God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Charlie Kirk, Van Jones, Governor Pritzker, Elizabeth Warren, Matthew Dowd, Republicans Hunted, President Obama, Stephen Miller, Terry Wilson BLM, TMZ Cheer, Hypnotized democrat Celebrations, Mike Cernovich, Reid Hoffman, Risk Tolerance, democrat Leadership, Elon Musk, Matt Von Swol, President Trump, Code Pink Protesters, PM Netanyahu, Risk Management, Recency Bias, Palmer Luckey, Ryan Routh Trial, 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.
And we'll do the best we can to soldier through this and see if see if there's anything positive we can take away.
Doesn't feel like it.
But you never know.
We'll see how it goes today.
So come on in and grab a beverage and take a seat and we'll we'll uh work through it all.
We'll get to the other side.
All right.
Don't want to do that.
Alright, we got your comments working?
Bye.
Do do do do do.
you.
All right.
you Thank you.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization is skull and coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
Although that doesn't make sense today because I know you're all in a quite a funk.
But we'll work through it.
We'll work through it.
And if you'd like to get to the other side, uh, even though it's too soon, we should wallow in this a little bit more.
I think that would be appropriate and respectful.
But we're still gonna do the simultaneous dip, and all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker, chalcerstein, a canteen, jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine of the day, the thing that makes well, I hope it makes everything better.
This one's for Charlie Kirk.
respect Well, where do we begin?
I guess we'll begin with September 11th.
Today's the 11th, it's the anniversary, of course.
And honestly, I don't feel like talking about it.
Everybody okay with that?
September 11th is gonna have to take a back seat today.
We'll uh we're not forgetting it, but uh you know the the recency bias is very strong.
So the things that happened recently are always gonna seem like the bigger things.
So um while people are still streaming in, I'll just say one other thing before we talk about Charlie.
So apparently Apple introduced the thinnest ever Apple iPhone.
Um it's got a little less battery life, so they had to give up a few things to make it thin.
But uh I wonder if they still made it slippery and breakable, because I can't believe Apple used to make the slipperyest phone that was also very breakable, and you would always put a case on it.
So I'm trying to imagine any scenario in which I would get their uh their thinnest Apple iPhone ever, and then I wouldn't put a case on it.
So it's not gonna be thin when I'm done with it.
It's gonna have a big old clunky case.
Anyway, enough of that.
All right, we all want to talk about Charlie Kirk.
Let's just do that.
Um you know that 31-year-old conservative activist, Charlie Kirk was tragically shot and killed at a uh Utah Valley University event where he would often do these little events where he would go in public and in front of a big crowd, he'd debate people.
And um, as you know, a one-shot rang out, they think from 200 yards away, and it took his life.
Um the uh suspect, unless something changed in the last few minutes, is still at large.
The manhunt is ongoing.
I did hear that they found uh a rifle.
There was a rifle in the woods approximately where they thought he might have gone through the woods.
And allegedly, this is from uh Steven Crowder.
He he got some information on this.
Allegedly, there was uh three unspent um rounds, I guess, that had carved on them some uh trans stuff and something about anti-fascism.
So if we were to believe the bullets, it Might be a trans shooter or somebody who's pro-trans and really really cared about it.
Um, but we don't know.
So I would say that the reports about the gun and the reports about what's written on the bullets.
Uh wouldn't fully believe any of that yet.
So I would warn you, um, that's still fog of war stuff.
So the odds of both of those things being true, I don't know.
Uh it'd be hard to put odds on it.
Um as many of you have said, and uh Greg Goffeld said it yesterday, that uh the name of uh Charlie's organization was Turning Point.
That was a hugely successful young people organization of conservative, you know, politically active people, hugely successful.
Um it was called turning point, and a lot of people noted that this feels like a turning point, but to what?
And turn how we'll talk about that.
Um I also heard uh Greg say on the five yesterday that uh Charlie had substantial power, the the right kind, you know, the persuasive uh I did everything you need to do to get the right kind of attention,
and that was a big power, and uh some would say, and I would say this I don't think Trump could have gotten elected at least a second time without his bringing the young people along.
