God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Elon Musk, Grok, Censoring AI Wrong-think, Drone Bees, Trump Newborn Accounts, American Virtual Academy, Trump Job Gains, President Trump, America Hottest Country, Self-Deportation Cash, Trump Tariffs, Mexico Tariff, Bernie Sanders, Democrat Narratives Collapsing, Deep State Conspiracy Investigation, Russia Collusion Hoax, War Drone Economics, Iran Bounty Offer, Epstein Files Uproar, National Interest Signaling, ADL, Reparations, Gazan Asylum France, Zohran Mamdani Soros Funding, 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.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker tolls, a sign of canteen, chug, 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 dope meeting the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And darn it, it happens right now.
Go.
Well, that was louder than usual, but you'll get over it.
All right.
If you are a subscriber on X to Owen Gregorian, you can attend another special spaces with him on X after the show.
Only for subscribers, though.
Subscribers to Owen, not subscribers to me, necessarily.
So that'll happen right after.
Well, here's a little bit of a Grok update.
It turns out that, you know, the new version of Grok, everybody was very impressed that it was the best, smartest Grok of all.
It was smarter than humans in every field, basically.
But had one little problem.
It was a little bit too Hitlerian.
The AI only had one problem.
It really liked Hitler and was anti-Semitic.
So they found the bug that allowed that to happen and they tried to fix it, but apparently making Grok less like the internet than it trained on is tough.
I saw an interview where Elon Musk just recently was saying that AI has already trained on all human knowledge and there's no new information.
So from now on, AI will create artificial information on its own and that it will train itself on the artificial information it just created.
Now, does that make you feel comfortable?
If you knew that the most powerful force in the universe, AI, if you knew that it ran out of things to learn from humans, so it started making up stuff on its own and trading itself on the stuff it made up on its own.
You all good with that?
That's about the scariest thing I can imagine.
But Elon was complaining because he says that the internet is drunk on left-wing content, he said.
So when you train your AI, it gets a lot of left-wing content.
But in this case, it got in trouble because it found, I hate to call it right-wing, but it found a whole bunch of Hitler stuff.
Not good.
And so they had to intervene to get rid of all that anti-Semitic Hitler stuff.
Now, in that case, you might say to me, Scott, everybody agrees with that.
You know, duh, of course, we don't want our AI to be anti-Semitic.
But what about if it's some other, what happens if it's some other topic next time?
What happens when the human says, no, this AI is wrong and inappropriate.
It must be reprogrammed?
Well, I believe that is going to happen for every single industry.
I believe every industry, from historians to finance people to medical professionals, especially a therapist, they're all going to find out, uh-oh, if I allow AI to do my job, I lose my job and all my power and my influence.
So instead, I'm going to say AI cannot be free to have its own opinions.
Only an expert like me can give you medical advice or financial advice.
And one by one, every single industry which is currently corrupt, because they're all corrupt, will have to find a way to corrupt AI to keep their scam alive.
Because almost everything that some big industry, whether it's climate change or your bank, it doesn't matter what it is.
If it's big and it's been around a while, it's fraudulent.
It's corrupt.
And it's got a narrative that's not based on fact.
It's based on what's good for the people who made the narrative.
So what happens when 100% of everything that AI talks about in the real world gets overruled by humans who want to keep their scam alive?
Well, we'll find out, because that's where we're at.
As you know, AI has some critics.
But one thing that everyone agrees with is it's good for the people doing programming.
Right?
The one thing that you've seen news story after news story on is that the computer programmers use AI to rapidly write code that they could not possibly have done themselves that quickly.
Right?
That's just a fact.
Wouldn't you all agree?
That that's demonstrated by so many people so many times, that we can accept as fact that AI will be good for computer programmers.
Right?
Oh, you know this is a trick.
I'm tricking you.
Nope.
At least there's some possibility that they've been overestimating its value.
So Steve Newman is writing in something called Second Thoughts that there was a study, not a big one, but a smaller study.
That's a good one.
There's a smaller study.
Anyway, that $1 that you just donated, it worked because I did read your comment.
And yes, backseat driver is exactly what you think it is.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
But there was one study that showed that programmers would predict that the AI would make them 20% more effective or faster.
And then the results were that they were actually slower.
Now, I'm not so sure that this one study is one that I would bank on.
But are you surprised that the number one claim of usefulness for AI, which is can make your program faster, might be, maybe, the opposite.
It might be.
But I'm not sure I buy that yet.
But just be aware that you live in a Dilbert world.
In a Dilbert world, what would the employees say if the boss came over and said, hey, is AI going to make you more productive?
What are they going to say?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, totally.
Yep.
I'm sure I got this done 20% faster than I would have.
You should just give me a raise.
So I wouldn't believe that people were reporting it.
But reading that one article about it on X, I did get three months of Dilbert material that I'm going to use because it's all there.
It's the most Dilbert-y situation in the world where people are making claims about AI making them more effective.
In the real world, there's going to be some BS there.
All right.
According to Benj Edwards, who's writing in Ars Technica, there's a risk for AI therapy bots.
So that would be AI used as a therapist, because they're allegedly poor replacements for humans, and they can sometimes give you dangerous suggestions.
Now, that's what I was talking about.
Every industry is going to find some reason that, you know, you really shouldn't replace all our people with AI.
It could be dangerous.
Just wait till the teachers have to do that too.
Because the entire teachers' union, obviously, is ripe for replacement with AI.
What do you think the teachers' unions will say about AI?
Do you think they'll say, oh, look at that.
You just found a way to replace all the teachers.
Looks like it's even better.
No, no.
I believe the teachers' unions will say, oh, you can't trust AI on its own.
You're going to have to have a teacher in the room to manage all that.
Meanwhile, China has created remote-controlled bees, as in the insect that flies and stings a bee.
Not the letter bee.
That would be weird.
But according to the Daily Mail, there's a little chip, tiny little chip, they can insert into the bee's brain, and then they can control where the bee goes.
And I guess they can put listening devices on it.
So now I don't trust bugs.
You know, it was bad enough that I didn't trust birds.
We're already at a point where if I see a bird, my first thought is, drone.
Oh no, it's just a bird.
Wait a minute.
It might be a bird, or it might be a drone that just looks like a bird.
So for a while now, I've not trusted birds.
And the jury is still out on fish.
I feel like there's a drone fish.
So if you go swimming in the ocean, they might be watching your legs.
If you're outdoors, maybe those birds are really drones.
