God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Solar Gigafactory, Elon Musk, Economical Solar & Batteries, Jordan Peterson, Envy Motivation, America Party, Ross Perot Analogies, Roman Empire Debt, BRICS Country Tariffs, President Trump, Scott Bessent, Jeffrey Epstein Innocent, Ghislaine Maxwell Innocent, DOJ Alex Acosta, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, Butler FBI Probe, Iran Nuclear Program, Abraham Accords, Zohran Mamdani, Marx Communist Manifesto, No Tax Tips, Healthcare Scare, Shingles Disease, Biden's Physician Testimony, Glyphosate Diquat, Global Warming Data Errors, Climate Models Scam, 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.
I want to hear that I sound great and look great and act great.
Do do do do do do do.
Dude.
*thud*
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's the best thing that ever happened to you.
But if you'd like to try to elevate this experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, well, for that, you're going to need a copper mugger, a glass, a tankard, chalice, or stein, 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 of the dopamine end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
go.
So, so good.
All right.
What do we have here?
Thank you, Paul.
Well, I saw a trailer for the new Superman movie, and boy, was I surprised.
Did anybody see the ads for the new Superman movie?
I didn't know what I was seeing, because it looks like they're actually going to do a movie where Superman will be played by, and I don't know this for sure, but it looked like a straight white man is playing Superman in a new movie.
Honestly, I didn't see that coming.
I was really expecting kind of a albino black disabled lesbian kind of a situation.
But no, they have boldly gone where nobody could go lately with a straight white protagonist.
So I might check that out, unless they have somebody tied to a chair.
That's my rule out for any movie.
Did you really need to tie that guy to a chair?
All right.
Well, if you watch soccer, you know that the Gold Cup concluded yesterday, and Mexico and the U.S. were in the finals.
And the better team won.
Mexico looked like they were just a better team, frankly.
But was it predictable?
Was it predictable that Mexico would win?
Apparently, Mexico doesn't usually beat the U.S. soccer team.
I didn't know that, but I learned that yesterday.
But this time they did.
Well, have I ever told you that the best story usually wins?
The best story usually wins.
Now, this is very related to my other point of view, that the most entertaining outcome is the one that's most likely.
The best story and the most entertaining outcome are kind of the same.
Now, if you were going to use that to predict who would win, in the context of Trump closing the border and getting tough with Mexico and the Mexicans being very unhappy, I would guess, with at least the government of the United States at the moment, who is more likely to win?
The bully, which would be the United States, even though it had nothing to do with the soccer team, or the victims of the bully, which would be the Mexican soccer team.
But again, not the actual players, just the idea of one country versus another.
And so, if you would use that standard, which is weirdly predictive, it is so predictive, that the best story would win.
The best story was Mexico winning.
And they played like they wanted to win.
It was pretty fun to watch.
We'll get to the news in a moment, but I have to tell you about the inedible sandwich.
Somebody invented a sandwich that you can't eat.
I discovered this by DoorDashing that sandwich.
So all you have to do to make a sandwich that actually can't be eaten is you get a nice crunchy, hard baguette, kind of a French bread roll.
And then you put in between the two pieces of bread, you put really soft things like avocado and tomato and other things that are soft and squishy.
Because when you bite into the hard part, your teeth won't go through the hard part because it just compresses the sandwich into the soft stuff.
So by the time you take one bite into the sandwich, 100% of the contents are on your lap.
Now, I tried everything.
I tried everything, but it was a sandwich that couldn't be eaten.
It was an inedible sandwich.
Have you ever had one of those?
And, you know, as long as the bun was much harder than the contents, there was no solution.
So I ended up just eating the contents with my fingers and throwing away the bun.
But probably that was the healthiest thing I could do, throw away the bun.
Well, according to Elon Musk, the algorithm on X has been tweaked and improved so that you could maybe discover smaller accounts that have good posts.
But I'll tell you one thing it didn't do is it did not change my bubble.
I don't even remember the last time Democrats saw something I posted on X. And I don't remember seeing anything that a Democrat posted.
I get exactly one troll every time I make a comment that's in any way positive about Trump or Republicans.
Always one.
And it always looks like they're operating off a troll kind of instructions, because they all say the same thing now.
You might see it.
So if you see it in my account someday, you'll know what it is.
They say, they don't even comment on what it is that I'm commenting on.
Instead, they leave one comment, and it's always just one person and a different one each time.
That's how I know it's organized.
And they'll say, is this how you plan to spend your remaining days on earth?
So they mock me for having a terminal disease.
And then they don't even mention anything that's wrong with what I said.
They just try to shame me into thinking that I should not be spending my final minutes worrying about such things.
One a day.
Now, if I got 10 of those a day, I'd say, oh, that just must be people are terrible.
But it's one on every political comment.
I mean, it just looks programmed, really.
So anyway, I have no access to any Democrats, so nothing I say influences anything, unless it gets to somebody like Trump.
And, you know, maybe he quotes it or something.
But I could talk all day long and no Democrat would ever see it.
Just a couple of trolls, and that's it.
So that's not ideal.
So Elon has said he's thinking about building a solar gigafactory.
So that would make solar panels and the batteries that would store it.
Now, I would like to go back to all of you who told me there is no economical way to introduce solar into the network, you know, for part of the grid.
But why would Musk be even thinking about it if there's no way to do it economically?
Do you think he would depend entirely on government subsidies?
I don't think he would gamble on government subsidies at the moment because he's going pretty hard at the government.
We'll talk about that.
But it seems to me that betting on Elon Musk is a smarter bet, especially about technology and the economics of that technology.
It seems like agreeing with him is a smart play.
But people have decided that he's the only person in the world who can do 50 genius things in a row.
And then the moment there's something that you feel like you care about, you think that you're smarter than him?
It's the damnedest thing.
Like, I love people's ego.
Oh, yeah.
Well, on this topic that I don't know anything about, I read an article once, so I guess I'm smarter than the smartest guy in the world.
Maybe not.
Maybe not.