So how important was he?
Really important.
How much power did that represent?
A lot of power, a lot, especially since he he had sway over the younger generation, so it's gonna last a while.
But uh as Greg noted, Charlie's uh energy um is impossible to destroy because energy doesn't get destroyed, it just moves, and that energy has to go somewhere because he was the keeper and controller of an immense amount of energy, uh personal energy, but also political energy.
That goes somewhere, it doesn't disappear, and there are a whole bunch of people in the public who feel like some of that energy entered them.
I feel that way.
Um as soon as I saw the news, I thought what many of you thought, which is what can I personally do?
What can I do?
I can't help the wounded, right?
Too far away.
Money isn't exactly the solution for this one.
What can you do?
So the only thing I could think of doing yesterday was I I went live for uh the people who were my normal audience, and I just knew that you needed to not be alone because that's what I needed, and I figured you'd feel the same.
You know, a lot of us live in this weird bubble where we don't hang around co-workers or even family members sometimes who share our understanding and feelings about all things political.
So we really really needed to hang with each other for a little bit.
It's what we needed, just uh get it out of our systems talking about it.
So I went live, and that was one little thing, very little thing, but it was one positive thing I could do.
So I did it.
If you can think of anything later that is a positive thing you can do, I'd encourage you to do it, because right now doing things is part of the recovery.
You know, you just gotta find a purpose.
You gotta say, all right, that was horrible, and it's you know, beyond words horrible, but I'm gonna do something.
I'm gonna make something better.
I'm gonna change something, and we'll talk quite a bit about that.
Well, so other facts that are uh either interesting or uh should be known.
The shooter was apparently on a roof, and Charlie Kirk apparently had his own private security.
Now, my question is the same as yours.
Nobody was looking at the roof, the Most obvious place for a shooter, especially after you know the the Butler event with Trump.
Nobody was looking at the roof.
It was it was just a clone of that same same attempt on Trump.
Um an event like that, are you telling me that the college didn't have a drone, that they would just sort of naturally check the rooftops, and that his security group they also didn't have a drone or or they weren't allowed to run it for some reason.
So we got questions about the lack of drones, don't we?
Because if he was if Charlie was worried about worried enough that he had his own security, um, it seems like checking the roofs, at least visually.
I mean, they could have seen it visually.
The guy was in plain sight.
So we'll see.
Um what else?
A lot of people are saying that the hit looked like a professional job.
Um, I would say if the gun that was being found, in other words, if Crowder's report is accurate, and we don't know that yet, but if that really was the gun, hmm, the only way that could be a professional job is if they were trying to uh take you off the scent and and try to try to frame somebody else, but that feels a little too clever.
That that doesn't feel real.
So the first thing we have to know before we speculate further on the you know the motives or who did it would be is that gun real?
Because first of all, it didn't seem like a modern, it was sort of an old gun with bolt action.
Do you think that somebody who is planning to be a professional sniper would have had that gun?
Now I don't know enough about that gun to know maybe it's like extra accurate or something.
So somebody who knows about guns maybe can tell me, is that a gun you would use if you were a professional?
And if you were a professional, would you put any kind of message on the bullet?
I don't know.
So there are some things that don't sound professional, but there are other things that do.
The fact that he um he pulled it off, we assume it's a he.
Uh, the fact that he pulled it off, so it was well planned, well executed, no pun intended, and the shot was good.
But those are not impossible things for an amateur to do.
If you if I said to any one of you, all right, here's the deal.
You know, there's gonna be a shot from the roof, and uh, you know, you go to the gun range and you're pretty well practiced.
Do you think you could pull off this horrible event?
Probably you could.
You know, maybe not every time, but only one time happened.
So according to John Solomon, the FBI has some hot leads, but it quote includes a little bit of foreign intelligence.
Now, that doesn't mean it's a foreign-driven activity, but for some reason, some country that isn't America might know something about it.
We don't know what that means.
Maybe they only have information, but uh maybe it was something else.
So among the possibilities, um, my first assumption was that the most likely reason for the shooting was it was a trans activist.
Somebody born a man, maybe even went through the military, but is now living as a woman and decided uh and may or may not be on some cocktail of you know drugs.
