a better CEO in the history of the United States.
So let's give him that.
And if he's moving in the right direction of just trying to see the whole field.
Good.
Anybody wants to see the whole field?
Excellent.
All right.
I say the same thing about Jason from the All In pod.
You watching today, Jason?
Your name keeps coming up.
No matter what you think of his current arguments, he is clearly making a public attempt to understand both sides of the argument and see the whole field.
Where that ends up, who knows?
It doesn't need to end up in any place for my purposes.
But anybody who's willing to say, let me take some pain, let me admit I don't know everything, let me accept a little pain to figure out what's going on on the other side, and I'll integrate that, 100%.
I'm so down with that point of view.
I'm just trying to understand both sides.
Meanwhile, Ashley Sinclair reminds us that in 2020, there were 82.2 million women who voted, but only 72.5 million who voted, so nearly 10 million more votes for women in 2020.
Now, I don't think that that will be Much changed, unless the gap is even wider, especially since abortion's on the menu for this election.
It's not really, but people feel like it is.
So let me add to this conversation, if it's true that there are 10 million more women voting than men, I assume that something like that applies to every state.
Is that a fair assumption?
Do you think there's any state where the men are voting in greater numbers than the women?
I kind of doubt it.
There might be.
It might be a special case.
Yeah, there might be a special case.
It might be a place where there's a lot of male jobs, but not as many female jobs.
Maybe Alaska.
Something like that.
But generally speaking, I would say if there are 10 million more women voting than men, can the women... I just have one request.
From the women, and this will be mostly a request for Democrats and left-leaning women.
Can you stop bitching to the men about something you have complete control over?
If you have 10 million more voters, men have nothing to do with the abortion laws.
All you need to do is convince other women that you're right.
If women don't agree with you, don't put it on me.
Right?
And by the way, I consider myself not part of the abortion argument because I don't have babies, and I think women should work it out and then tell us what they decided on the laws.
I know you don't, and I'm not going to try to change your mind.
I'm just telling you what my position is.
But really, this would be the strongest argument for Trump.
Mr. Trump, you know, why are you blah, blah, blah?
You put abortion at risk.
The correct answer is 10 million more women voted than men.
Women have complete control over the laws on abortion in your states.
There is a lag, and I regret that the time lag will allow some people to not be getting what they want, but our system does allow you to get it in the long run.
It's going to take some work, and I'm not sure that you should, you know, have abortion laws that are liberal.
That's not my preference, but the fact is we live in a A constitutional republic with a democratic layer.
And if the women want this, by a solid, solid majority, maybe a little bit more than it is now, you can get anything you want.
Not just on abortion, by the way.
If you have 10 million more voters, you get everything you want.
Everything.
So stop complaining to men.
This isn't about men at all.
This is only about women now.
Abortion is left the domain of men versus women.
It is just not in that domain.
It is just women.
If women decide that it's going to be totally legal, it's not going to matter what men say.
It won't matter at all, because we won't be in the room with the doctor, and you can vote in any law you want.
I know you don't like that, because you think that the women will vote in more liberal laws than you like.
But anyway, and I think it's weird.
No, never mind.
So MSNBC had some expert, I guess, come on, who was saying that the Trump people, the Trump supporters, they represent a different kind of masculinity.
You know, they have the sort of an alpha and what the expert called a retro masculinity.
Retro, you know, old school masculinity, not the good stuff like Doug Emhoff and Tim Wells.
So, the experts said that Emhoff and Walsh, they've got this new kind of more, you know, acceptable kind of masculinity in which they do not feel in any way diminished or disrespected if they can make space for women to succeed.
So, but I would like to add to that.
I'm not going to disagree with that whatsoever.
I do think that Doug Emhoff and Tim Walz make lots of space for women to succeed.
By looking like the kind of people we wouldn't want in office.
So that's two people who are removed from the competition for women.
But it should also be noted that the new kind of masculine men have other advantages too.
And it's not just that they're more supportive of women succeeding, which is great.
But they're also better with housework.
Way better at filling up the dishwasher.
Way better at basically all kinds of household cleaning and chores.
Now, they're not good for sex.
I think you all know that.
I think everybody agrees that the new kind of sensitive, non-alpha, non-retro masculinity, bad for sex, but excellent for housework.
And it's not a perfect world.
You can't have everything at the same time.
You got to make some choices.
Be an adult, will you?
Be an adult.
You have to make choices.
And a lot of people have chosen a kind of man who's good for household chores and bad for sex.
My only warning is that they will be the men who are replaced with robots first, because robots are going to be good for household chores and bad for sex, at least for a while.
Maybe a few months.
There's probably only one software update away from being better at sex than Betaman.
But there's your story.
All right.
I told you this before, but I keep laughing because it's so funny.
So Trump had this problem that the Democrats and the Harris campaign in particular and MSNBC kept saying that Trump was going to implement Project 2025.
Which was written by people who had been supporters of his, but he didn't have anything to do with it and had some, let's say, more extreme Republican right-wing sort of policies than he would be likely to accept.
So he says he's not even, you know, that totally knowledgeable about what was even in that other plan.
He just disavows it as somebody else's work and says you should look at his own work.
But here's the problem.
Since when does reality and reason enter into anything?
It doesn't.
So he can say all day long, this wasn't my plan, but as long as Harris can say, yeah, but it's your supporters' plan, that's close enough for political work, right?