Anyway, in a related news, according to interesting engineering, China, one of their big tech giants, Huawei, just filed a patent for a battery that they've juiced to have an 1800-mile range for automobiles.
And it's solid-state EV.
And they filed a patent.
They think it can get over 1,800 miles in one charge and charge 80% of it, up to 80% of it in five minutes.
Now, I'm not saying that Elon would use that technology because Tesla would probably invent its own stuff.
But I would bet you that somewhere in Tesla, there's a laboratory where they're testing all kinds of new battery manufacturing and storage.
And this one would be about three times better than normal, two to three times better than normal batteries.
So if you're betting on batteries and solar never being competitive economically, you really have to calculate in the fact that it could improve by 200 or 300% within a year.
I'm not saying it will, but its potential is it's going to improve maybe five times, ten times in 10 years.
Changing the topic here for a second, I had an interview, I guess you'd call it that, a podcast, with Jordan Peterson the other day.
Now it's not published.
It will be on his site, not mine.
So Jordan Peterson was nice enough to talk to me for a few hours.
I'll let you know when it's on YouTube.
But one of the things he mentioned is that envy is a motivator.
Like if somebody envies something, it'll get you off the couch, but not in a good way.
And I was thinking, you know, that really explains a lot of what we see that we think is politics.
Because if you're doing fine yourself or you expect to do fine, then Trump doesn't bother you.
But if you're not doing fine and you don't expect to do fine, the fact that he's a billionaire who's had this privileged life and everything seems to work out for him and he's got beautiful women in his past, et cetera, you probably have a lot of envy.
Same with Musk and also same with the MAGA base because the MAGA base at the moment is getting everything it wants.
Well, not quite, we'll talk about that.
But they're also happy.
Imagine being one of the 50% of Democrats who are depressed and being treated by a therapist.
And you put out 200 job interview requests and got no answers at all.
So you can't even get a job and pay for your groceries.
And those darn MAGA people seem to be working and having babies and having a good time.
I wonder if envy is something like 80% of all political opinion.
If you're a socialist, it's really about bringing down the people who did better than you, right?
It's not even as much about improving the people at the bottom as it is about reducing the distance between the top and the bottom.
So this kind of changed my filter on life.
I used to think, oh, there must be a hundred reasons to not like somebody or something.
But what if there's only one?
If they're doing better than you, you just don't like it.
Now, I've got a unique window into that because I was born in a town where I was not one of the rich ones.
We were on the lower end of the economic spectrum, but I was directly across from a ski slope where all the richest people hung out.
So every morning I'd look out this big window and I'd be standing in the house that my parents literally built with their own two hands because they couldn't afford to buy a house.
And I'm looking at all the rich people skiing because you actually see them skiing.
And you see their big houses on the mountain.
And I would be filled with envy.
And it would be very motivating.
And I would think, damn it, I'm going to have to be a lawyer or a business person.
I've got to make some money.
I've got to compete with all these rich people on the mountain.
So I definitely feel it.
I think envy probably describes and boasts of life.
But there are two kinds of envy.
The benign type, which is what I just described.
Benign as in, all it did was motivate me, but it definitely motivated me.
And then there's a malicious type where somebody says, hey, wouldn't it be a good idea to destroy a Tesla dealership?
That would be the bad kind.
And you saw how easily people went into Do you think that was just a political opinion?
No, that was envy.
I think that was envy, disguised as some kind of political action.
Well, as you know, Elon Musk says he's going to start a third party called the America Party.
I would like to apologize in advance that I will write that as Amerikan Party instead of Amerika Party, and I will get that wrong 100 more times because that's the problem with the name.
It's easily confused.
But he hasn't filed the paperwork yet.
There was a hoax online that showed some FAC paperwork filed, but that was not true.
They got debunked.
And I noticed that when people talk about Elon Musk and his third-party thing, that many people default to what I call analogy thinking.
Analogy thinking is where something reminds you of something else, and then you mistakenly believe that because it reminds you of something else, that the new thing will take the same direction as the thing it reminds you of.
That is not reason.
It's not argument.
It's not logic.
It's really just bad thinking.
Now, I do think that analogies can give you an idea where to look.
You know, if you want to look for, well, what are the problems with this idea?
An analogy might suggest, oh, these other people tried to do that and they got this result.
So maybe you should look into that.
So it might be useful, the analogy, but not for winning an argument and not for predicting.
However, the third-party ambitions of Musk reminded a lot of people of what's his name?
Ross Perot.
Now, the Ross Perot situation had so many differences from what it is that we're experiencing that if your only analysis was didn't work for Ross Perot, all he did was make it impossible for a Republican to win.
So that's what Musk is doing.
Same thing.
Well, I don't think you fully thought it through, but it's possible.
It's possible that the only thing that comes out of it is that it makes it hard for Republicans to win.
It's possible.
But as a prediction, it's not really a good prediction.
It's not like one thing leads to the other in some kind of unstoppable line of cause and effect.
There's a lot of variables here.
So I'd looked at Elon Musk's statements about his third party, and I did a post in which I said, the first thing you need to know, I'm paraphrasing, is that he's not said he's interested in running a presidential candidate.
He said he was interested in getting a handful of senators and House of Representatives who would be independent and not wed to either party So that for important things that matter to the country, they might be able to sway the total vote.
And then Elon retweeted my explanation that he was not planning to have a presidential candidate in his third party.
And I thought to myself, oh, look at me, I did something useful.
So people were confused about that question.
And I accurately determined that he wasn't planning to do that because he retweeted it.
Well, was it maybe an hour later?
I found out I was wrong.
So about, it wasn't long, it was the same day.
He said, just to clarify, again, I'm paraphrasing, just to clarify, I might someday want to run a presidential candidate.
To which I said, oh, shit, that's the Ross Parot problem.
If he runs a presidential candidate, that's just the Ross Parot problem, right?
And it does seem more likely, although he's never said this, that he would pick people who were more likely to take votes from Republicans than Democrats.
But he's never said that.
What if it's exactly the opposite?