Um that would be the most obvious, but it also has the disadvantage in terms of a hypothesis that it's a little too on the nose.
So you know, the thought that it's just an angry Democrat who has been convinced that you know all Republicans are Hitler, maybe.
But that feels it's not something we've seen before, right?
Have we?
It's usually a crazy person.
So it might be a Democrat who is crazy, But maybe trans, maybe angry Democrat.
I'm not ready to say that it's either one of those yet, but I'm gonna throw in some other theories that uh um I I'm not sure if I'll say it on social media because that's a little bit too much of a too much interest.
So if you don't mind, um don't clip this.
Let's keep this to this audience.
There are things you can say to a specific audience that maybe shouldn't go bigger.
So as a favor, don't clip this.
If you were Iran and you wanted revenge on Trump, how would you do it?
Well, he's too well protected, and it would be too big of a problem if you tried to kill him.
Although there were rumors that they had some kind of assassination teams.
I don't know that that was ever confirmed, but that was part of the news.
And knowing that one of the things Trump did was took out your general.
Well, actually, you know, you could argue he took out a lot of leaders if you imagine he was working with uh Israel.
But at the very least, Trump took out uh Iran's top general, Salomani.
Could it be that the Iranian said we can't get to Trump, but we wanna we want to respond with something that's in the same lines?
And Charlie Kirk looks a lot like a general, you know, he looked like somebody who was loyal to Trump and was a professional who woke up every day trying to make the Trump world a better place.
He seemed like a general.
So one of the possibilities, I don't think it's a high possibility, but I'm just gonna throw it in the mix, is that Iran did it as revenge on Trump.
Because remember, Trump killed their general, not their leader.
If they also killed one of Trump's generals, just to send the message without without confirming it, you know, not claiming any credit, but it's possible.
There's another possibility that's even more horrible, that it's the cartels.
Do you think the cartels would not want to be in a war with the United States because they can't win a like a traditional war, but they may find it intolerable that their leaders are being rolled up and their boats are being shot out of the water.
Maybe again, this would be low priority or low possibility, but not impossible.
The cartel said, tell you what we're gonna do.
We're gonna make it really unpleasant to be Trump if he keeps doing this, and we can't get to Trump, but we can get to other things he cares about.
Yeah, somebody like Maduro, maybe Venezuela, maybe the cartels.
So again, I wouldn't put high likelihood on the cartels or Iran, but I wouldn't rule it out, and I'm not sure how I would even rank that compared to you know, angry, crazy democrat who got off a lucky shot.
So still lots of possibilities.
Um there's some of the rumors that are attached to it, probably will turn out to be nothing, but I'll let you know what people are talking about.
There were two people behind Charlie and behind the little tent that were part of the crowd.
One of them looked like he was signaling something right before the shot.
It looked like he touched his hat.
Now, maybe he was just adjusting his hat.
But it looked like it was a tip of the hat, and then the shot rang out, and then there was a guy next to him who seemed to be signaling something with his hands.
Maybe, maybe not.
Um, and that also came right before the shot.
So if I had to bet, I would bet they're unrelated.
Just somebody touched his hat and somebody did something we don't understand.
So probably not.
And the reason I say that is that they were standing directly behind Charlie.
If you were gonna signal something or you're part of the plot, The last thing you would do is stand in the place that would be most photographed right behind him.
Um, and also close to the where the bullets are going to be flying.
So I don't know.
I I don't think they would be there doing that.
There's uh um there was also something about an airplane.
So there are reports, and remember this is fog of war, so probably all this little related stuff, probably all false.
Probably every bit of it is false around context.
But one of those things is that a private jet left um only minutes after the uh the shooting, and uh they turned off their um radar.
They turned off something to go invisible for about half an hour, so and then it flew back, but then it was visible again, electronically visible.
So people are saying, is that how the shooter got away?
Probably not.
Probably it was a transponder.
They turned the transponder off, not the radar.
I think that sounds right.
Yeah, the transponder, so they couldn't be tracked for a while.
So I don't know what that's about.
Um we uh let's see.