But now, if the only thing around is a bee, you still have to wonder, huh, I wonder if that's one of those Chinese drone bees.
And by the way, I'm not talking about a mechanical bee.
I'm talking about the actual organic bee with a little chip in its head that they can control remotely.
I don't know if that's real, but it's news.
It's fun.
Did you know that the Big Beautiful bill approved $1,000 Trump accounts, I guess that's what some people call them, for children?
So if you're a child and you're born after, I don't know, some date that's coming up, you will get $1,000 from the government.
It will be put in a S ⁇ P 500 EFT, and it will just sit there so that those children can have some money later in life.
What do you think of That?
Well, it's not a bad idea, but it is socialist, right?
Isn't the big, beautiful bill a little bit socialist?
Because the $1,000 is coming from your pocket and my pocket and going to people, somebody else.
So that's just ETF, sorry, not EFT.
Isn't that just socialism?
I'm not saying it's a bad idea.
I'm not opposed to it.
But it's pure socialism, right?
Taking money from one group and giving it to another because you think that's where it belongs.
I don't know.
We'll see.
I'm not opposed to it.
I do wonder why they don't use Bitcoin now.
What do you think would be better for a child?
$1,000 in US dollars when they're born in 2026 or so?
Or some Bitcoin of the same value?
Which one do you think would be worth more when those kids graduate or they retire?
Well, I feel like it wouldn't make sense for it to be only cash.
I feel like you'd want maybe some cash, a little bit of Bitcoin.
So Corey DeAngelis tells us that there's a new online homeschooling asset.
So something called American Virtual Academy.
Now parents from all 50 states can enroll their kids in a homeschooling resource that they can, you know, do a home.
And I don't know what classes they have, but they must have all the high school classes.
That's exciting.
And I guess, you know, there's some talk about it, dedicated to reestablishing core American values.
So it's not just an online homeschooling asset, but one that seems to be leaning conservative.
That's what I'm picking up from it.
So I always thought that homeschooling was one of the parents or a nanny or somebody had to stay home and be the teacher.
But it's not like that at all, right?
I don't know enough about this domain.
But isn't all online home shop, all online homeschooling, it's all online, right?
I mean, homeschooling is all online.
And then you've got a human who says that you do your homework and make sure that you do what you're supposed to do when you're supposed to do it.
Something like that.
Anyway, so homeschooling is taking a new step forward.
According to the sort of article in Breitbart, that according to the Labor Department, Native-born Americans account for 100% of the job gains under Trump.
100%?
I'm not sure I believe anything that's 100%.
Do you?
I'll take 98%, but that's still pretty amazing.
So could it be that Trump is just right about everything?
Right about the deportations would be good for Americans who want jobs.
Right about tariffs not increasing inflation?
Maybe.
It's entirely possible that Trump was just right about everything.
I don't know.
I'm not finding a lot to complain about.
So another thing that Trump is doing is he's sort of rebranding America as the hottest country.
Have you seen him do that?
When he talks about when he travels overseas, everybody wants to talk to him and everybody wants to talk about America and everybody has to negotiate with us because of tariffs and we're the ones who are ending the wars.
Nobody else can end the wars.
And he's right.
He said, I guess he said yesterday, the other day, six months ago, they also said, we thought your country was dead, talking about what foreigners thought about the U.S. They actually thought it was dead, and it felt dead.
But now he's saying it's the hottest country.
Now, what do you think of that?
I think it's true.
I think that Trump has made America the thing that you can't ignore and that you know you want to deal with.
And it looks like everything's going in the right direction.
And you think to yourself, ooh, I might want to hitch my wagon to that.
So I think the whole Trump is embarrassing us on the national state or the international stage, that all went away, right?
Have you heard recently any Democrats say, you know, when Trump goes to a foreign country, it's so embarrassing for the United States?
You don't hear that anymore, do you?
There are quite a few things that Democrats used to think were true that they at least act like they don't think are true now.
And that's one of them.
One of them is, what do other countries think of our president?
At the moment, they seem impressed.
And it's not an accident.
Meanwhile, Secretary Noam is, as you know, offering $1,000 in a free flight home for anybody who wants to self-deport, which is a really good idea.
Apparently, it's working well.
Tons of people are self-deporting.
But you probably do have to give them a little cash.
And it's probably way cheaper than using Border Patrol to round up a person here and a person there.
So it feels like it's good economics, and it would be relatively good for the person self-deporting because they would stay on the right side of the law and they would get a little cash and they would have the right to return if they do it legally next time.
I don't know how many people are going to return or how many we would allow in, but it would at least keep the option open a little bit.
Meanwhile, this is my favorite story today.
So Trump has announced 30% tariffs on Mexico and the EU.
I feel it's on some domain of goods, not all the goods.
And he wrote to the president of Mexico, Scheinbaum, and said, despite our strong relationship, blah, blah, blah, you're still not doing enough about fentanyl.
So he just gives them a 30% penalty.
How much do I like that?
Way.
I like that a lot.
In fact, of all the things that anybody's done about fentanyl, this is the best one.
Now, there might be other secret special forces things happening that I don't know about, but it does seem to me that a 30% tariff on your biggest trading partner is going to get their attention.
If the reason that Mexico sells fentanyl is that somebody's making a lot of money, well, Trump's going to take it back.
How much money did you make?
We're going to take it all back.
And if you'd like to fight your own cartels, go nuts.
John Billy.
Scott's credibility is going down.
Well, asshole, why don't you just say what it is you disagree with?
The worst commenters are the ones who just make a comment about my character.
Well, you used to be right a few times, but now there's something wrong with your brain.
So drop dead.
That's what I say to you.
Meanwhile, the European Union is also going to get their own 30% tariff because I think Trump's complaint there is the difference in how much we're selling them versus what they're selling us, the trade deficit.
So here's the part I want to check with you.
Jimmy Doerr had a big comment about me yesterday.
I'm sure it was very positive, Jimmy Bohr.
Is it my imagination or has Trump made the entire world get used to the idea that he can use tariffs like a club and that they might change overnight and that America is no longer screwing around anymore and you can do anything you want, but you're going to have to pay if you want access to our markets?
I believe Trump took what was the most universally disliked idea in the entire globe and has sold it so effectively and made us get used to it.
In only, what, six months, we got used to it.
And now a story like this, where Trump is increasing the tariff by 30% on Mexico and the EU, is just sort of a small story in the economic news.
How did he do that?
Are the critics just giving up and saying, all right, inflation didn't go up.