What if he went to guess some ex-Democrats who people who were also Democrats didn't find objectionable because these ex-Democrats were not MAGA?
So even, you know, hypothetically, let's say they joined the third party and they win their election.
If you were a Democrat, you would know that they were not MAGA because they would never say any MAGA stuff.
And you might say, you know what?
I just can't vote for Kamala Harris.
I'm going to take a chance on this one.
So the first thing we don't know is if he's going to be picking people that Republicans will like better than Democrats like them.
Or maybe it's three of each.
We don't know.
I'm not sure he knows.
It sounds like he's sort of figuring it out as he goes.
So there is a hypothetical path where all he does is make the world a better place.
And that would be if he stays away from the presidential choice and he gets some middle-of-the-road standard people who Democrats like.
And those Democrats say, you know what?
I don't think we should spend a lot of money on climate change.
I'll just pick that as my example.
But you still might get Democrats who say, all right, but we like you because you used to be a Democrat and I can't vote for Trump or I can't vote for whoever replaces Trump and I can't vote for Connell Harris or some other Democrat.
So there is a path where things get a lot better because Congress could make decisions and get majorities that match what the public wants.
It's possible.
But it's really possible that it goes the other way, right?
That all he does is weaken the Republican Party and then nothing gets done.
It's just, you know, total skunk fight.
But the thing that amused me most is the number of people who are sure that although Elon Musk has conquered a number of unrelated fields, that this would be the limit of his ability.
That he could figure out how to put a rocket to Mars and build electric cars and put a chip in your skull.
He could do all that.
But there's no way that he understands people.
He only understands machines and software and hardware.
Does that sound anything like true to you?
Do you really believe that the guy who's one of the best posters on X doesn't understand people?
The person who made products that people can't resist, such as Tesla, do you really think he doesn't understand the market or how people react?
Do you really think he got all those people to have tents in the hallway at his AI company and they're sleeping overnight?
And he got that to work because he does the same thing.
He just sleeps there until the problem is solved.
Do you think that's because he doesn't understand people?
I would argue that he understands people as well as he understands hardware and software, which is a lot.
I don't see any evidence whatsoever that he doesn't understand people.
Now, I do see evidence, certainly not conclusive, that there might be something bipolar going on, that, you know, every now and then he goes further than even he wishes he had gone and pulls it back.
So there's something going on, but I don't think that that's new.
And probably, you know, that's probably one of the driving forces behind his success.
That if you're bipolar, if you're having, you know, the manic phase, you can get a lot done.
I know this because I'm a little bit bipolar.
It doesn't affect my life because I don't get the down.
I only get the up.
But every now and then I'll get this, what has to be a manic phase that my last two or three weeks.
And wow, can you get stuff done?
Unbelievable.
So I'm not sure that any of that's going to predict what's going to happen.
But let me just give you this caution.
If you believe that Elon Musk is brilliant enough to do All the things that he obviously has done, but you believe he has this one area that he's not brilliant and you know more than he does about it, you should check your thinking.
Because the hypothesis that you know more than he does about anything, about anything, is a little sketchy, right?
And even if you do know more than he does about, let's say, politics, how long is it going to take him to figure out more than you know?
An afternoon?
Politics isn't that complicated.
Neither are people.
People are not terribly complicated.
They follow incentives.
If you knew that people followed incentives and they're also driven on envy, you would be almost done in understanding people.
How many times have I told you, all right, let's predict something about this by saying follow the money?
I say it all the time.
I mean, I didn't invent it, obviously.
It's an old saying, but it's an old saying because it works.
Are people really that hard to understand that you think that Elon Musk is the only person who can't figure it out because he's some sort of a robot or something?
No, I don't know if it's going to work.
I don't know if he's bluffing.
I don't know if he's really just trying to create some leverage to get a few things he wants.
We don't know what's in his head.
And we definitely don't know how this third-party thing is going to work out.
If you want to take on it, I would say at the moment, I'm not sold.
So I wouldn't personally join it because I don't know what it's about or who's going to be in it.
But could he upgrade it to the point where I would?
Yes.
It's within the realm of possibility.
I'm not tempted at the moment because there's not enough clarity.
But maybe, someday, I'd have to hear an argument I've never heard.
And the argument I've never heard would be the one that says, this is how this makes the world a better place.
If he can sell me on that, that he's figured out some kind of clever workaround to make the world a better place with a third party, I'm all in.
I'm all in.
And I might be, because the odds of him making a good argument are pretty good.
The other possibility is that after he's struggled with it a little bit, that he decides there's no path that makes sense.
So that's possible.
So either one of those is possible.
So I'm going to reserve judgment.
But no, I'm not thinking, can't wait to join.
All right.
So I saw a post on X by Umare, U-M-A-I-R-H.
And the poster said, do you guys think the fall of the Roman Empire was also this incredibly stupid?
I've spent way too much time watching History Channel and YouTube videos about ancient civilizations that were dominant during their time and then just disappeared.
You know, the Romans, the Incans, the Mayans, you could just go down the list.
And it's very sobering because when I was a child, I believed that I would never see the end of the American Empire.
But I'll bet you Great Britain once thought that too.
Oh, we've conquering half the world.
Probably the Mongols thought that.
So it turns out that most of the dominant civilizations eventually fall.
Elon Musk answered this fellow on Acts when he said, do you think the Roman Empire was also this incredibly stupid?
And Elon said, yeah, they wrote about their own demise extensively.
Did you know that?
That you don't have to wonder what caused the Roman Empire to fall.
They were writing about it as it was happening.
And guess what it was?
Too much debt.
Guess why?
Because they needed too much of a military to defend themselves and there was too much envy.
I'm making up that last part.
But in the sense, the people who wanted more kept pushing for more.
And as they got more, they ran out of money.
And then it fell apart.
Now, I may be, of course, oversimplifying it greatly.
It could be that other civilizations died because the Spanish conquistadors came over and gave them deadly diseases.
And then six months later, they were all dead.
So there are lots of reasons.