So um Jones on CNN, I think it was one day before the shooting.
Um, he was claiming that uh Charlie Kirk, well, he was saying some things about Charlie Kirk, and uh he probably regrets that the timing of that was so close.
Um but we'll we'll see.
Uh we'll see where that goes.
CNN has a lot more talking to do.
We'll listen to it.
Uh Governor Pritzker of Illinois.
He said, quote, political violence unfortunately has ramped up in this country.
I think there are people who are for fomenting it in this country.
I think the president's rhetoric often foments it.
Now, Elizabeth Warren also laughed, you know, at the idea that it was anything except Trump fomenting the violence, to which I say, are you kidding?
Do you really believe that we think that Trump's rhetoric is what's fueling this?
No.
No.
And do the other people who get worked up, can they blame Trump for getting them worked up?
It doesn't work that way.
That they are responsible for their own actions and and words and feelings.
Um SNBC had to fire one of their uh one of their on air people.
Um what was his name?
Hmm.
I hate this guy so much I don't want to remember his name.
But uh I'll give it to you just so we can embarrass him a little bit.
All right, we'll get to it.
So analyst uh Matthew Dowd.
So his comment was uh he suggested that you have to expect this sort of thing to happen when somebody like Charlie uses the rhetoric that he uses, which people said, are you serious?
Are you blaming him for creating uh are you justifying the murder based on the fact he had it coming because he said things that people didn't like?
And he also said the same guy, unbelievable, um, that he said that they hadn't yet ruled out the possibility that it was a Trump supporter celebrating by firing a gun.
He actually said that.
That it might have been a Trump supporter celebrating by firing a gun.
At what?
At a crowd of people and hitting the hitting the person who's in charge, like just accidentally firing a gun.
Unfricking believable.
Yeah, that guy got fired, and uh MSNBC, I think had to.
They didn't have any choice.
The uh public was going crazy on that.
Now, as you know, MSNBC, CNN, a lot of the mainstream media media has been for now uh what 10 years been calling Trump and his supporters Nazis and calling him the Fuhrer, saying he wants to rewrite the Constitution, steal your democracy and become a dictator.
Do you think that any of that creates some danger for a Charlie Kirk kind of a person?
And the answer is yes, there's a direct line.
There is a direct line from the news and the way they cover it, and the and the language that they allow on the air.
That's what causes this.
It's direct.
If you didn't have the news architecture that you have, this wouldn't have happened.
And here's the other thing.
Everybody, every fucking person knew that this was gonna happen.
Every fucking person knew this was gonna happen.
Did we warn about it?
I did.
I did.
I said in 2020, if uh Biden gets elected, that Republicans would be hunted.
And it was because I saw a change in the in the way they talked.
The change in the way they talked previewed a change in their behavior.
And I can see it clearly.
It's sort of a hypnotist thing.
And sure enough, how many people uh how many Republicans have now been shot or destroyed?
You know, I won't even count people like me who were canceled entirely by Democrats.
There's not a single Republican who ever canceled me, not one, not even one.
But they didn't kill me.
So there's that.
I got that going for me so far.
So let's uh let's do the score.
If you're watching CNN or MSNBC, you have noticed that they're trying to do a both sides treatment of this, as in, well, it's not the Democrats who are violent, because look at all these other examples where Republicans were violent, or where a Democrat got killed.
Um so here's the score, even though keeping score is vile, it's part of the conversation now.
So you should at least have the facts.
So we know that Steve Scalise got shout up during that um public that uh baseball game.
Charlie Kirk, of course, Trump was uh attempted assassination twice, and of course the J6ers were were rounded up, etc.
So that's a lot of a lot of hunting of uh Republicans, but um, as Jake Tapper and others like to point out, uh it's not only Republicans who have been killed in February of 2022.
Some mayoral candidate in Louisville was targeted.
Um shots were fired, but no injuries.
And later, uh yeah, I guess the guy who shot was convicted.
All right, so that's 2022, and uh it was not successful in terms of uh assassination.
Then October 2022, um, oh by the way, I asked Grok, so this is coming from Grok.