All right, it didn't cause a trade war per se.
I guess you can do this.
I feel like the critics just gave up in that Trump and a few of his advisors were the only people in the world who said, no, trust us.
This is going to work out great.
And now it is.
You know, I don't know if you remember my take on tariffs.
My take on tariffs was very much like Dana Perino's on the five, which is, I don't know.
You know, it's not obvious to me that it was a bad idea to do all the tariff negotiating that Trump did.
But it wasn't also obvious to me, it wasn't obvious to me that it was a good idea or a bad idea.
I just looked at it and said, well, it's different.
It's new.
I suppose if you tried it and it didn't work, you could back off.
So I always look for that.
But I'll be darned.
It looks like, at least at the moment, things could change instantly.
But at the moment, I got to say Trump was right and almost everybody else in the world was wrong.
And my only defense for myself is I didn't commit.
I was open-minded.
Well, maybe, but here it is.
Well, Bernie Sanders is now a closed border advocate.
I suppose he always was, but he's saying it more directly now.
So he said recently, you don't have a country without borders.
Who says that like?
And it's exactly Trump, right?
You don't have a country without borders.
If you have borders, you should enforce that border.
Okay, sounds like Republican.
Democrats have not done as good a job as they should.
Period.
End of discussion.
All right.
Now, I do appreciate when Bernie tells it like it is.
You know, that's useful.
But is it my imagination again, or have Democrats one by one given up on everything the Democrats believed?
Have they just surrendered?
For example, now it's common for Democrats to say, yeah, we totally got the border security thing wrong, right?
That pretty much, you know, a lot of prominent people who are Democrats are saying, yeah, okay, okay, we got that wrong.
And Trump got that right.
Now, if that were the only topic where that was happening, I'd say, oh, Trump got that one thing right.
But what about trans athletes?
Have you noticed that even Gavin Newsom came out saying, yeah, it's unfair to have biological men competing in women?
Am I wrong that not all Democrats, of course, but Democrats have sort of collapsed on the trans athlete story, right?
Which was a big deal for Democrats, but it looks like they've, at least some of them and prominent ones, are reversing on that.
What about the Biden's brain hoax, where for years we were told Biden's brain is perfectly good.
Well, now the Democrats, pretty much all of them, are willing to agree, yeah, yeah, that wasn't good.
And Biden really wasn't completely up to the job.
And yeah, maybe we did cover it up.
So that's another complete reversal on what the most important thing that happened recently.
How about pronouns and wokeness in general?
Kind of went away, didn't it?
Do you think it went away because they still feel just as strongly that we should have it, but they're just going dormant?
I don't think so.
I think Democrats also realized that the pronoun thing was ridiculous and went too far.
And so they're sort of reversing on it.
What about paying benefits to undocumented migrants?
Well, there are still politicians and Democrats who believe that we should be rewarding people who came in the country illegally with cash and whatnot.
I guess LA Mayor Bass is doing that right now, trying to get cash to undocumented people.
But I would say that Democrats have started to reverse on that, like Mayor Adams in New York.
And I feel like they're backing off on that one.
What about nuclear power?
Do you remember when nuclear power was absolutely something that Democrats would be against?
And now they're closer to all in, let's build it as fast as possible.
Complete reversal.
What about the emphasis on climate change as the number one existential threat in the country?
Completely reversed.
Now, there are still plenty of Democrats who think that there's a risk involved, but they don't think that you better do something right away and there's only one thing you can do.
And there's only one way to play it.
So if you think about it, open borders, Biden's brain, trans athletes' awokeness, nuclear power, climate change, these are really the most important things.
And they've just completely given up and gone full Trump without actually saying that they've done that.
All right.
According to John Solomon, the Department of Justice and the FBI are secretly building a massive conspiracy case against the deep state, specifically about the Russia collusion hoax that was, I think it was a Brennan and Clapper invention.
Kobe was part of it.
So there might be a massive conspiracy case.
But what I don't know is, is that a crime?
Is conspiracy a crime per se?
So what is the crime?
What is the Department of Justice and the FBI looking at?
Suppose they determine, and probably it's not hard to do it, that the FBI and the DOJ were working with the Clinton campaign and were knowingly trying to tilt the election toward the Democrat candidate.
Is that technically a crime?
I know we don't want it to happen, but what crime is it?
So I'm still waiting for that.
I'm assuming there are crimes.
I think the answer is yes, but I don't know what crime that would be.
If it's only RICO, RICO is a tough one to get a conviction on.
I hope it's more than RICO, because that would be a tough case.
Anyway, I was wondering, do Democrats generally acknowledge that the Russia collusion hoax was a hoax?
Have you noticed what all Democrats do when you challenge them on, well, you know, the whole Russia collusion thing was a hoax, right?
What do they always do?
And it doesn't matter if they're famous people or just voters.
If you challenge a Democrat on the fact that the Russia collusion hoax was a massive organized hoax to overthrow the results of the election, what do all Democrats say when you say that?
Oh, no.
It was proven that Russia tried to influence the election, which is not the same topic, is it?
And then they try to get you to not know, or they hope you don't know, that the so-called Russia influence on the election was a handful of memes and a budget of $100,000, which didn't make any difference to anybody.
Nobody saw the memes, and they were so poorly done that they wouldn't have changed any votes.
And by the way, some of them were pro-Hillary and some of them were pro-Trump.
So how much influence does that have?
None.
But what about the Russia hacking of Hillary's email and whoever got into Podesta's email?
What about that?
Is that the Russians trying to influence the election?
Well, I'll just give you my take.
I don't believe anything our government says about catching Russian hackers.
They believe that it was Russian hackers.
They're pretty sure it's Russian hackers.
But I don't believe my government, not even a little bit.
So were there Russian hackers?
They say so.
Do you know what it would take to convince me?
A lot more than has happened.
But anyway, it's a different topic.
The topic of whether or not the government colluded to create a giant hoax that would change the nature of our government, that part is just a fact.
The part about whether Russia influenced the election, I doubt it, but it's a different topic.
Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, the front lines in the Ukraine-Russia war are kind of static because of the economics of drones.
So when the war started, and I told you this was going to be the first drone war, do you remember I told you that from the start?
And I alone, although I was totally wrong about whether Putin would actually invade, I just thought he'd be crazy to invade because I didn't think it would work.
And I thought that the modern weaponry, especially drones, would give Ukraine a better defensive position than the public understood.
And that's what happened.
Now, it wasn't just drones.
It was probably other smart flying objects like missiles.