It could be floods, could be natural disasters, could be wars.
There are lots of things that can destroy a dominant empire.
But I'm going to summarize it this way.
Given all of the civilizations around the world, if you think about all the countries and all the micro-civilizations within those countries, everywhere, there would be thousands of them, right?
And there are only a few countries that have dominant civilizations.
U.S., China, maybe the European Union, maybe you throw in Russia, but they have kind of a tiny economy.
So my take is this.
It's very rare for all of the variables to line up for any one country to be a dominant civilization.
In other words, it's like me hitting putts from 15 feet.
Sometimes all three go in from 15 feet away.
I did that the other day.
But far more likely, I miss all three or make only one.
So it could be just so obvious that what's going on is that if any civilization becomes dominant, like the U.S. is or was, and the UK was, that the odds of it staying that way are just vanishingly small because everything had to be right at the same time.
And that would be rare.
So I'm not so sure that you can look at somebody else's example, like Rome, and say, well, Rome had this set of problems, so we might.
But again, it's an analogy.
So whatever problems they did have, you'd probably want to look there first.
Say, well, I got an idea what we should look at.
Should we look at our debt?
And that's why Elon Musk's contribution is so important, because we were sleepwalking toward complete ruin from debt.
And he didn't stop it.
But boy, did he stop the way we talk about it and think about it and the priority we put on it.
And look how hard he's fighting to try to reverse it.
So I don't know.
Did Rome have that?
Did Rome have an Elon Musk with the X platform and billions of dollars fighting as hard as he could to stop the spending from ruining us?
Is it possible that we have the variable that fixes stuff and we're not the same as all those other civilizations that failed?
It's possible.
It's possible that we've attracted the right kind of people who are fixers, that no matter how bad the problem is, as long as you have enough time, that you can pull together the right people and say, all right, we're dead if we don't fix this.
So then you fix it.
I don't know if Rome could have done that because they didn't have the right kind of communication to find the smartest people and motivate them.
But we do.
So I always think that the existence of the Internet, which allows you to gather resources and information and wisdom from far places and concentrate them where they need to be, that it could be that the Internet is a thing that allows a dominant civilization to stay there a little bit longer, unless there's a nuclear war or new COVID that kills you.
Which might be.
Well, meanwhile, President Trump has threatened to impose a 10% extra tariff on top of his existing tariffs for any countries that align themselves with the BRICS.
So the BRICS are those smallish, not small, but non-superpower countries.
Well, actually, Russia's in there and China's in there, so they are superpowers.
I take that back.
So there would be sort of like an anti-American bloc of powers trying to make sure that the U.S. doesn't have all the economic clout.
And Trump's making sure that they don't go too far by threatening them with tariffs.
Will that work?
I don't know.
It might.
He already scared them off from pursuing a currency that's not the dollar.
They were definitely pursuing that, and he threatened them.
And they said, oh, we'll put that on hold.
So threats do work.
We've seen the tariff threat work now a few times, right?
And I guess Trump is now sending out 100 letters to various countries that did not get a trade deal done with us.
And Scott Besant is framing this rather cleverly.
Besent is really good on the interviews and on the public stuff.
But instead of saying we gave up on getting deals, so we're just going to send them a letter telling them what they're going to pay in tariffs, he says that is the deal.
And he's not wrong.
No, we have a deal with 100 countries.
There's 100 countries that had all the time in the world to make a deal with us.
And we were willing to make a deal.
It didn't happen.
So now the new deal is we'll tell them what they're going to pay in tariffs.
And that's it.
That's the deal.
Now, if they wanted in the next three weeks, because I guess it won't go into effect until August 1st, if they wanted to, the U.S. would say, oh, do you want to try to get a proper trade deal that isn't just us charging you more with tariffs?
And we would say yes to that.
Yeah, we'll do that.
Absolutely.
But I love his reframe that instead of failing, so we're just sending them the bill, we have just succeeded, but in a shortcutted way.
The shortcut is we don't need a new trade deal.
We're just going to send you the bill.
That is the new trade deal.
I kind of love that.
Besent is really good at framing issues.
And Dana Bash asked Scott Besant, she goes, that's not a deal.
That's a threat.
The threat would be that they're going to have to pay more in tariffs.
And Besant says, no, that's the level.
That's the deal.
Good reframe.
Thailand apparently did come up with a deal.
So Thailand negotiated a deal, and they're going to import more U.S. natural gas and more of our corn to reduce the trade deficit with Thailand.
So that's good.
And they offered to cut levies to zero on many U.S. imports, not 100% of them, but many of the important ones.
And they said it's not just about reducing tariffs, but also about opening up trade.
So there you go.
Thailand did the smart thing by negotiating when they had a chance to negotiate.
So probably they're getting a better deal than they would have gotten.
I hope they did.
All right, all right.
You want to talk about Epstein, don't you?
So apparently the Justice Department, if you haven't heard this yet, if this is the first time you're hearing this, it's going to make your head explode.
But the Justice Department just released a 10-hour video, or some say 11-hour video, of what they say is Epstein's jail cell to show that nobody went in or out.
And therefore, they've concluded that he must have taken his own life because there's no video of him going in and out.
Now, didn't you understand that there was no video of that?
But where did they suddenly come up with some video of that?
It wasn't a video of the cell.
It was a video of the access to the cell.
And then I looked at the video and I said to myself, I don't even know what doors is.
I don't know what I'm looking at.
What the hell is this?
And other people weighed in.
And apparently, you do not see anything that would tell you whether anybody had access or not.
Some of it is because it looks like there's an edit that might have lost a minute.
Some of it is it wasn't even looking in the right place.
Some of it is if somebody was already in there before the 10-hour video, they could have got it done and then left afterwards.
So no, the video that they're showing us has no persuasive value to any of us.
If any of that convinced you, no.
Because we didn't even get really a straight story about what video existed.
And I guess they said that the video cameras didn't work in his cell.
Well, that's a pretty big coincidence.
Now, one of the possibilities that they didn't look into is that there was somebody already in that general area before the video.