And Grok says that Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's husband, was attacked by the crazy homeless guy with a hammer, and uh so they're counting that as a Republican attack on Democrats, I guess.
Well, that's what you know, Groc is putting it on the list.
Then there was that uh this one's uh this is more on point.
Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
There was a crazy guy who was an anti-Semite and tried to burn down his house and kill him, but um he his family was all safe.
Um, then there's uh state representative in Minnesota, Melissa Hortman in June of this year, she and her husband were shot and killed in their home by that guy who was impersonating a police officer.
And apparently that was over abortion.
So it was a political killing.
There was a state senator in Minnesota in June.
Um that was shot multiple times.
And I think that was uh the same guy who shot the other ones.
So we've got one guy who shot multiple people.
So I don't know if you count that as one or multiple.
Um but the the Josh Shapiro one is pretty on point.
So if you're wondering, does it only go one direction?
Well, that one time it didn't go one direction.
So um and then uh so if you're wondering, you know, where did all this happen?
How did our rhetoric become the dangerous kind where people are willing to kill sometimes Democrats, sometimes Republicans?
Well, um, according to Stephen Miller on X, you can draw a straight line from uh Obama's presidency to today's assassination.
Uh Stephen says he created the activist culture of getting in people's faces, yelling at relatives and literally demonizing political opposition.
Charles Krauheimer pegged him from day one, and uh and and Stephen says, May his political party suffer the consequences.
Um you think that Obama's the one who elevated the conversation to you gotta get tough and get in their faces, and did that cause a ripple effect, which led to violence?
Well, I don't know.
Um, but I do know that Biden and Obama calling Trump a Nazi, which they both fucking did in public multiple times.
Yeah, that'll get you killed.
That will get you killed.
So if uh if they don't have some apologies for the years of risky behavior that guaranteed cause the situation, I mean they were part of the contributing factor.
Uh we're gonna hear that there might have been.
Oh, he had some apps.
Well, uh, did you know that BLM still exists?
Apparently they have a leader, somebody named Terry Wilson, who uh went through a uh Charlie Kirk um vigil in front of the uh Capitol in Idaho and decided that a smart thing to do would be to yell go through the uh the people mourning Charlie Kirk and yell F Charlie Kirk multiple times at supporters.
You might not be surprised to hear that some fighting broke out, but the surprising part about this, I didn't even know BLM still existed.
Did you?
Did you know BLM still had something like an organization?
To which I say, why?
Why does that still exist?
I can't even believe it.
All right.
Um you may have seen a clip of TMZ when they were finding out that uh Charlie died, they were live, and at the same time that they found out that he was dead, uh there was a big cheer that went out from the staff from a back room.
And um Harvey Levin was uh you know talking, and you could see him looking uncomfortable when the laughter and cheering happened.
Now, I assumed, as many did, that he's gonna need to have to explain that.
I didn't automatically assume that that it was connected to Charlie Kirk's death, but it looked like it, and the timing looked exactly like it.
Well, today, um TMZ and Harvey apologized and said that that wasn't over Charlie Kirk, but that some of the staff was watching a car chase that was unfolding in real time um on the other TV in the other room, and that what they were cheering for was something, you know, maybe a successful capture of the guy or something.
Now, I'm seeing in the comments, they're lying, they're lying, they're lying.
Um, maybe, maybe they are, because that would be the end of their business, wouldn't it?
If it really happened, that's the end of their business.
They're out of business if that really happened.
Now, one possibility is that the staff lied to the boss to save their own asses.
Uh uh uh no, uh, we we were looking at the television, and probably they have TVs on all the time.
But do you believe that at the height, right in the middle of the most tense part of watching the coverage about uh about Charlie, when we didn't know yet if he had a chance of making it, you think that they decided to go watch a car chase and that they were all excited about it and they'd completely forgotten about Charlie.
Hmm, I don't know.
So one possibility is that Harvey thinks or believes his staff, because he wasn't in the room when it happened, so I wouldn't blame him for believing his staff, and I I certainly would understand if they thought, oh shoot, we better lie.
I don't know if they did, but I would understand it if they did.
I mean, that would be a normal human weak thing to do.