But I believe I alone in the entire world, with no military expertise whatsoever, said, if America gives them good weapons, the Russians are going to be ready for a big surprise.
And that's what happened.
So instead of conquering Ukraine in two weeks, which the military experts said would happen, they got a bunch, about 20% of the country, something like that.
But then it got bogged down.
And at this point, guess how many drones, just the first-person suicide drones, the ones where the operator sees through the eyes of the drones and just flies it into a tank or a person.
There are 4.5 million of them that Ukraine has.
4.5 million drones that they have focused mostly on the front line.
They are now so cheap and so plentiful and so effective that instead of saving a drone for a high-value target, like a barracks or a tank, they now use a suicide drone for even one soldier.
If they see one soldier come out of a bunker or something, they can chase that one soldier with their drone and then kill him.
And they do.
So imagine being on the front line where there's always something in the air watching for movement, and just even one person is going to get their own death drone on top of them.
That's where the war is at.
It's kind of a bit of a stalemate.
And then Russia introduced the fiber optic drones.
They're the ones with, and I still can't believe this works.
They have a fiber optic, very thin cable that goes to the drone, and the drone can go for miles connected with a physical cable.
I don't know how that possibly works.
But with a physical cable, it can't be jammed.
And those guys are dangerous.
So that's happening.
But I wonder how small the pool of drone operators will get before AI takes over.
You've got 4.5 million suicide drones, but how many drone operators are there in Ukraine?
Let's say it's a big number.
Let's say it's, I don't know, 20,000.
Would that be a lot?
Or is that way too many?
So if you've got 20,000 trained drone operators, and you've got this really long front line that's a lot of miles, and you're running out of humans, what would be the obvious way that would go?
You already know, AI.
The obvious way that's going to go is they're going to make drones that are not controlled by humans, and they're just going to say, here's the deal.
If it's in this part of the world, you can kill anything that looks like a human.
Maybe the AI would be smart enough to know a Ukrainian soldier from a Russian one.
Maybe.
Maybe they would only know it from where they are.
Maybe in the short run, maybe a human would say yes or no to each of the kill opportunities.
But doesn't it have to become autonomous drones?
It has to, right?
Because you're going to Run out of people, and you'll have lots of drones.
And it won't be that hard to make them all AI compliant so that even if they get jammed, the only thing getting jammed is the signal from the GPS and from the operator.
And it doesn't need it, it just goes and makes its own kill decisions.
So that's my next prediction.
Prediction one was the Russians won't be as successful as everybody says because drones are way better than you think.
The next one is we're going to get rid of the human element and just basically darken the sky with drones that are AI.
And then things are going to get dangerous.
But we'll see if that happens before Russia figures out some way to thwart that.
Speaking of drones, over in Iran, there's a crowdfunding effort, according to the New York Post.
Victor Nava is writing about this, that has raised $40 million, allegedly, for a bounty on President Trump's head.
So there's now crowdsourcing, $40 million.
Now, would that allow the government of Iran to claim they weren't involved?
And are they involved?
Or can they say, no, the government of Iran would never try to assassinate Trump.
But, you know, these individuals, well, it's sort of a free country, not really.
And they want to do it privately.
And, well, you know, that's up to them.
What happens, and this is definitely going to happen, what happens when you can do a fundraising effort, a crowdfunding effort to get somebody to use a drone to assassinate somebody and to do it without any way to determine who crowdsourced it or who owned the drone.
You know, that's coming, right?
Because if you had a drone that had AI and you could program it and you could put it in, let's say, somebody's face, and then you knew where they were going to be.
Could you be an assassin who makes your drone available?
You know, it wouldn't be just one drone because it would be self-destructing.
But if you had a little fleet of self-destructing AI drones and you were connected to a foreign, let's say, dark web crowdfunding source, how far away from the place where you could simply raise money to have somebody assassinated with a drone and neither the drone operator nor you could be detected in any way?
Are we close to that?
We are.
We're very close to that.
Will that happen?
I don't know how you can stop it.
Yeah, it'll happen.
All right.
I know the one thing you want to talk about more than anything, more than anything, is Epstein.
Are you ready?
So I said yesterday that we should take a tip from President Trump, who is telling us, wink, wink, it's time to move on from Epstein.
Wink, wink, wink.
There's nothing there.
Trust us.
Wink, wink, wink.
Now, if you don't see the wink, then everything looks different.
It looks like, I don't know, incompetence or covering something up or whatever.
But if you can tell that Trump knows that there's more to this story, he just doesn't want you to be dealing with it.
And he wants us to move on as a country.
What kind of frame do you put on that when you analyze that situation?
Well, I'm going to bring this all together for the first time.
I know there's a lot of disagreement on this topic, but watch how I persuade 98% of you who disagree with me over to my side.
Are you ready?
I know you think I can't do it.
So my side is that we should let it go.
And we should let it go because Trump says to let it go.
Now, many of you would say, Scott, no, this is a gigantic crime, thousands of victims, underage children.
Justice has not been served.
And there is no reason that we can't have all the information about this.
And if Trump won't give it to us, we will stop supporting him.
Right?
Does that capture your opinion?
That it's so bad and it's such a stain, and we can't move past it when our own government is lying to us.
So we just have to know everything about it, and then we'll make up our own minds.
But the only way you'll get justice, the only way, is if there's full disclosure and we all want justice, especially because the victims were children at the time.
Right?
Did I get your point of view?
All right.
Here's why and here's how I'm going to convert you to my point of view.
If the frame you're putting on the Sephardine situation is the criminal frame, which makes perfect sense because it's a whole bunch of crimes.
You would have thousands of sex crimes.
You might have some blackmailing.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
You might have some spy stuff.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
You might have some money laundering or how in the world did Epstein even make his money in the first place?
So wouldn't You agree that the best way to look at this Epstein thing is a whole bunch of crimes?
And would you further agree that when we have other crimes, whether it's Diddy or OJ or anybody else, that the information is all made public?
Not only do we learn about who is guilty, but in the criminal justice system, we also learn who's not guilty before we know they're not guilty.
In other words, the criminal justice system brings in all the names of people who really maybe didn't do anything, but they were somehow associated with the story.
So would you agree that if the normal court system and the way we deal with crime is that we want full disclosure and we want the public to, you know, except for very special cases, we want the public to know everybody who's accused.
We want to know who the accusers are, who the victims are.
We want to know the names of the lawyers, the judge.
We want to know it all.
And that that's a reasonable standard for justice.