Or even that the video was in the wrong place.
Maybe it wasn't even where you could tell if somebody got in there.
But so we don't believe that, but it gets better.
Not only has the Justice Department declared that it was definitely a suicide, but the systemic review revealed no incriminating client list.
There's no client list.
You know how all of us for years have been saying, well, why don't you show us the client list?
And now their official pronouncement is there was never a client list.
Now that might be true.
It might be true there was never a client list.
Maybe he didn't write that stuff down.
But so he wasn't murdered and there was no client list.
And there was also no evidence that he blackmailed prominent individuals.
No suicide, no client list, and no evidence that he blackmailed anybody.
Okay.
And we did not uncover evidence.
This is the Department of Justice.
We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.
They didn't find any evidence that would make some non-Epstein person that was involved with them guilty of a crime.
Nothing?
Well, End Wokeness, one of my favorite accounts to follow on X, pointed out that in 2019, the FBI raided Epstein's home in New York City, not the island, but his home, and discovered hidden safes with computer discs and stashes of footage.
Do you know what happened to all those computer tapes and computer discs?
Take a guess.
You want to guess?
They went missing.
Yep, went missing.
So now we've got the video.
The video of a cell was accidentally erased.
There were no videos on the island, apparently, where they went missing.
And the ones from his home in New York City, they definitely exist, but then they went missing.
So apparently Ghelane Maxwell got convicted for doing something that had no victims and no evidence of any crime.
What did they convict her of?
I'm a little confused.
And do you remember Virginia Joffre, who recently died tragically?
She was claiming that she was victimized many times and there were many other people on the island who were victimized.
Did they talk to all of those other people?
Did they talk to all of the young women who were allegedly victimized on the island and not one of them, not one of them named a name?
Does that sound right?
So let's just say, and then this old man, which is the name of an account I X, posted this.
I can't believe Apostein killed himself right before he was about to be acquitted due to a complete lack of evidence.
Yeah.
Why would he kill himself if there was no evidence he did any crime?
It's so bad.
You know, this is obviously a crime against the public.
Don't you Feel like the crime is against you at this point?
Yes, you do.
The crime is against us, but it's so bad that it just seems funny.
And then Mike Benz reminds us on X that Alex Acosta, so he was the DOJ official, who gave Epstein the sweetheart plea deal back in 2008.
So you remember there were sort of two waves of justice against Epstein.
One got wrapped up by Ellen Dershowitz, who did a good job of lawyering for him, apparently.
And he got sort of a good deal that nobody believed it could be that good.
And so he got out of jail free.
But Alex Acasa, the DOJ person in charge of that, was quoted as saying he was told to, quote, back off of Epstein because he belonged to intelligence.
So that's the DOJ guy telling us directly that he was told to back off because he's part of the intelligence network.
Do you think he would make that up?
Do you think that the Department of Justice person who was working on the case would just make up, just completely invent or hallucinate that he had been told to back off because Epstein is part of the intelligence world?
Well, it's not likely, but it gets better.
Apparently, Acosta had 11 months of emails that were for that time period that also fill in the blank.
What happened to 11 months of his emails?
What do you think?
Let's see how well you can guess.
Oh yeah, they disappeared.
So how many things have disappeared now?
Virginia Joffrey the main witness, she disappeared because she died young for reasons that I don't know we're innocent, but it's part of a pattern.
So we lost all this guy's emails.
We lost all the videos and tapes that were at Epstein's house.
And we lost the video of the cell.
And apparently Epstein did not keep records of his clients.
Does any of that sound real to you?
Well, how many of you remember that I've been telling you since the beginning that even though Trump was now claiming that you're going to see everything that could be seen, and even though I believed that Cash Patel meant it when he said we're going to release everything, and even though I told you that I think Dan Bongino is an honest guy, and when he told you that they're going to get to the bottom of it and release it, they meant it.
And even though you knew there was something there, and you trusted Trump and you trusted Bongino and you trusted Cash Patel for this topic, I still predicted that there would be nothing coming out from the Epstein files.
Does anybody remember me making that prediction over and over again?
I think I probably said it 20 times in public or posted it that we'll never see the Epstein stuff.
Well, what do you think now?
Now, I'm sure some of you felt the same thing, but do you have any doubt what's going on here?
It's almost so clownishly obvious what's going on.
It's almost as if Cache Patel and Bongino want you to know the truth.
Because I'll say again, I believe that Bongino and Cache Patel are honest guys who meant it when they said we're going to tell you everything.
But they're clearly not telling us everything.
So what would change that?
It's exactly what it looks like.
Somebody got to them and said, I know you want to do this.
I know you want to do the right thing.
I know you're honest people.
And I know you promised the public.
Here's why you can't do it.
There would be real problems, like really, really big problems.
As in, it might take down a government.
It might take down a government.
Not ours, but it might take down some government.
So I don't even know if we're protecting our own people or our own CIA or, you know, that's the obvious thing you think of, but it could be we're protecting some other government or governments.
And that's not nothing.
So let me give Cash, Patel, and Dan Bunchino and Pam Bondi too.
I'm going to give them a little bit of cover.
It goes like this.
If you put me in their situation, and I had promised you I'm definitely going to show you all of this stuff that we find.
And then somebody came to me and said, look, you're not going to believe this, but if you release this stuff, one of our NATO allies will go down.
And we just can't do that.
Could they talk me into not releasing it and also lying about why I couldn't release it?
And the answer is yes.
They absolutely could talk me into it.
Now, maybe my example is not the greatest one, but if they had an example where people would die or nations would fall and they're nations that are our allies or, I don't know, somebody would be murdered, I could be convinced that there was a national security reason to lie to the public.
Because remember, if you are a spy or you are protecting national security secrets, you are allowed to lie.
Right?
You're allowed to lie.
You're not just allowed.
It's your job description.
You better lie because you're protecting the country or some big national interest.
So obviously, I think it's obvious that the Epstein situation must have touched at least one electrified rail and that somebody got to the people who were investigating and said, nope, nope, I know you mean well, but this is not going to happen.