Um, however, I gotta give you some full disclosure.
I'm not unbiased about TMC.
Some years ago, there was a little drama with me, long before I got canceled.
There was something else uh that looked like it was gonna get me canceled, it was just something taken out of context.
TMC was the only publication that called me a home and said, Is this true?
And it wasn't true, and I told them it wasn't true, and they said, Oh, okay, and they did not run a story about it.
They're the only ones who fact-checked it, the only ones, everybody else, pieces of shit, they ran the story like it was true, and it wasn't.
They were the only fucking ones who fact-checked it.
Now, uh, you I've talked about the power of reciprocity.
Unfortunately, because I'd like to be a little tougher on them, unfortunately, that little experience makes me biased in their favor.
So I'm gonna say um uh I personally, and this is just me, I'm gonna accept Harvey's explanation.
I don't know that it's true, but I also don't know that he knows it's true.
Um, but if his staff told him it was true, and he didn't have a reason to doubt them in general, even if they lied, I'd still give him a little bit of a pass because he they may be lying to him.
Um but I absolutely understand if you think I don't believe a fucking thing about that.
He they're all lying, and he knows it.
If you believe that, I respect that.
I don't know that you're right, but I would respect your opinion because you know, certainly there's a suggestion that that might be the case.
But Harvey, I personally am gonna take your word for it.
I think you've earned that.
So, for what it's worth.
However, there were a lot of people in a lot of places that were literally cheering for the death.
Now, if you say, My God, they're monsters, you might be missing the larger context, which is half the country has been hypnotized into believing that he was a monster or serving a monster, Trump.
So if you had heard that a monster, you know, somebody who could steal your democracy and ruin the country, if you heard that somebody you thought was that bad of a monster, wouldn't you cheer when when bin Laden was killed, didn't you a little bit at all when Solomon, uh, the Iranian general got waxed by Trump?
You didn't feel a little bit happy.
So obviously Charlie is not analogous to bin Laden or Solomon A. But Democrats think he is.
Right?
They think he is.
So if the thing you were the thing that bothers you is they celebrated, then you're you're one level away from the real problem.
The celebrating is a natural, you'd expect it really, if they've been told that uh Hitler is putting together his team, and this is one of Hitler's generals.
The problem is not the celebrating.
The problem is that the public had been hypnotized by the mainstream media and the Democrats into believing it might be a good thing if people like him died.
So I'm not really bothered by the celebrating.
To me, that's just a symptom of the fact that the horrible thing happened long ago.
It happened long ago.
It was the hypnotizing ordinary people into thinking that they're living in Germany 1940 or 39 or whatever it is.
So a lot of you, as I said before, when this happened, you thought I need to do something.
Everything's changed.
Do you think everything's changed?
Um I'm worried that it probably hasn't.
Probably hasn't.
But I will speculate on a few things that might that might be big and might change.
And we'll we'll just run through that.
Number one, do you believe that there will be gigantic um protests in the street over this?
The answer is no.
And it's not because, as somebody said, Republicans are not the protesty kind of rioting people.
That's not the case.
What's true is that every organized protest has organizers.
And I don't believe that there's an organizer who would want a bunch of Republicans to go riot.
So there's no organizer.
So I don't think that it's going to be like, you know, public disobedience or something like that.
Um I don't think that there's anything to donate to necessarily, because if the internet is right, um, Charlie had amassed a pretty substantial little estate.
So if there's any way to help the family in the short run, please do.
And that might include giving some short-term money.
Long term, they might be okay.
Um, but that assumes the internet is right when they talk about his net worth.
No know about that.
So people say the the line has been crossed and everything's different, and uh I don't know.
But let me suggest a few things that might change.
Number one, I saw uh Mike Cernovich helpfully point out that this would be a good time for congressional hearings now, he said in a post on X. He goes, uh, every billionaire funding far left wing extremism, soros, Bill Gates, Reed Hoffman.
Um massive RICO investigation now.
Every dollar accounted for, every pass-through group's financial records public.
What do you think of that?
Now you might say, well, you know, why haven't they done that anyway?
You know, why why don't we know by now everything that's happening in these NGOs?