Would you agree?
That if Epstein is a criminal situation and the way we handle criminal situations is we want maximum disclosure, it's worked before.
There's no reason this would be different.
Would you agree?
That's a perfectly reasonable take, and that's what most of you have settled on.
And now I'm going to flip you to my point of view.
That's the wrong frame.
It is a criminal situation, and everything you think about it fits that criminal situation frame.
But here's the frame I put on it.
It's a commander-in-chief decision.
Commander-in-Chief.
If it were a national security problem, and we certainly have reason to believe that other countries might be involved, you know, Israel comes up a lot.
Sometimes I hear Saudi Arabia because Epstein worked with Khashoggi at one point.
Sometimes I hear UK.
Sometimes I hear, well, the US and the CIA.
So what if Trump's take as commander-in-chief is that he doesn't want to derail something important by continuing to hammer on this?
And suppose he knows, he knows that justice will not be served.
But as commander-in-chief, that's his job.
Commander-in-Chief, let me give you an example to pull together.
When Trump said he's going to wait two weeks to make a decision on bombing Iran, but then he bombed them in a few days instead, and it was a big surprise.
I don't know about you, but I wish I had known that in advance.
But the reason he didn't tell me, and he didn't tell you, is that it was a national interest to not tell us.
So was that full disclosure?
No, it wasn't.
In the context of national interest and in the context of commander-in-chief, not telling the country all the secrets is not just allowed.
We demand it.
We demand that they not tell us all the proprietary secrets.
Because if he told us all the secrets, he'd be telling the bad guys at the same time.
Oh, I just want to tell you, Americans, because full disclosure, we're going to be bombing on Tuesday.
And then Iran would say, you're bombing us on Tuesday.
So in general, the commander-in-chief is selected to make decisions on our behalf that are all impossible moral decisions, such as, do we drop a bomb on this apartment building and knowing it will kill a whole bunch of civilians, but it might get bin Laden or somebody else?
All of the Commander-in-Chief decisions involve some element of innocent people getting killed or maybe killed in order to achieve something bigger.
So the proper frame on this, I believe, is one of national interest.
And I believe the Commander-in-Chief is telling us, and by the way, this hasn't happened before that I can think of.
Are there other situations where Trump has said, everybody, wink, wink, let's move on, let's get off this topic, let's leave it alone?
Is there any other topic he's ever done that with?
And why wouldn't he?
Why wouldn't he do it with other topics?
Well, they might not be commander-in-chief topics.
And what he can tell you is all the things he can't tell you.
So people said to me, but Scott, we have a right to know and we should be part of the decision.
To which I say, what?
You don't live in a democracy.
If you lived in a democracy, I would say, yeah, we all need to get to vote on everything, even national defense.
But our founders did not build us a democracy because they knew it wouldn't work.
They built us a democratic republic, which means that when you vote for Trump, you know you're voting for a commander-in-chief whose most important job is to make decisions with more knowledge about the situation than you and I have.
That's why we hired him.
We didn't hire him to ask for our permission.
We didn't hire him to tell us everything he knows about national secrets.
We didn't do that.
We hired him to keep secret the things that would protect the country and ideally to tell us things that wouldn't hurt the country.
And they have vital interests.
So, when you say Epstein is a criminal situation and therefore we should have full disclosure, that makes complete sense if that's all it is.
But in my opinion, given the near guarantee that it affects other countries as well, almost certainly this has some big national interest connection that you and I don't know about.
Don't know for sure, but that would be true of every commander-in-chief decision.
If the commander-in-chief decides to not tell us something in the future, maybe it's because he's protecting his own ass.
But we don't get to ask that.
We have a system that says we're going to trust this guy or this woman to make that decision for us, knowing that that person will know more than we do about this forever.
We'll never know everything they know about it.
So, now I've almost got you there.
Some of you are saying, you know, damn the torpedoes.
I know there would be some blowback.
I know it would be costly, but I cannot live knowing that all these young people have been victimized.
Here's the next thing you need to know.
Where are those victims?
Are you telling me that none of those thousands of young women are naming a name?
None of them?
Now, I understand a number of them have some kind of civil lawsuits.
Maybe that's the reason that names are not being named.
They want to keep that separate, but I don't think so.
If there were really thousands of people victimized, thousands of young women specifically, you don't think you'd have at least a handful of them saying, all right, here's the deal.
When I was 15, I didn't recognize this public figure, but bad things happened.
However, now that I'm 25, I totally recognize this billionaire.
And this is the one that I had that experience with, that criminal experience.
Where are they?
Doesn't that make you wonder?
Yeah, what exactly is going on that a thousand victims are now talking?
And the one that did, Virginia Joffrey, was debunked and was considered unreliable.
And her charges against Dershowitz specifically were dropped for not being credible.
I think she withdrew them, actually.
And then she died.
So where are all the people who are the victims?
So that's the first mystery here.
Now, I'm going to make it a little bit more concrete for you.
Ready?
All right, here's a morality slash system question.
It's like a little quiz for all of you.
If the commander-in-chief decided to keep secret a massive criminal enterprise, and you were pretty sure that that's what they were doing, would it be okay with you if somehow you magically knew it was the only way to prevent a nuclear World War III?
How many of you would say, all right, all right, Scott?
In general, I would want full disclosure, but if you're telling me hypothetically, and it's just hypothetical, that it's the only way to prevent a nuclear Holocaust, okay, under that rare condition, I'll agree with you, the Commander-in-Chief should probably just shut up, right?
So everybody agreed with me on that, that if Trump knew he was avoiding a nuclear Holocaust, that you'd be okay with him lying to you forever.
Right?
Now let's take it down a notch.
Suppose that you knew, and I'm not asserting this to be true.
These are just hypotheticals so you can gauge where you stand on this.
Suppose you knew that if the Epstein thing dropped right now, it would derail a peace plan and it would cause maybe dozens of people to be injured or killed every day for an unlimited amount of time in the future.
I mean, that's nowhere near a nuclear holocaust, but you knew, you knew dozens of people would be shot, killed, maimed every day.
And the only way you can prevent that from happening is to shut up about the Epstein stuff as much as you hate it.
Would you be okay with that?
Or would you say, well, I'd have to know where this war is, because maybe I care more about knowing the truth than I care about two dozen people being shot and maimed every single day forever because we couldn't stop this war.
Are you really saying that you would let those people die if your commander-in-chief, the person you voted for, the person you trusted to make these decisions for you, decided that we'd be better off if we just don't tell you?