And it could be that they were threatened with death.
I wouldn't rule that out.
It could be that the people investigating it, including the management, found out that, no, you're going to, you would be assassinated if you continue pushing this.
So they may have reasons.
But I was pretty sure we'd never find out.
And then in a related news, the Daily Caller is reporting that Trump says he's, quote, satisfied with the FBI probe into the Butler attempted assassination of him.
Let me say that again.
The same day we're finding out that it looks like our government's going to lie to us about Epstein Forever.
Trump says that of this very sketchy, kind of weird assassination attempt where none of us believe that he did it alone.
And he had, I don't know, he had some apps and all that, and none of it kind of made sense.
Do you believe that Trump is legitimately convinced that there's nothing there to see?
It was just a crazy guy acting independently?
Do you believe that?
I don't.
I think that probably it was the same phenomenon.
Don't know.
I mean, this is just a gut feeling.
But probably there's plenty dirty in that story.
And somebody got to Trump or Trump figured it out on his own.
And he realized that pushing that button would get somebody killed.
And he decided not to get somebody killed, especially him or his family.
So, no, I don't believe that he's satisfied with the FBI probe on the Butler assassination attempt.
I don't believe it at all.
I believe he said it, and I believe he wants you to believe it, but I don't believe it.
Now, so I'm going to summarize what I've just been talking about this way.
When I started talking about politics back in 2016, and I got a little bit of traction, and people started listening to me and reading my blog posts and stuff, that caused a series of events where I got to meet people who knew the real story behind a variety of things.
You know, not the Epstein thing necessarily, but just the real story behind a variety of things.
How often was the real story the same as the one that was in the news?
And the answer is never.
Not once.
Every story that is sort of a big story, it certainly has elements that are true.
I mean, I believe the president really did take a bullet in the ear, etc.
So there are parts of it that are definitely true.
I do believe that airplanes hit the World Trade Towers.
I mean, that part's true.
But generally speaking, the interpretation or the real story behind everything is fake.
Let me say that again.
The real story behind everything, just everything, is fake.
So, no, you're never going to know about Epstein.
You're never going to know about JFK.
You'll probably never know about Martin Luther King.
You'll probably never know about Bobby Kennedy Sr.
You're never going to know for sure about the Warren Report.
And I don't think we'll even know for sure if we landed on the moon.
So I've now gone a full Joe Rogan, full Joe Rogan, which is, I used to think it was obvious we had landed on the moon.
I did not question that for one second.
And when I saw people saying, oh, I'm not so sure, I would say to myself, wow.
Well, people who will believe anything, they actually think we didn't, you know, didn't really go to the moon.
You know what I believe now?
Same thing that Joe Rogan believes, I think.
I don't like to characterize other people's opinions, but I think I got this one right.
That he doesn't know that we didn't go to the moon.
And I would agree with that.
I don't know that.
But if tomorrow I learned that we had not gone to the moon and it was somehow confirmed, would I act surprised?
Or would I say, damn it, you can see the signs.
I should have known that.
It would be the latter.
It would be me saying, ah, I should have been more forceful in saying that that was probably fake.
So let me be really clear.
I don't have any evidence that I personally find convincing that it was faked.
But everything's in play.
Everything from the food pyramid to the vaccinations to everything.
It all looks fake to me.
It just all looks fake.
I don't know if we know why the Ukraine war is happening.
I don't know if we really know what was happening in Gaza.
I don't think we really know what was the full situation with Iran and its nuclear weapons.
I feel like it's all fake.
And when we're talking about the news, we're just doing some kind of parlor game where people who don't know anything about anything act like we do, just so we have something to talk about.
That's what it feels like.
But I want to be clear.
While I don't believe the official version of any big story, just none of them, I also don't automatically believe the conspiracy theory.
So if I tell you I don't believe one of the big stories like the moon landing, it doesn't mean that I believe that Stanley Kubrick filmed it.
He might have, maybe, but it doesn't mean I automatically believe that.
Well, I guess Trump is meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House.
And I think they're going to be taking a victory lap for their good work with Iran.
But again, just so I'm consistent with what I said, the official story is that we destroyed all of their nuclear programs.
Do you believe that?
How would we know?
It's the same as saying that the 2020 election was not rigged because nobody found any conclusive evidence that a court has ruled means it was rigged.
How would you know if there was something that you couldn't find?
It's unknowable.
You could determine if something was rigged if you found the evidence and it tested out.
But if you don't find evidence, and you know that things like elections have been rigged in the past, and probably the United States has rigged elections in other countries, if you didn't find any sign of election rigging, it doesn't mean a thing.
It doesn't mean a thing.
It just means you didn't find it.
It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So likewise, with the nuclear program, I do believe that it's very likely that all the things they tried to bomb were completely destroyed.
But does that mean they didn't have anything left?
Nothing hidden?
Nothing in the warehouse?
A different warehouse?
No way to know.
Anyway, there's talk about, I saw some talk that Gaza, the Hamas leadership in Gaza was completely decimated.
No, wrong word.
Decimated means reduced by 10%.
The real number was 95%.
So the leadership of Hamas is down 95%, most of them dead.
But they don't have good communication or command and control at this point.
So maybe, maybe there's a way to make a deal now.
Don't know.
And then there's some indication that Iran wants to talk about its nuclear program, but it wants to do it on its terms.
I believe its terms are that we can talk about it all day long, but we're definitely going to have a nuclear program and you're not going to inspect it.
So I don't think there's any place to go on that.
But they will talk.
So I mentioned this the other day, but I feel like I understand a little bit better.
There's an idea that instead of having a two-state solution where the Palestinians have their own one state and Israel has the state next to it and they live in peace next to each other, since nobody thinks that that's going to work, there's these sheikhs who came up with the idea of having a emirate, at least in one place, and presumably you could have other emirates in other parts of the West Bank.
But one of them would be in Hebron.
And there's a specific sheikh who they're proposing would be in charge, and he would be the emir.