In my opinion, he is going to completely ignore anything in that, and he's going to do what he says he's going to do, because we've seen him work for four years as president, and we know how he operates.
There's not really any secrets there.
So, he had this undefeatable problem.
You can't just say it's not true, because as long as your supporters put it together, which is true, They're going to be able to paint it as true enough that you should not take a chance on somebody who has any kind of even connection to, from the past, or support from a group that might be pushing it on him.
So what's he do?
It's an unsolvable problem.
So he comes up with his own Project 2025 hoax.
For Cavill Harris and that he takes all the things that she said in the past which she says today She doesn't support like reparations and taking your guns and stuff like that and he puts it on the list and says here's your project 2025 and I say wait a minute Won't they just say it's not true Yes, they will.
Will that work?
Nope!
It's exactly the same play.
They can say it's not true all day, but if they do, they're going to have to talk about what's on it that's not true.
Here's the second question.
It's not true?
Well, what on the list do you disagree with?
Well, I disagree with reparations.
Well, why is that on the list?
Because I used to say that I loved reparations.
What changed your mind?
Did slavery go away?
No, um, no, slavery, slavery, of course, did not go away.
Did systemic racism go away?
No, no, it's worse than ever.
So all the reasons you were in favor of reparation before have not changed.
Well, that's true, but I still have to run for office and you know, if we don't win, we don't get anything.
So, Just being practical about winning the office so we can get at least some things the Democrats want.
And you lose.
Because nobody's going to want to put in office somebody who really, really wants the reparations.
I'll just pick one of the things on the list.
Reparations just as a stand-in, as one thing you don't like.
If you think that the moment she had the ability to do it, she would do it.
Compare that to Trump and a national abortion ban.
If Trump had the ability to get a national abortion ban to pass, I don't think there's any chance he would do it.
Because he said he opposes it.
I actually believe him when he says that stuff.
One of the things about Trump is that he was simultaneously the biggest offender to the fact-checkers.
I'll just say it that way.
You know, you have the most fact checks against him, which the Democrats would call the most lies, which then they translate into he's, you know, dishonest.
But I don't think I've seen any politician who is more honest to his own opinions.
Meaning that if he said he wanted to build a wall, he didn't get it done.
But damn, did he try hard.
Like, you can directly see, said X, tried really hard to get X.
It's the best you can get.
Well, I mean, it'd be great if he succeeded.
But sometimes things take longer.
You've got to press harder.
It might take two terms.
So he's very true to what he says he's going to do, even if it doesn't work out.
I vastly prefer that.
Over somebody who's got to technically use the right data in his argument all the time.
I don't care about that.
I do care if he tries to do the right things.
North Carolina election board has reportedly removed over 700,000 ineligible voters.
Huh.
Makes you wonder how many ineligible voters have voted in past elections.
There are 700,000 of them in one state.
Not our biggest state.
Not our biggest one.
700,000 ineligible voters.
If those ineligible voters had somehow gotten a mail-in ballot and then voted, would they have got it?
I don't know.
Don't you think that would be the most important thing about this story?
It's not in the story.
The most important thing is, if this had been abused as a way to cheat in the past, would we have caught it?
Is there some part of the system where they go, hey, this person whose vote I have in my hand, in this mail-in ballot, Uh, they are not an eligible voter.
I've just checked.
And even though they're on the roll as an eligible voter, because remember they only just took them off.
So if they saw that it was on the list of eligible voters, how would they know they're not eligible?
Are they going to check their death certificates during the election?
I don't think so.
I think they're going to say you're on the list.
You're eligible.
So how are you feeling about those elections?
How about that election integrity?
Let me put it all together for you.
We can measure the temperature of the Earth, including all of the atmosphere and the bottom of the ocean, for hundreds of years.
And we're all accurate.
Not only that, but we can determine the exact inflation rate very quickly and on time, and it will be correct within a tenth of a point.
Yeah.
So, not only that, but our elections are pristine.
Pristine.
Never had a rigging problem?
Never will.
It's really unbelievable, the things that we've been told.
None of these things are even a little bit possible.
It's not even a little bit possible that you can measure the temperature of the earth, humans.
We can't do that.
That we can calculate inflation, I'm sorry, um, um, um, um, not inflation, yeah, inflation.
If we can calculate inflation and we can do a, do a vote and we would know if there were too many illegal votes and it changed the, we can't do that.
We have no ability in our current system to know who won an election.
We don't know how to know the temperature and we don't know the inflation.
If you believe any of those things can be measured in a reliable way, you are completely brainwashed.
There's no reason, sensibility, data.
There's nothing to support any of those thoughts.
We can't measure the temperature.
We can't measure inflation.
We don't know who wins any elections.
We're going to have to live with that because that's our current situation.
All right.
Um, Harris is going to go to the, oh, it looks like, um, so here's another, uh, election thing.
So we found out that 1% of the voters in one of the very blue counties in a swing state in Wisconsin got, uh, duplicate ballots. 1%.
In a very important part of a swing state, got duplicate ballots in a place where the entire election might come down to 1%, which wouldn't be unusual at all.
And the question is, is it a coincidence that every time we find one of these little errors, it goes in the same direction?
Or could potentially, because there are more Democrats voting by mail.
So here's what I think.
I worry that the Democrats have Come upon a cheating strategy.
And again, I'm only speculating.
This is not based on any data or anything.