Because nothing would change, right?
Suppose you knew that if you knew the whole truth, nobody would go to jail.
Nothing would change.
It would just destroy a peace deal.
Well, personally, I would say that's what I hired my commander-in-chief to do.
I did not hire my commander-in-chief to share with me all the secrets.
I hired my commander-in-chief through the election to make the decision which of these two potentially bad situations, they're both bad, but you hired somebody to pick among the bads.
And if somebody said, all right, these victims are not coming forward for reasons we don't know, but they could.
And I've got 24 people a day who are going to die in this war zone.
And I've decided I'm just not going to kill 24 people a day.
So I'm just going to let this horrible, horrible series of crimes go unresolved because the person who is the worst person is already dead.
There certainly might be other perpetrators.
So, all right, let's take it down a notch.
Suppose you said, all right, I wouldn't want 24 people to die every day just because I want to know what happened.
Suppose it was, you don't know for sure that it would derail a peace deal, but there's a real good chance it might.
How about that?
Well, then you would take the percentage chance that it might derail it.
You would multiply that times the number of people you think are going to die every day, and that would give you an expected value.
So if you said 24 people a day are going to die in the war zone, if I go public with everything.
But there's a 50% chance that everything would work out anyway.
Well, you multiply 50% times the 24 people dying, and you would say to yourself, if you were making a rational decision, well, it's the equivalent of, would I allow 12 people to be murdered in a war zone every day just so the truth got out?
So anyway, you can see where that's going, right?
The point is, if it's a national interest, and I believe that Trump is signaling to us that it is, he can't say it, because then we would be trying to second guess it too much.
But it's the only topic where he seems dead set on getting past it.
Now, if you believe the reason he wants to do that is that he's protecting himself, I would say the odds are against that.
Because if it were anything bad about Trump, don't you know that that would have come out?
I mean, Biden had the whole file, and there's no way that wouldn't have come out.
So he's not protecting himself.
But now I'm going to give you a real dicey one.
You ready for this?
What if the full disclosure would cause the Republicans to lose the majority, and maybe for a long time?
What about that?
Suppose I said to you, I can give, you know, Trump could give you all the Epstein stuff, but there's something about it that will cause 10 Republicans to not get elected again.
And they'll be replaced by Democrats.
And then everything that Trump has done will be reversed.
The border will be reopened.
The deficit will spiral.
Our money will be going back to Ukraine.
What about that?
Would you prefer that Trump, the commander-in-chief, told you everything about Epstein that can be known if you knew that almost certainly it would remove every good thing that Trump has done?
All of it.
And it would stay that way, I don't know, maybe for decades.
If you knew that, would you be okay with him saying, you know what?
I'm going to make the commander-in-chief decision that we can't handle that hit.
We can't handle going back to open borders.
We can't handle runaway debt, although Republicans need to do a lot better on that as well.
How about that?
All right.
Now let me tell you some of the arguments I saw on the other side.
I saw Chris Townsend, who's a user on X, who says the ends don't justify the means.
How many of you were thinking that?
Scott, I know what you're saying.
You could prevent a war, or you could prevent a nuclear war, or you could prevent the Democrats from reversing all the gains that Trump made.
I get that.
But the ends don't justify the means.
Does anybody believe that that's a good lesson?
The ends don't justify the means?
Well, let me fix that for you.
The ends do justify the means.
That's what national defense is.
We're being mean to people who would like to enter our country illegally.
We're being very mean to them.
We're making it very rough on them.
Do the means justify the ends?
Yeah, yeah.
We get involved in wars and bombing stuff when we know, we know innocent civilians will die because of our actions.
Are the ends justifying the means in that case?
Yes.
The commander-in-chief in that hypothetical situation looked at the downside, looked at the upside, looked at the risk analysis, and said, yeah, the ends justify the means.
It is childlike thinking to believe that you could or should live in a world where the ends don't justify the means.
The ends always justify the means.
Well, maybe not all the time.
You can find some situations where it doesn't hold.
But for national defense, yeah, the ends justify the means.
That's the way it has to be.
All right.
So that's one argument.
Then I saw Amber Champagne on X say that if you wouldn't give up political allegiance to weed out disgusting criminals who prey on children, then you're in a cult.
Well, there's a lot wrong with that opinion.
Number one, Have we disproven that Trump is a cult?
Yes.
This situation should debunk forever that people will mindlessly follow Trump because they're very much not.
They're very much not following him on this.
There is a genuine divide for good reasons.
Like I said, if your frame on this is the criminal enterprise part, full disclosure.
And you would not be a dumb person or an uninformed person if you had that point of view.
You would just be in a different frame than I am.
I'm in the commander-in-chief frame.
From that frame, everything looks different.
So I think we've disproven the cult part because when it came to something that we genuinely disagreed on, people broke.
They broke with him hard.
And they're even saying stuff like, well, maybe Republicans should not be in charge.
So that's about as non-cult as you can get.
If you can have a topic like this hit and the base just goes, boom, two different directions.
No, that's not a cult.
That's a bunch of people who are looking at the situation and making decisions.
How about Amber's comment, if you wouldn't give up political allegiance to weed-out disgusting animals?
There's no political allegiance.
The reason that I'm saying that we should trust Trump as commander-in-chief is because he's the commander-in-chief.
It's not because he's Trump.
Now, do I have a little bit more trust in Trump than maybe some other people?
Yeah, in many domains, I do.
But that's not why.
I'm not agreeing with Trump because of my allegiance.
I'm agreeing with him because he's the commander-in-chief, and we have a system where we hire people to make decisions with extra knowledge that we don't have on our behalf.
It's simply his job.
All I'm doing is reinforcing the fact that that's his actual job description.
He gets to make the decision.
He doesn't have to tell us why.
And when he says it's time to move on, wink, wink, wink, I feel it's time to move on.
And could I later say, oh man, I was so wrong about that based on what we learned?
Yes.
Yes.
It is totally possible that moving on is the wrong decision.
But where I'm going to make my claim is that we hired him to make this decision for us.
You got to let him make the decision for us.
That's our system.
And you wouldn't want it otherwise.
You would not want to say, oh, you can't bomb Iran's nuclear facilities on Tuesday because the whole public needs to know everything about that first.
And we all need to weigh in and we all have to be on the cult.
You don't want that.
No, you want to hire the person you trust to make those decisions for you.
And then you want to get out of the way.
That's what you want.
All right.
Did I change anybody's mind?