We know a lot, and we know that they're corrupt money laundering organizations, but maybe even go bigger and just make all NGOs illegal, unless they've gone through some specific kind of vetting process.
Just make them all illegal, you know, not permanently.
You know, you say, all right, you could be illegal, you could be legal, but you're gonna have to answer all these questions and writing, you know, who's who's in charge and what do you do and what'd you do with the money?
You'd have to agree to be audited, you know, stuff like that.
So uh I'm 100% um In favor of the government going way more aggressive on RICO investigations for this massive criminal enterprise called Democrats.
Would it work?
Well, remember, the Democrats have really good lawyers and lots of them.
So probably it would just get all tied up in the courts for a hundred years until Trump was out of office and it all went away.
But it's one thing we could do.
It's one thing we could do.
And I'll tell you one thing that's changed is risk tolerance.
When one of your own, and by the way, I take this very personally.
I didn't know Charlie personally.
My only fleeting connection was he once invited me on his podcast, and I thought I was going to be dead in a few weeks, so I didn't return his uh his message.
So I never talked to him.
But it's still personal.
This one's personal because I consider myself a uh say a brother in arms, meaning that we were in the same war in the same platoon.
I just didn't know him personally.
So the fact that he got taken out, oh, that's personal.
That's personal.
And so when that happens, my personal risk profile gets adjusted.
When I say, oh, you mean there's a chance I'll be shot?
All right, then Rico every one of these motherfuckers to the ground.
I wouldn't have wanted to, you know, destroy the country by going after the billionaires and really making it that overtly political, and it would be massive destruction.
Now I'm all in.
I'm all in for the massive destruction.
Yep, it's risky.
Let's do it.
Because it's something we can do.
It's not it's not directly related to Charlie, but it changes my risk tolerance.
And I'm all in now.
I believe the Democrat Party has to be totally dismantled.
Um, I wouldn't have said that two days ago.
Two days ago, I would have said the healthiest thing for the country is that there are two strong political parties battling it out in a in a war of ideas.
But you know who else thought that?
Charlie Falkenkirk.
He thought that we could talk it out.
His whole model was based on polite debate and doing it in public so everybody could see it.
That didn't work.
He got shot to death.
So now we just need to destroy the entire Democrat Party.
Legally, not illegally, not with guns, legally.
But I'm no longer content with the Democrat Party existing in its current form with its current supporters.
It could be reconstituted into something honest, but at the moment, I think it needs to be ripped out by the roots.
Now, that will be very bad for the country.
It will make us uh you know at each other's throats, and um, it would be a bad idea if Republicans just had all the power forever, and there was no risk that they would lose it.
I'm not in favor of that until now, until now, now I'm in favor of it.
It would be a big risk, wouldn't it?
Okay, okay.
Um, people would get killed if it got this tense.
That's that's very tragic.
Do it anyway.
We we can no longer settle for the status quo.
Whatever this big Democrat machine is, and again, it's not like the leadership of the Democrats, you know, ordered the hit.
I don't think that happened, but I do think that they knew that they were creating a situation that was a mortal danger to Trump supporters.
They're trying to kill us indirectly by creating a situation in which somebody's gonna take the shot, and that's what happened.
It looks like it.
It's still possible there's something about that shooter, we don't know, and I might be wrong about everything, but even if I'm wrong about the motivation entirely, I'm not wrong that they're still creating a situation that it would happen tomorrow because they haven't stopped calling him Hitler.
They're blaming him for the shooting.
It didn't get better, it got worse.
So, yes, uh, I'm with uh Mike Cernovich.
Uh, we need to rip open this whole uh billionaire game, whatever's going on there.
Uh the second thing that I will commit to you is something I rarely almost never do, but it's time.
And I've told you this before.
One of the things that happens when you become a trained hypnotist is that if you have any sense of you know morality or or ethics, you you gate yourself, meaning that I have too much persuasive ability,
and I literally keep it in a box because letting it out it's dangerous, and it would take people's their illusion of free will, I guess.
Um, and it would give me more power than I should have in society.