And my speculation is the best way they could hide election rigging is what I call the multiple oops strategy.
So if you looked at this 1% of voters got duplicate ballots, you'd say to yourself, but wait, they can vote twice.
And then once they get caught, but only after they get caught, they say, oops.
Well, that was a rare, weird mistake.
Then later, you find out that there were a bunch of dead people on the voting lists.
And then once you find out, but only after you found out, you take them off and you say, oops, oops, didn't see that coming.
How many ways can you say, oops, before it looks coordinated?
I feel like there's going to be a whole bunch of accidental little mistakes.
Like, well, you know, we meant to put a drop box in that Republican area, but I don't know, it's missing from the spreadsheet.
So are you telling me there's no drop box in the Republican areas?
Oops.
Oops.
What the, the post office and that, uh, red area.
One of the employees was bad and left a whole truckload of ballots that probably were going to go to Trump, left them in a parking lot until the election was over.
Oops.
Oops.
Well, that was just one guy.
Oops.
I feel like the multiple oops strategy has been implemented, whereby there can be enough oopses to change the election for sure.
But if you're going to look at any one of them, it doesn't look like a plot.
It looks like oops.
Ordinary human mistake.
Just happen to be in the same direction every single time.
So look for the oops strategy.
I don't know it, but it feels like it's coming.
Kamala Harris is going to go to the border to pretend that she did not ruin the country in the last three and a half years of absolutely disgusting, despicable Deplorable, dare I say, behavior in terms of protecting the Americans from the onslaught of uncontrolled, I'm going to call it uncontrolled even though they say it's controlled, immigration.
So we'll have plenty to mock, but it might be enough for the dumb Democrats to think she's doing something about the border, and it will be a pure propaganda move But, even more interesting, there are three things happening today.
I guess Netanyahu is giving some address, I think, to the UN?
Or is he in America?
Anyway, Netanyahu is going to be saying something.
That's going to be news.
And Trump is apparently meeting Zelensky today.
He may already be doing it.
Trump is meeting Zelensky.
You know what's interesting about that?
Um, oh, I'm being asked, Scott, do you think the coordinated multiple oops applies to the Trump assassinations?
No, I don't.
Um, no, because that would require that all the people who made a mistake were in on it.
It would be easy to imagine that all the people who, who make the oops in the election are in on it because they don't feel like they're going to jail for it.
Right?
They feel like if they get caught, they just go, oops.
Well, we'll correct that right away.
Right?
If they could make it look like a mistake.
I don't imagine there would be like six people on the Secret Service and the local police who are all in on the plot.
That would be a little too much for my imagination to get there.
It's a good question, though.
I like that question.
That was a good test of the thinking.
But anyway, Trump's going to meet Zelensky today, and here's what's interesting.
I don't think this is going to happen, but Trump could end the war today.
He could absolutely end it today.
Do you know how he could do it?
He just tells Zelensky, here's the deal.
If you wrap things up before I get in office, you're going to get the best deal that you can get.
If you wait for me to get in office, both you and Putin are going to be way worse off.
You better do it before I get elected.
And damn it, I'm going to get elected.
So, could you scare Zelensky into saying, oh shit, if Trump comes in, the war is still going to end, but I'll probably be removed.
We both know this is going to wind down when I'm president.
If you'd like to still be in power, you're going to do it now.
And you're going to say that you talked to me, you thought that I was going to win, and you thought that it would make sense for you to get the best deal you can now.
Don't mention the part about you're not going to be in charge anymore if I'm in charge.
Just say, because you assume that an American president can remove the Ukrainian president.
We all assume that, right?
We assume there's sort of a, uh, what would you call it?
A puppet state at this point.
So one way or another with funding or something.
Yeah.
We could just say, we will give no reconstruction money to Ukraine unless you get rid of Zelensky.
Done.
Right.
So I would threaten him and say, if you want to be in power, when I come to power, you're going to wrap it up before I get there.
And you're going to give me credit for it.
Then he goes to Putin, and he says, here's the deal.
If you wrap things up in a way that people think is reasonable, and you do it now, then we're good when I come into office.
If I come into office and you're still doing this shit, I'm going to go so hard at you, you won't know I hear you.
And then he ends the war.
Because you know what is interesting about those threats?
They're all completely doable, they're all completely reasonable, and history would judge Trump well if they knew every bit of it.
The Ukrainians would be better off, the Russian people would be better off, Europe would be better off, America would be better off.
They all want it to end.
Everybody wants it to end.
He could end the war today.
Now again, I'm going to persuade against that.
I don't think he's going to do that.
You know, that would be, and it might seem, it might be illegal.
It might be illegal for him to negotiate with a foreign power when he's not in office.
So I would ask about the legalities of that, but it's not impossible.
If nobody's listening and he knows it's private, although that would be, I doubt he could ever get a private conversation, but if he knew he was private, he could end the war.
Who disagrees?
Do you disagree with that statement?
He could put the threat of so much pain on both the leaders that would be completely credible.
All you have to say is, Zelensky, you're out of a job, and basically people are going to kill you as soon as you're out of the job.
That would be a real threat.
And you tell Putin, here's the deal, you make me happy about ending this war, and everything's going to go better for you than if you don't.
And Putin's going to know that's true.
That would be a very solid threat that I think the entire world would take seriously.
So you would be giving both sides an easy out, given that they know they have to get out, right?