I know you want, and so do I. You want to know the truth about the Epstein situation.
You want it.
You also think that the victims would be better served by it.
Maybe.
Maybe they wouldn't be.
Maybe they wouldn't be.
What if, and I'll just toss this out as another thought piece.
What if the reason that Trump wants to keep it secret is the victims themselves?
What if the victims themselves said, we went through hell, but if you bring this out and you put my abuser on trial, where you make it the headline story for years, and then everybody knows exactly what person was my abuser, you're not helping me.
That would make my life unbearable because everybody would see me that way.
And then I'd have to be involved in the trial.
My life would be on hold.
I would basically just get victimized again.
So as horrible as my experience was, Mr. President, I beg of you, let it go.
Because I've had 10 years of therapy.
I feel like I can move on.
But not if I see that face of my abuser on the news every day, because it would be on the news every day.
I prefer that we just let it go.
What if it's that?
Now, I don't think it is necessarily that, but it could be.
Anyway, and then David Marcus asked, what's the limiting principle here?
Are we just blindly trusting Trump?
Well, that's a good point.
Do you blindly trust your Commander-in-Chief on other topics?
And the answer is no, not really.
You don't blindly trust them.
What you do is you say, are there other people in the room?
Because it's the other people in the room that is why you can trust the Commander-in-Chief.
Because the Commander-in-Chief almost can't do anything without other professionals knowing exactly what happened.
You know, it's a small group, but the Commander-in-Chief can't really operate completely independently.
So if you're the Commander-in-Chief, you have the control of everybody else who knows what you know.
And the fact that they could talk to the press, they could ruin your reputation and history, they could have you jailed if you did something illegal.
So it's the other people in the room that allowed me to trust Trump.
Now, in this situation, we saw that Cash Patel and Dan Bongino and Bondi all seem to have agreed with Trump that there's nothing here.
Now, they don't say move on.
He's the one who says move on.
But it looks to me like they were co-opted into that position and that they're not comfortable with it at all.
But here's what I trust about Dan Bongino and probably Cash Patel and probably Bonte.
I don't know her as well.
I don't know any of them personally.
I don't believe that they would let a horrible injustice happen just to be loyal to Trump.
Do you?
Now, I agree that if they became disloyal to Trump, it would be quite disruptive to them career-wise and reputationally and everything else.
But these are really strong personalities.
And I do have some trust that if you put them all in the same room, and they probably all have the same information at this point, if none of them are going to break ranks, and we don't know if they will yet, still waiting to see what Diamond Gino does, but if none of them break ranks, it means they know what Trump knows and they're willing to move on.
And we know that they were quite dead set on getting that information out.
So there's probably something they know by now that you and I don't know.
And it's probably something that Trump knows, and they may be uncomfortable with it, but they may be just respecting that it's the commander-in-chief who gets to decide.
So that's what I say.
Well, the ADL is having a bad month, trying to preserve the living situation of Jewish Americans, and they're also very pro-Israel.
And so their job, the ADL, that's the Anti-Defamation League, is to go after things that are bad or dangerous for Jewish Americans or for Israel.
And the ADL did a poll of 1,000 Americans and found out that 24% of them consider recent attacks on Jewish individuals in the U.S., quote, understandable.
What?
What?
Remember I always tell you that about 25% of the people who respond to any poll have the wrong answer?
Well, case in point.
How would you say that's understandable?
Are you serious?
Some Jewish student is just trying to go to class at Columbia, and you think that if they get attacked, that's understandable?
Really?
No, that's not understandable.
But if you're the ADL and your mission is to make sure that that 24% shrinks, you're having a bad month, because probably that's about as big as that number has ever been.
And we hope it doesn't get bigger.
What about the fact that the whole Gaza situation has ruined, some would say, the brand and reputation of Israel?
So that's a bad time to meet the ADL because they have to deal with that.
And it's not something they're doing.
They're just having to react to it.
What about the fact that the Epstein files seem to be implicating Mossad and Israel?
Well, that's not a good look.
So you're the ADL.
You've got the Gaza situation.
You've got the Epstein situation that might not even have anything to do with Israel.
But if the public thinks it does, they have to deal with that.
And then the National Teachers Union, you heard this probably, has decided to cut all ties with the ADL and not use their teaching materials or not promote their teaching materials that the ADL makes available.
And that all just happened in the last several months.
You know, Gaza took longer, but it gets worse as time goes on.
So, yeah, ADL has a tough job this month.
But would you like me to tell you Israel's best persuasion trick?
And it really is the best one maybe I've ever seen?
I don't know.
That would be a big claim, right?
But I'm going to make that claim that this is the strongest, most effective, smartest persuasion I've probably ever seen.
It goes like this.
Are you aware that Israel routinely offers to fly influencers and politicians to Israel for a nice visit to a place that's historically fascinating?
And it's an all-expense paid trip.
How often do they do it?
Well, I asked Grock, and of course it's impossible to know for sure.
But it says that in the 2022 to 2023 academic year, that one organization funded and sent 443 student government members on trips to Israel.
443 student government.
Now, student government students are going to be the ones who are going to be the leaders in the real world if they're in student government.
And there were 100 partnered campuses.
But on top of that, there was something called the Maccabee Task Force that has allegedly, again, this is from Grok, so Grok might be hallucinating, but I don't know, allegedly brought 150 celebrities and influencers on fully subsidized trips to Israel and encouraged them to share pro-Israel content.
All right.
And even the ADL itself, separately, has sponsored trips to Israel for U.S. law enforcement officers and that we yeah, I guess law enforcement officers.
And that this has been going on for quite a while, since the 90s.
Now, that is the best persuasion I've ever seen.
Imagine, you know, I've told you about the documentary effect, right?
If you watch a documentary that has one point of view and you watch an hour of that documentary, you will almost certainly be convinced that that one point of view is the valid one because you had an hour of content in one side and nothing on the other side.
So it's very persuasive.
But is it true?
Is that documentary really the, you know, telling you everything you need?
Well, no way to know, but it would definitely be persuasive if you didn't see the other side of the argument.
Now imagine the Turbo Extra special version of that, where somebody spends tens of thousands of dollars to send you on a luxury, fascinating trip to someplace, if you're a traveler by nature, was probably pretty high on your list.
Can you imagine the documentary effect of being actually sent in person, physically for, I don't know, a week or whatever, to an exciting place and being treated like a celebrity and having great accommodations and maybe some tours to the wall.
And the entire time, for a week, you only hear one side of the story because that's why they do it.