But here's the part I maybe didn't mention or didn't know yesterday, that a big part of their pitch is that they would instantly recognize Israel's right to exist, the Emirate would, and they would look to join the Abraham Accords.
So I guess you wouldn't have to be a nation state necessarily to say, hey, we want to accept Israel and we want to be part of this trading bloc that gets extra advantages of trading with each other, I guess.
And we'll do it as an emirate.
Now, I don't know if that has any legs because I would have to know a lot more about that area to know if that idea could go.
I feel like Israel probably would resist that idea.
On the other hand, if you got, let's say, two or three emirates who consolidated power and said, well, we don't want to rule the entire West Bank where the Palestinian Authority is, but this little area will be our own little emirate and will also accept Israel and will also be part of the Abraham Accords.
If you did that, it might accomplish Israel's goal of not having a two-state solution.
Because they would probably be happier if there were a bunch of smaller emirates that were unlikely to attack them.
Because the Emirates apparently don't want a war.
So that's a step in the right direction.
So maybe it's a divide and conquer situation.
So maybe Israel might consider it.
I don't know.
On the other hand, they might not want the Emirates to get too powerful.
And maybe they're lying about their ambitions.
So lots of variables.
So there's some fact-checking going on on the claim that mayoral candidate Zorin Mamdani for New York City, some say he's a communist and some say he isn't.
And a lot of it rests on the fact that he once said in 2019, I think, That the real goal was to seize the means of production.
And the fact checker, which fact checker?
PolitiFact.
Do you think PolitiFact is a reliable fact-checking entity?
Or is it a Democrat tool?
Well, did I just tell you that every single story in the news is fake?
This is not an exception.
So yeah, it's a fact-checking organization that if you asked any Republicans, they would say, no, it's the opposite.
It's a lying organization.
They're there to certify lies that make Democrats happy.
So this would be one of those situations, if that's what you believe.
So they said that the manifesto, the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx's work, they say that that's not in there.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that nowhere in the Communist Manifesto does it say that they want to seize the means of production?
So therefore it's fake and does not represent a desire to be a communist because that's not even in the Communist Manifesto?
Do you believe that?
Well, here's what is in the manifesto according to Grok.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, W-R-E-S-T as in, you know, grab away, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.
That's chapter two.
That's what it does say.
Was it, do I have the wrong author?
I'm looking at the comments.
I think you're fact-checking me.
I'm just working from memory, so I probably got some of the fact.
Anyway, so there's your fact-check.
Your fact check is nowhere does it say, seize the means of production.
No, no, it doesn't say that.
It only says the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degree all capital from the bourgeoisie to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.
Oh, well, I feel a lot better now.
I'm glad they didn't want to seize the means of production.
Thank goodness.
So there you go.
What about that no tax on tips?
How many of you believe that no tax on tips, which is what got approved in the big beautiful bill, meant no tax on tips?
Well, here again, the real story behind the curtain is different from the one you've been told.
First of all, it only goes up to the first $25,000 in tips.
If you were a, let's say a waiter in a restaurant that had a lot of tips, how fast would you get to 25,000?
Well, if you were a full-time waiter, you could make $150,000 a year from mostly tips.
So maybe 50 would be your base pay and 100 would be your tips.
Now, this would be unusual.
That'd be a high-end restaurant with just tons of tipping.
But it would be in that range.
So does that sound like no tax on tips to you?
I mean, it's better than nothing.
And a lot of people who are working part-time especially will enjoy it.
But they're still going to have to pay the payroll tax and their Social Security and Medicare.
So even though there's no tax on tips, there's an 8% tax on tips because a little under 8% is your payroll taxes and Social Security and Medicare.
So there's still a tax on tips and there's lots of tax on tips.
But it's better than it was.
It's just not what you thought it was.
All right.
Here's something that I know I've done wrong.
When the Democrats say that the Big Beautiful bill is going to cut health care, sometimes I would see Medicaid and sometimes I would say Medicare and they're different.
And I would read the story and it would say, but the mean old Republicans and Trump are going to cut your Medicaid.
And then I would see another story that says, leader Jeffries says they're going to cut your Medicare.
And I actually started to think maybe there were typos in the stories, because some of it would be on social media and I'd be like, oh, it's just a typo.
And I thought it was one or the other.
I didn't realize it was both.
So apparently the big beautiful bill cuts both.
But what Democrats call cutting, the Republicans call making sure that only the people who deserve it and are qualified for it are getting it.
But they've added the work requirement.
So if you're able-bodied, you've got a certain amount of time to either sign up for classes or do some volunteer work or get a job.
So you've got some options.
And if you're an undocumented citizen of this country, you would lose it in that case, I think, in both cases.
So how many of you knew, how many of you thought the same thing I did, that it was one of them but not the other?
And then you found out it was both of them?
Now, I'm not saying that that's a mistake.
It probably needed to be both of them.
But they're treated very differently.
And then I thought, Republicans are going to have a real problem in the midterm Because all the Democrats have to do is say Republicans took away health care from 12 million people.
That's what they say now.
And who knows how long before they take it away from you?
And that's pretty scary.
Pretty scary.
How do I know that's scary?
Because yesterday I got to experience having no health care.
So I have Kaiser Permanente, and I think I've got shingles.
So I've got this insanely painful set of skin problems on one side.
It looks like a shingles, probably.
So I use my app to contact my healthcare provider to set up an in-person appointment because I'd already sent in photos of it and they had not guessed shingles, but now it looks like it's almost certainly shingles because I checked AI.
AI says, yeah, probably shingles.
And then my app said that there's no availability of appointments for in-person.
And I thought, really?
None?
Not a month from now or two months from now?
Like, just none.
I really can't get any healthcare.
And I thought, oh, they're trying to make me do a Zoom call because you can do almost everything on Zoom.
So I go to the other part of the app to set up a Zoom appointment.
And it comes back with, there are no available appointments ever.
So, and of course, this always happens on the, you know, the long weekends that are a holiday.