This is not the forever war, and it's not the war where one side's going to win.
So they both want out.
They just need somebody else to force it.
Here it is.
Here's somebody else to force it.
See, this is why Trump is not just Good at his job.
He's a one-off.
And I can't say enough about that.
There's only one Trump.
You can put Trump in some situations, not all of them.
He's not perfect for every situation.
But there are some situations that only a Trump can solve.
And he built himself into that person.
And you could take a hundred really good politicians and put them in that same position, they would do nothing.
I'll take somebody I like.
Let's take DeSantis.
DeSantis, I have a very high opinion of.
Very solid citizen character, performance as a governor.
Solid, solid guy.
Wouldn't mind to see him president someday.
Wouldn't mind it at all.
Could he solve this in one day?
No.
No.
Absolutely not.
But Trump could.
He's just one off.
There's only one of them.
He's the only person who could solve a war in a day.
So when he said that, that didn't even seem a little bit like hyperbole to me.
Now, I don't think it's going to happen, right?
I'm betting against it.
But there's nothing that would stop it.
Except, you know, if it's illegal, then that's a good reason not to do it.
All right.
Kamala Harris has said that the rich people should pay their fair share, the corporations and the billionaires, and that's her tax policy.
Don't make me give you details.
I just want people to pay their fair share.
And if I said fair share enough, hey, I've got some words you'd like to hear.
Fair share, fair share, fair share.
Now you can't beat that because there's no details to argue against.
So, There's a trick I've taught you in persuasion.
It's called entering the illusion.
So rather than saying, you dumb bitch, there's no such thing as a fair share of anything.
Don't do that.
That would be sexist and wrong.
So here's the right way to do it.
Without all that sexist bad stuff.
You don't want that.
You enter the illusion.
And you ask them to help you calculate fairness.
And you say, can you give us some details?
I'd like to know what's fair.
I'm a billionaire and I'd like to pay my fair share.
So I did some work on this on X. Let me share this with you.
And I said that I'm going to need a little help figuring out how to calculate it.
So really just a calculation problem.
I'm buying the illusion.
Right?
I'm accepting the illusion and I'm moving inside it.
The illusion is that there's something called fair and that if you work a little harder you can figure out what that is.
That's complete ridiculousness.
But if you say that's complete ridiculousness, people will look at you and say, no, it's not.
No, that's crazy.
And they look at you and go, oh, that's what the billionaire selfish people say.
And you say, no, really, there's fairness.
It's just like this weird subjective thing you say.
There's no objective standard.
There's not even any way to calculate such a thing.
Yes, there is.
Right.
So you can't get anywhere if you stay outside the illusion.
Outside the illusion, you have no weapons.
You got to get inside it.
Inside it says, I accept your frame.
That there's something called fairness and we have not achieved it.
So let's calculate it.
Let's figure out how to figure that out from inside the frame.
So I said, how did I do that?
I said, for example, during my adult life, I've paid about 10 times as much taxes as the average citizen, because things have gone well.
I've made a lot of money in my life.
And I consume relatively little in public services.
So how much will my taxes be cut?
And how much would you raise the taxes on the middle class to get me back to fair?
Because I think you would agree that if I pay more than I consume, well, that's not fair.
Oh, oh, is that not your definition of fairness?
But that's fair.
The fair is that you pay for what you use.
Why would I pay for more than I use while somebody else is getting stuff and not paying?
That's fair.
And if you say that is fair, say it out loud.
Just tell me that's your standard.
It's something else.
Or how about this?
We look at the raw dollar amount without looking at who consumed what.
So forget about, let's say we forget about the part of who used the public services.
If you just do the dollar amount, Well, here again, I paid 10 times more than other people, so I'm expecting a big tax cut, and maybe raising the taxes substantially on the middle class.
To get to fairness.
To get to fairness.
Oh, okay, so we're not going to just count the dollar now, but there's still other ways to do this.
There are lots of ways to calculate this.
How about we just factor in hours worked, so that the people who work the most hours are incentivized.
Isn't that fair?
That the people who work the most would get a little tax break because they contributed the most.
Now here I'm including, you could be working the most as a CEO, or you could be working the most as a garbage collector, a plumber.
It doesn't matter what your job is.
If you're putting in lots of hours, maybe that should give you a tax cut.
Well, I worked 7 days a week most of my life.
Probably 60 hours a week on average.
So I'd be looking for a big tax cut.
Because I'm one of those people who put in longer hours.
Because you should make more money if you work longer hours.
Right?
Isn't that fair?
The people who work harder get more money?
I think we all agree with that.
That's fair.
So that would give me a big old tax cut.
Or we could go by percentages.
Percentages would be good, if you don't want to go by raw dollar amounts.
Let's figure out what's fair on percentages.
Let's see, I'm in California, so we got a lot of state taxes.
It's over 13% now.
And if you add my federal taxes to that, my property taxes, and my sales taxes, I pay around 60% of my income in taxes.
60%.
So that would be a lot more than the middle class.
So again, I would expect a big tax cut.
To get me back in the range of fairness, which would be, you know, something under 50% probably.
It could still be progressive, by the way.
I'm not arguing against progressive tax rates.
You can still be progressive, but you'd still have to give me a big, big tax cut.
Or, that's not the only way.
So we've got the raw dollar, the hours worked, the percentages, those would all give me a tax cut.
But there's another way.
We could tax the unrealized gains on assets.