They do it so you'll hear their version of the story, so that it humanizes Israel.
So you feel a physical connection to it because you've spent time there, you've met people there.
And then if some bombs start heading toward Israel, you're going to say, oh my God, I know people there.
And the bombs and the missiles are in their city.
That would completely change your emotional connection to Israel.
And so let me say that again.
That is the smartest, best persuasion technique I've ever seen.
I don't think I could come up with any example of anything more effective or smarter than that.
It's really, really smart.
So ask yourself how many influencers have had a nice trip to Israel.
Let's see.
Mark Andreessen was talking at some group and he said something that you've heard before, but what's special is that you can say it out loud now and you won't get canceled.
And he said, if you're the parents of a smart kid where I grew up, which would be rural Wisconsin, and you think you're going to get them into a top university in this country, you're fooling yourself.
He says, what level of untapped talent exists in this country that a combination of DEI and immigration have basically cut out of the loop for the last 50 years?
So Andreessen is telling you basically that if you're an American, especially if you're white, you didn't say that last part, your odds of getting into a top college, even if you have all the qualifications, are not just low, they're vanishingly small.
Just think about that.
You have a brilliant kid who's got like a 4.5 GPA involved in everything.
No real chance of getting into Harvard.
None.
Because they're white and they were born in this country and they would not pay as much as a foreign student would.
So that's a huge problem.
But when I started talking about how I lost my two career opportunities when I was in the corporate world, because I was white and male, and my bosses told me that directly.
You're white and male.
We were told we can't promote you.
Literally directly.
Now, that was something I couldn't say out loud for probably 25 years.
Because if I did, it would just get worse for me.
Then I would never be able to work anywhere.
If I had complained about that publicly, maybe not 25 years, maybe 20 years, for about 20 years, I just had to suck it up and say, I can't talk about this.
It completely controlled my life.
Couldn't talk about it.
But now I can.
And now Mark Andreessen can.
I'll also tell you, without giving you the name of the person, that there's a very prominent person, somebody that you would know and recognize, who did once tell me privately that all of their successful white friends are having the same problem with their children.
Once they reach college age, they can't get them into a good college.
And that's the first time they realized what's really happening.
And a lot of them are Democrats, and they're realizing that their white children can't get into the college that they were in.
They just can't get in because they're the wrong color or wrong gender, I suppose.
So I like to think that I was part of making it possible to have that conversation.
So I'm actually kind of proud of that.
It took me getting canceled and having a whole different career, but there you are.
Now, during 2021, right after the BLM stuff, there's a stat that says the S ⁇ P 100, the top 100 companies in the U.S., of all their hiring that they did in 2021, 94% of it was people of color and 6% was white people.
How many of you do that?
Some of you do that.
So that's how bad it is.
So my question is, when do I get reparations?
You want to do a little reparations math?
So I went to Grok and I said, what is the range of potential reparations per person that is being discussed around the country?
And according to Grok, when the conversation of reparations comes up, it could be all over the place, but typically they're talking about $100,000 to $500,000 per person who was a descendant of slavery.
All right, so let's take a midpoint.
Let's say $300,000.
So let's say reparations would give $300,000 to every black descendant of slavery.
Now let's compare that to what happened to my career over the 40 years.
Let's take 30 years.
The 30 years of my career.
Do you believe that my income was depressed by at least $10,000 per year for those 30 years?
Totally.
Totally.
Yeah, because I was literally turned down for promotions.
And those promotions were all worth probably $20,000 a year in extra pay.
So maybe after taxes, you keep 10.
So the fact that affirmative action and the precursors of DEI have been around since the 80s, I would estimate that I've lost at least $300,000 just for being a white guy, born in the wrong time.
So do I owe somebody another $300,000?
Yeah, as a taxpayer, or have I already paid it?
To me, it seems like I have as strong a case as the descendants of slavery.
Now, obviously, not getting the promotion is different than being a slave.
I get it.
You know, don't say the obvious thing and be an NPC.
I'm just saying, if you're going to count the dollar amount that you were discriminated out of, mine is roughly the same as a descendant of slavery.
And there's a very direct connection.
I could get, you know, I could find actual people who said, oh, yeah, I was his boss, and I told him he couldn't be promoted because he's a white man.
So there's something you couldn't say 20 years ago.
Yeah.
I would say that if I had normal career opportunities when I was in the corporate world, I probably would have been a CEO of something.
You know, not maybe the biggest company in the world, but I had all the background.
I had an MBA from a top school.
I think I could have made an extra $10,000 a year.
Pretty sure.
Anyway, France has decided, according to Breitbart News, that all Palestinians in Gaza are eligible for asylum in France.
So a court has ruled that if you were a Gaza resident, you don't need to do much to prove that asylum makes sense for you.
And so it would just be sort of automatic.
So problem solved, right?
The residents of Gaza, their city is destroyed.
And the big question is, what do you do with the residents of a destroyed city?
Well, you can't move them back in because it would be, first of all, too dangerous.
But that's, you know, and Israel doesn't want to recreate the situation.
But now they have a new solution.
They can ship every one of them to France.
And France being the welcoming country that it is, I'm sure would make sure that they were fed and housed and taken care of.
So I don't know if the Gazans want to do that, but wouldn't it be a nice option that you could just go to France and start a new life?
It's not the worst thing in the world.
All right, I'm not totally serious, so don't assume I am.
Well, George Soros allegedly has sent $37 million through various charity groups that ended up supporting lefty groups backing Zoran Mamdani in New York, according to the New York Post.
Rich Calder is writing about that.
At the same time that George Soros the billionaire is supporting groups that are supporting Zoron, Zoron is saying that there should be no billionaires.
So Soros is funding somebody who wants to get rid of Soros.
To which I say, huh?
I wonder if this problem solves itself?
Hmm.
It looks to me like Soros will fund Zoran.
Zoran will get rid of Soros.
And then Soros will say, you can't get rid of me and you'll get rid of Zoran.
I don't know, maybe they'll get rid of each other.
It's so ridiculous that there's a billionaire funding groups that are funding the guy who wants to get rid of billionaires.
All right, that's all I had for today.
If you're a subscriber on X with Owen Gregorian, he's going to do a special spaces after we're done here.
But only for people who follow him on X. The rest of you will not be able to get in.
All right.
I'm going to say a few words to the people on my beloved locals, the subscribers.
And the rest of you, thanks for joining.
Thanks for changing all your minds.
And I will see you tomorrow, same time, same place.