How many of you have noticed that somebody in your family, maybe you, always has a health problem on a holiday?
Always, because that's when all the doctors go on vacation and you're lucky if you can get anything.
So I got to experience having no health care and also having a pretty painful health problem.
I mean, it really hurts.
If you ever get shingles, good luck.
It hurts like a mofo.
Now, fortunately, I had AI and I had other mechanisms to get what I need.
So I'm being treated as well as I think I need to be.
But I didn't have any health care.
So I got to tell you that when you realize you don't have health care, even though you've been paying for it, it's a scary thing.
So if the Democrats scare voters by saying they're going to take away your health care next, that's going to really be effective.
So I was trying to think, what could Republicans do to get ahead of the messaging?
And I don't have a suggestion yet, but something like this came to mind.
So this will just be brainstorming.
This is not a good suggestion, but it might make you think of a better one.
What if Republicans said, everyone who supports the country by working, going to school, or following our laws gets to keep their health insurance?
Everyone who supports America by working, going to school, or volunteering, I guess, or following our laws, which would take care of the non-citizens who were getting it, they get to keep their health insurance or their health care.
Would that work?
Maybe that's a little bit too conceptual.
It would be a lot better if there was some picture or something scary.
So Republicans are going to have a tough time.
We'll keep working on that.
Well, Representative Comer is going to bring Biden's physician in for a conversation to find out what did he know and what was the real situation with Biden's health behind the scenes.
I can't wait.
I suspect that he will be reluctant to answer questions because if he does, he's going to have to lie like hell.
And I don't know that he's going to want to do that under oath.
All right.
So you know that weed killer that American bread seems to have in it called glyphosate.
And some say it's the reason that the bread is healthy in Europe, but not healthy in America, is that glyphosate was used as a weed killer.
Well, I didn't know this, but a lot of U.S. bread companies had replaced glyphosate already.
So they replaced it with, what's it called?
Dikwat.
D-I-Q-U-A-T.
Dikwat?
I just like saying Dickwat.
Anyway, but apparently that replaced glyphosate is widely employed in the U.S. as a weed killer.
Except there's a new report that that might even be worse for you, according to The Guardian.
So The Guardian has an article that says this new thing that replaces the thing that you thought was the bad thing, that the new thing can damage your organs and gut bacteria, according to new research.
Why is it everybody in the world can make bread except Americans?
Can we really not make bread that isn't poisonous?
Man.
Yeah, I don't like that story.
Taiwan's got a company that has a tech platform they build to detect schizophrenia.
So apparently they can scan your brain and then use AI.
And the AI can accurately, up to 91% accuracy, identify people with schizophrenia.
And apparently it can identify other patterns as well.
So that's interesting.
If they can identify that you probably have schizophrenia by looking at your brain, how long will it be before they find the part of your brain that handles free will?
They haven't found it yet, but I know it's in there somewhere.
I'm joking.
Free will doesn't exist.
It's an illusion.
All right.
And then I saw an article by Antonio Grousefo.
He was in, damn it, I didn't write down the publication.
But he's talking about the problems with measuring the temperature of the Earth.
Let's see if any of these sound like things I've told you before.
So this would be in the topic of climate change.
Did you know, according to Antonio Racefo, that 96% of U.S. temperature stations fail to meet NOAA's own siting standards and are often surrounded by essentially heat islands?
Did you know that it's 96% of them don't meet the standard?
I didn't know that.
I knew a lot of them didn't, but I didn't know it was 96%.
So that's not 96% who were by heat islands, but just 96% that for whatever reason don't meet the standard.
Then did you know that those thermometers transitioned from mercury to digital sensors between 1980 and the 2000s?
And that same period where they took out one kind of thermometer and put in another introduced what he calls discontinuities in the data.
And that happens to be the period of accelerated warming.
So the very period that they were replacing the technology they used to measure the temperature, that's the period that the temperature suddenly went up.
Okay.
Why were they replacing the old thermometers?
Was it because they were totally accurate?
No.
Then how about this?
The early measurements were geographically concentrated in Europe and North America, ignoring vast regions, especially the 71% of the planet covered by oceans.
So until recently, the temperature of the oceans were ignored for climate change.
The oceans.
The world is mostly ocean.
And then measurement errors of plus or minus half a degree centigrade often exceeded the very climate signals being used to justify the policies.
So in other words, even where they found some warming, it was below the level that your accuracy could have told you was real, if that makes sense.
Worse still, says Antonio, much of the raw data has been adjusted or homogenized.
Do you know what that means?
When the data from the temperature sensors was homogenized?
Have you ever heard that term?
When I tell you what it means, you're just going to shake your head.
You go, oh, God, God, what a world.
What a world.
Homogenized means made up.
It means, for example, if you had one temperature station that had failed, you know, let's say a car ran into it and it wasn't available, instead of saying, oh, we don't have that data, they would look at other measurements and then they would look at what that used to say, and then they would estimate what that probably was the temperature in that measuring device that didn't exist.
So homogenized means somebody used assumptions, assumptions, to figure out what the temperature was.
So assumptions.
Okay.
Now, those are the problems that you know about.
We haven't even talked about the models.
Do you remember what I keep telling you about the temperature models for climate change?
So I used to say there's no way that they're accurate, and I would try to make my argument.
And now I just say this.
Wait till you find out about the climate models.
Because you will find out.
There's no chance that you won't find out.
And when you find out, you're going to say, God, that cartridge guy was on this early.
Yeah, there is no way that the complicated, multivariable climate models are even a little bit reliable.
There is not really any way that's possible.
But you've been told, the world has been told that the scientists can do that.
So there will be a whistleblower.
I guarantee it.
And that whistleblower will say, you know, we just sort of make these assumptions and force it to fit where we expect people to expect it.
And that's how we get our funding.
That's what it's going to happen.
Wait till you find out.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I went too long, so I'm going to say goodbye.
Thanks for joining.
Locals, say hi very quickly.
The rest of you, I'll see you same time tomorrow, I hope.