Now that's what Harris is recommending, the unrealized gains.
So for example, if you owned an asset, a farm say, and it tripled in value, she'll start taxing you on how much it went up in value, which is a problem because the only way you'd be able to pay such a tax is by selling your farm, or part of it.
So that would be called not so much taxation.
There's another word for that.
What do you call it when you take from somebody something that they have and you've been told that they could keep it?
That'd be called theft.
Theft.
The word is theft.
That would be government theft of something you'd already paid taxes on, put into an investment form, And then they told you you couldn't keep it.
They're going to take some of it.
Theft.
Now you could pursue that to get fairness, and that would achieve fairness.
I know this is going to surprise you.
I do consider that fair.
And what I mean by fair is I would get the fuck out of this country, I'd move to El Salvador or somewhere that doesn't do that, and I'd go get me some fairness.
And then everybody who stayed and loved it, they'd be living in the country they love because it'd be all fair.
But all the smart people who make some money would get the fuck out of this losing bitch ass country that's trying to steal our money.
And I'll go anywhere to keep your paws off of what I worked my entire life to keep.
But the main point here is not which point, which of these methods you pick.
The main point is I'd like to get inside your illusion.
Let's do a little calculating, and let's show our work.
Meanwhile, Mayor Adams, no relationship to me in New York.
He's being indicted for, it's a little murky to me, just because I haven't looked at the details.
It's not murky, but to me it is.
So I guess he accepted a bunch of business upgrade, luxury travel stuff from some entity in Turkey.
At the same time, he was being asked to help Get some approvals of a building that the Turks wanted built in New York City That had been held up by some kind of regulatory thing and he did that So the news says he did intervene and I think it made a difference.
It may have sped it up now Should he go to jail for that?
So he accepted luxury travel from some Turks who asked him for a political favor in return Which allegedly he did he did the favor?
So that's a bribe, right?
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
Now, put me on the jury.
Can you put me on the jury?
Let me explain how this works.
Telling an entity in New York City, while you're the mayor, that they should hurry up in their regulatory stuff because there's no reason it's been delayed, that's your job.
That's your job.
In fact, I've done that.
I've told you this story before.
Years ago, when I was in my 20s, I had some issue with the government and the entity within the government.
So I wrote a letter to my California senator.
It was Pete Wilson at the time.
And I said, I've got a problem with this other government entity.
They're, they're holding something up.
And they said, we'll look into it.
And then I said to myself, well, that's the end of that.
They're definitely not going to look into it.
And then they followed up and they said, we looked into it and they actually got me what I wanted.
Cause when they looked into it, there wasn't really a reason for the delay.
So the delay stopped and a whole bunch of people benefited.
Because Senator P. Wilson did a great job for a member of his state.
I described a situation where he could just do his normal job for his constituents, then he would do his normal job and we'd be happier.
And then he did his normal job and now we're happier.
So Turkey gives him some luxury accommodations.
How much do I care?
Not at all.
Not even a little bit.
If somebody who's a, you know, a high-level person who could, you know, garner that kind of thing, fine.
It doesn't bother me a bit.
I wouldn't care if China paid for it or Putin.
I'm happy he was comfortable.
No problem.
Now, maybe there should have been some disclosure or something.
I don't know, but I don't care about it.
Now, do I care that Turkey, in return, now that they had sort of a relationship, they used their relationship Is that illegal?
Is it illegal to form a relationship and then use it for access?
No.
No, that's not illegal.
And then they asked for something that would actually be the job of a mayor to make sure that something that's being held up in red tape gets solved.
So then he went and solved their building problem.
Was that bad for New York City?
Is it bad for New York City that a building gets built fast and accurately and then it gets filled with tenants who pay rent?
No, it's good for New York City.
That's his job.
His job is to make sure New York City runs.
Now, I think there was a related part where some Turkish or other funders were doing some kind of fake grassroots donations to make it look like it wasn't one entity.
Now, that stuff just sounds illegal.
But I don't know the extent to which Um, the mayor Adams was even involved with that.
So that part I have some questions about, but the part where Turkey gives them some nice trips and then asked them to do his job.
And then he does his job and it's good for New York city.
And it's good for Turkey.
That's a little bit too much for, I mean, to me, that looks like lawfare.
It just looks like lawfare.
And although we don't know this for sure.
It would suggest that maybe the real problem here is that he was anti, or he wanted to be tougher on immigration, and that was causing a problem for the administration, so they law fired him.
Could be.
Well, in the news, Black Lives Matter of Greater New York got a little attention.
Because they're very much opposed to Mayor Adams.
Now, they just say he's a bad mayor, and they've got all kinds of complaints about him in general, not just this.
But who do you think was the representative of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York?
Well, it's our old friend, Hawk Newsom.
Hawk Newsom.
Now, if you don't follow the news closely, you might confuse Hawk Newsom with Hawk Tooey.
Completely different.
Well, as far as I know, maybe he's been to a Dini party.
Maybe he hasn't.
I don't know.
But in general, I'm going to assume that Hawk Newsome and Hawk Tooey are completely different concepts.
So don't get that confused with the story whatsoever.
So Hawk is a founder, co-founder of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York with his sister, who is also with him, who is the other co-founder.
And they were against Mayor Adams, despite the fact that it's Black Lives Matter, and he's black.
Now, if you didn't know anything about, let's say, the background of the story, you might accept it a little bit differently than I do.
Because I got to work with Hawk Newsom back in the original BLM days, 2020 probably.
No, when was it?
2018 or something?
I forget.
But I think that Hawk got excommunicated from Black Lives Matter, the national version.
So I think he's got sort of his own little local thing.
I'd be surprised if there are more than 10 people in his organization.
I think it's under 10 people.
But he's really good at getting attention and getting in front of the camera and making his point.
But it's funny that Black Lives Matter kind of got disgraced and we don't hear about it much.
And when they do come back in the news, they're against the black guy.
Now, I'm not going to say that they don't have a point, because I do not know the performance of Mayor Adams as mayor.
So maybe they have really good points.
Maybe they don't.
I don't know one way or the other.
But it's definitely not something coming from Black Lives Matter.
It's coming from Hawk.
And, you know, maybe two or three people agreed with him and his organization.
That's it.
That's the whole story.
It's Hawk, his sister, and maybe two or three other people.
National news.
All right.
Anyway.
There's a new poll, Emerson College, that says that Harris is way ahead of New York State.
Now everybody expected that, but she's, according to them, she's pulling 54 to 40.
That's a big difference.
However, just for some recreational fun, there are 8 to 9 million people who live in New York City.
Mayor Adams would be the most powerful political figure among that 8 or 9 million, and at least There was, I think there was a 2 million difference of votes in New York state between Biden and Trump, 2 million voters.
So he could influence a population of 8 or 9 million.
Of course, they're not all voters.
And the old margin was only 2 million.
It looks like it might be a bigger margin this time, but it could be smaller because remember, this is just one poll and we don't trust the polls.
So it does seem to me that, well, let me speculate.
How many of you think that Mayor Adams is a good negotiator?
We don't know, but what do you think?
So he was a police chief, and now he's a New York City mayor.
Could you possibly do those jobs without being a tough negotiator, just in general?
Because he's probably negotiated with everything from criminal people to every bureaucracy to his own political party.
He's probably really good at negotiating, right?
Now imagine you're in a room with him during the time he was complaining the most about the migrant burden on the city.
If he's talking to a Democrat who's stonewalling him and saying, nope, you're not going to get anything for your city.
No, we really, really need it.
The migrant thing is killing us.
Nope, you're not going to get a thing.
Okay.
I don't think you understand.
We need this.
You're killing me.
Politically, you're killing me and you're killing my city.
Nope, you're not going to get a thing.
What would you do?
You're all alone in the room.
There's an important Democrat sitting there who's just giving you nothing.
I'll tell you what I'd do.
If I were a good negotiator, I'd say this.
I'd say, you realize that Trump would do something about this.
What are you saying?
Are you saying you would endorse Trump?
No.
I'm saying I'll consider it.
I'm still waiting for you to help me.
But if you don't, Yes, I'm going to consider endorsing Trump.
Now, this is a speculative, just imaginary conversation, but if you put me in the room, I'd say it.
If you made me a lifelong Democrat and you put me in the situation that Mayor Adams was in, you put me in a room with one powerful Democrat who has given me fuck nothing, I'm going to say, you are my problem.
I can't be in this party if you're going to act like that.
And while I hate 10 things that the Republicans do, I'm going to endorse them because this is the biggest problem in New York City.
So you fucker, if you stay this way, I'm going to go public and endorse Trump.
Good luck with that.
Now, I would have said it even if I didn't mean it.
Because it's negotiations.
You don't always say things you mean when you're negotiating.
You just want to make them think about it.
Think maybe it's a risk.
Now imagine if that person took that conversation back to the people in power.
They'd have to destroy him.
Just because the risk.
Even before he said a word, they'd have to say, okay, we're going to have to destroy him so that if he does come out in favor of Trump, it's going to look like a desperation move for his political future.
It won't look like it's a real opinion.
We have to destroy him first.
That's what it looks like.
The other possibility is he broke some laws, and I don't know all the details, and they caught him.
But we don't really live in a world where we see that work as much as the other thing, where it's just lawfare.
If we were not in the middle of the deepest lawfare darkness we've ever seen, I wouldn't even consider that possibility.
But since that's the go-to at the moment, I do consider it.
Speaking of lawfare, Um, you will be happy to know that Attorney General, uh, Andrew Bailey of Missouri has filed suit against the Harris Biden, uh, DOJ for refusing to turn over records related to the, uh, illicit, what, what, uh, you know, AG Bailey calls the illicit prosecution of President Trump.
So this would include communication between the DOJ and Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, and Fonny Willis.
Those would be the prosecutors, AGs, attorney generals who were going after Let's see, Bragg is the DA?
Yes, so they're all DAs going after Trump.
Now, so the point here is to find out if there was any coordination between the Department of Justice on behalf of the Harris-Biden administration to help these local prosecutors do their thing and maybe even promise them something in return.
Possibly.
Now, the So the suit that's being filed, if I understand it correctly, is because they've already asked for this information through legal means, they have a right to it, and they're not getting it.
So they're being stonewalled, probably until after the election.
You know what I mean?
So, if you haven't been following Attorney General Andrew Bailey from Missouri, I would strongly recommend he's a really good follow on X.
Because a lot of the good things pushing back in a legal sense, a lot of the pushback coming from the Republicans is coming from only a few sources, right?
You'll see DeSantis do his thing.
You'll see Texas do their thing.
But you got to watch Missouri.
Missouri is a real wild card because Bailey is there and he's doing a great job.
So this is his follow up.
He's pushing a second time harder to see what he can get.
What if he gets something before the election?
Talk about a third act.
The ultimate third act would look like this.
Finding out that the assassination attempts had some connection to our own government.
Yowch.
Finding out that our elections were in fact rigged in the past.
I'm not predicting it.
I'm just saying what would be the best movie ending.
And finding out that they had coordinated the lawfare from the administration.
Those would be sort of the three worst suspicions.
And there's some chance, not a high one, There's some chance, non-zero, that all three of these would be revealed in the next month.
I would definitely bet against it.
I'd bet against any one of them being revealed in the next month, because I don't have any direct evidence of any of it.
But my goodness, would that make a movie?
What a movie that would be.
All right.
The SEC is going after some companies that made some claims about their Alzheimer clinical trials.
So I guess the executives are being blamed for lying about the effectiveness of their test.
So why the SEC?
Well, that would affect the investors.
So if you invested based on their claim that their trial was working, you would get screwed.
So the SEC got involved.
Now, interestingly, Mark Cuban on a recent interview said that he might be interested in working at the SEC, being the head of the SEC in, let's say, a Biden administration, hypothetically.
Now, I don't know what he had in mind for that, but I'm really curious.
I'm really curious, because what is it that would make Mark Cuban think that, first of all, that's where he would want to put any effort, and what is the specific set of problems he's looking to cure?
Because you know what?
I don't think you should rule him out under either administration.
I just want to hear what he wants to do.
So if he wants to cure some problems that are known to be in the SEC, and he's got a list of things, I got to fix this, this, and this.
I don't know.
Maybe he belongs on the pirate ship.
You know what I mean?
Maybe RFK Jr., lifelong Democrat, but he's the perfect person to make sure that we fix our food supply and be a little smarter about our pharma situation.
Who would be the perfect person at the SEC?
I don't know, but I'd love to hear what he has to say about it.
And I'd love to see, he could even say, I hate everything Trump's doing, but I got to fix these three problems.
If it's three good problems, and he could really fix them, I don't know.
I might be all in on that.
What I'd worry about is if it gave him any power over Trump.
You know, that would be a non-starter.
But if he really just wanted to go fix some things that the country desperately needs fixed, and he has a bead on it, I would very favorably look at that, because I love the pirate ship.
There's plenty of room in the pirate ship.
Anyway, there are allegedly three teams of assassins in the country that may have shoulder-mounted missiles that could knock a jet out of the air.
Specifically, the worry is that they're going after Trump's, Trump Force One, and that they would try to kill him in the air.
I ask you this, there are two theories of what's going on here.
Theory number one, Iran sent a team of assassins, maybe more than one, to kill Trump using these shoulder missiles, and they would do that knowing that that would result in the death of every leader in Iran, as well as turning Tehran into a wasteland.
Sort of a Gaza situation.
Now Iran would know that, if they don't.
Well, they know that.
I don't even have to say anything.
Iran knows that if they kill Trump, All of their leaders will be dead.
Fairly soon.
It won't even take that long.
And they also know that we would lay waste to their country.
And we wouldn't look back.
We wouldn't even blink.
Now, would that be good for America?
No, it'd be terrible.
You know, because Iran has lots of ways to get back.
It'd be terrible.
But we'd do it.
We'd do it.
And so the first theory is that Iran Knows that they all will be personally killed and their country would be destroyed, but they thought it would be a good idea to assassinate our president in a obvious way that we would know it was them.
So that's one possibility.
Here's the other possibility.
That the deep state blob, the people in our military industrial complex, the State Department, those people, the blob, that they see an opportunity for a twofer.
Two benefits.
One benefit is getting rid of Trump because he's anti-war.
Second benefit is it would be a cause for war, which they love.
And it would be a cause for war with Iran, which they might love a little extra.
So, who do you think would be behind a rocket attack on Trump's airplane?
Do you think it would be Iran, who very clearly would know that they would lose everything Everything.
Their lives, their economics, their future.
Everything.
Do you think they would do it, knowing they would lose everything?
Knowing.
Keep in mind, there's no risk assessment here.
We would kill every one of their leaders.
If they take out Trump, we're killing every one of their leaders.
There's just no way around that.
They know that.
They've dealt with America long enough that they know that's a death sentence.
Or do you think they're looking for maybe other ways to get what they want, and there's somebody who's looking for a twofer, and the way they're priming you to think that it's a RAN is to tell you in advance, hey, it might be a RAN.
I'd certainly be worried about a RAN with a shoulder missile.
And next, is it a coincidence that a shoulder-mounted missile fired by somebody in the bushes would be the hardest thing to determine who fired it?
Yeah, it would be.
It'd be pretty hard to figure out who fired it.
So it's sort of the perfect false flag situation to solve two problems if one of your problems is that you don't want Trump to be in the picture anymore.
So that's what I'm worried about.
The Republicans in Congress are going to do some oversight on Why did the FCC so quickly approve Soros buying a few hundred radio stations when everything else takes a lot longer?
Now, I'm going to say the same thing I said about Mayor Adams.
If the reason that Soros got faster approval is because he had good connections in the government and somebody whose job it was to make sure the things that need to get approved get approved in a timely manner, and all they did was go do their job, It's like, oh, why is this taking so long?
No reason it should take so long.
Let's move that up the list.
That's possible.
It's entirely possible.
It was just somebody doing their job a little better, so it got moved to the top, and there was nothing really to stop it.
But it's worth investigating.
It's worth investigating.
Because as Elon Musk agreed when somebody was posting something about it, Soros is buying influence over the United States.
It's not just—he's buying influence.
He's buying a propaganda platform.
But other people would say, well, what do you call X?
Well, what I call X is a platform which all views could be on it with no exceptions.
You know, unless it's illegal.
Whereas the radio station, if it's like every other radio station, the owner decides what kind of direction they have and then it keeps that direction.
So different.
There's an interesting story happening with some Penn professor.
Who's getting badly punished by her employer.
And what did she say?
The things that, so she's tenured, but I guess they're going to take away her summer pay and cut her pay and punish her every way they can.
And she is prohibited from quote, flagrantly unprofessional and targeted disparagement of any individual or group.
Wow.
I guess that's pretty bad if she was targeting and flagrantly unprofessional about some groups.
Well, what did she say about some groups?
I saw an interview with Glenn Lowry.
Um, which was exactly the right person to talk to on this topic, which you might know if you know Glenn.
Um, so here's what she allegedly said.
At one point she said she didn't recall ever seeing quote a black student graduate in the top quarter of the law class and Quote rarely in the top half in two decades at Penn Hmm Somebody's ringing my doorbell.
This time of day.
Give me a second.
I gotta see if this is anything that's blowing up on me.
I'll just check my cam.
You're gonna disappear for a second.
What do we got going on here?
Somebody who has a long pole.
And a piece of paper.
It looks really important.
All right.
Let me say... All right.
I'm going to have to yell over my balcony.
Wait a second.
yourself.
hold that.
Alright.
Bye.
Construction delivery.
It's all under control now.
All right.
Sorry about that.
Anyway, so to finish that story, the Penn professor had also said, quote, not all cultures are equal.
Uh oh.
Not functionally equal in creating citizens who can succeed in modern civilizations.
So her idea was that there are some cultures that are optimized for the modern world, and some that are not, and she's not judging them as morally or ethically good or bad.
So it's not a judgment, it's just an observation.
For example, If I took a bunch of people who said, you know, we're going to decide that our culture is hard work and telling the truth and, you know, getting a lot of talents.
And then you compared it to another culture that was, hey, let's just enjoy our life.
And I'm not saying this, these cultures apply to any specific people.
I'm supposed, this is a non-racial example.
You'd think that the people who decided as a culture that hard work and doing the right thing and following the law and all that would perform better.
Now, as soon as you add a race to that, then it becomes a racial question.
If I take the race out, everybody agrees.
Oh, yeah, the people who learn to work hard and obey the rules probably do well.
But as soon as you overlay that and say, well, We wonder if all the cultures, every culture, is giving people the same benefit.
Personally, I feel I benefited greatly by the cultural effects I had as a child, because it was all about Nobody's going to help you.
You've got to do it yourself.
Nobody's going to pay for you after college.
You're going to have to figure this out.
It's all on you.
And then sure enough, if I wanted to do something, I could often do all kinds of things, but it was all on me.
So I thought that was a magnificently useful cultural effect.
Can we And I think Glenn, Glenn Lowry, again, because he's a black man with very smart opinions.
He's, I think, economist.
This is profession.
I recommend him highly, but I wonder if there's anything useful that you could take from this.
Because if you just say black people have bad cultures, that's why everything's wrong.
That's, that's just ridiculous because you see, you know, plenty of successful black people.
And I'm always impressed by the successful musicians and athletes who say, you know, basically my mom or my parents are the reason I succeeded.
Yes, exactly.
The reason you succeeded while you had talent, but the reason you succeeded is probably because your parents were awesome.
In many cases, that's probably exactly what it was.
So how do you get out of the stupid part of the argument where you're just arguing, no, you're a racist.
Stop saying that.
No, you're a racist.
And how do you get it to everybody's culture could be better?
Maybe that's the way to do it.
It doesn't matter who you are.
I mean, there's plenty of, you know, poor white people, poor every other kind of person who doesn't have the exact right cultural influences.
So if we just say, how about we stop putting people into racial groups and just say that your parental and cultural influences are one of the biggest variables.
And no matter who you are, here's how you fix it.
Or at least that you know that's the problem, so you have a chance of fixing it.
So, it's one of those problems where because we can't get out of that you're a racist problem, we can't even have a useful conversation of, you know, I'd be willing to help.
If we could just agree what the problem is, I'd be willing to help.
I've written several books, which would be, if you didn't know how to, you know, raise a kid with the right things, they'd be really useful.
For example, if you read my book How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Went Big, and you were a parent, you could transfer that to your kid.
You could say, oh, it's important that you, you know, treat things like systems, not just goals.
It's important that you take care of your Your health, it's important that you stay in the jail.
I mean, basically all the things in the book and build a talent stack until you're so talented that nobody can deny you.
So there's definitely a way you can fix culture, but you'd have to give somebody a blueprint.
One of my books is the blueprint, but I don't know if it works for every group.
So that's what I say.
And that brings me to the conclusion of my amazing program.
I have been doing these longer, but it's because the news is just so juicy lately.
I'm going to go talk to the people on Locals privately, my subscribers, my beloved subscribers, and the rest of you I will see tomorrow.