Um by the way, I don't know if I've ever told you this directly, but one of the reasons that I don't do more of a professional show, you know, uh obviously I'm not putting any work into my background.
I just put a light on my my shelves, that's it.
Is because if you get to the Charlie Kirk level of notoriety, you need security.
You can't even walk outside.
That's that's the way things are going.
So I have always intentionally stayed below the level where somebody would want to take a shot at me.
But still big enough, enough people watching, that if I had a good idea or so or I was persuading something, people would notice.
It would get to the right people.
So what I often say is that for you know reasons of ethics and morality, I do never I never turn on my power of persuasion to full force.
I always hold back.
Something like that, because it just doesn't feel right to erase somebody's free will, basically.
I changed my mind.
I'm taking all the controls off to destroy the Democrat Party.
Uh, it needs to be driven into the sea.
Now, not killing anybody, obviously.
Uh it doesn't mean they're all in jail, obviously, but their current leadership, they all have to go.
And and the way to make them go is to erase their political viability, and that doesn't require anything physical.
That requires good reframe, maybe a reframe here or there.
Might be a nickname.
It might be just that we're changing our focus a little bit.
But I promise you, you may never see me do it.
You may never see a sign of it whatsoever, although some of it you will, because I'll do a lot of it public.
So you won't know what I did.
You you won't know who I talked to.
You don't know whose minds I might change.
But I'm all in now.
I'm all in.
I want to destroy the entire existing Democrat Party for the good of the country, because they become just monsters at this point.
But I would like them to be reconstituted at some point so that we have a real system with two parties.
That would be great.
We don't have that.
We've got a criminal enterprise, and then a bunch of people who are trying to fix things, and that's not the same.
So I'm gonna be persuading against the criminal enterprise, the liars, the the Hitler loving or the Hitler obsessed ones, and I'm going to embarrass them if I can.
And you may never see a sign of it.
But is there a turning point?
Probably.
Probably won't happen fast, but I'm all in.
All right.
Um I saw a dated Republican posting on X today Said that no business owner is bringing up tonight in fear of riots, the left and the right are not the same.
Well, I agree with that.
Um, but I remind you that riots don't happen.
They're they're organized.
The Republicans simply don't have that machinery to organize these or or the desire to do it to organize these fake protests, the fake BLMs, the fake Antifas, the fake no kings bullshit.
So they don't have that, they don't have that corrupt enterprise.
So that's why.
And I I just think in general that people wouldn't organize for anything on their own.
All right.
Um people are pretty mad and trying to figure out what to do.
I saw a post by Matt Van Swall that uh Elon Musk was boosting.
Um Matt said, if I am being perfectly honest, uh Elon was right.
I think I'm beginning to lose the will to be tolerant.
So tolerant is what I just gave up when I told you I'm all in.
I'm done being tolerant.
They have to be destroyed, they have to be destroyed.
Um said, if tolerance means the end of a Western civilization, then we cannot be tolerant.
And he goes on, Elon does.
If they won't leave us in peace, then our choice is fight or die.
Yep.
But be smart.
Who are you gonna fight?
Who are you gonna fight?
You gotta know who to fight.
So we don't want to be shooting their Charlie Kirks.
That's not the fight we want to be in.
We need to be smart and and use legal means, but boy, do we have to fight?
Um in other news, this related, uh, Trump made a surprise visit to a DC restaurant to you know show that it was safe to go out again.
And apparently there was um some there were some left-wing protesters who got wit wind of it and started shouting at them in the restaurant.
Now the question is, he didn't announce that restaurant, so who tipped off the protesters?
Better find that out.
Because talk about a security violation.
Oh my god.
So I worry about that.
Um, I should tell you that I posted this on X as well, that several years ago, uh I stopped doing public events.
You know, I wasn't invited to as many after I started backing Trump in 2016, but I still could have been invited to you know some colleges that wanted to cause some trouble and stuff.
Berkeley invited me at one point, some organization did, but I started saying no to all public appearances for this reason.
It's because once you get called a Nazi or a Nazi supporter, it's not safe to be around a thousand people because the odds of one of those people believing it's literally true that you're a Nazi and they've got to do something about it is really high.
So I've been basically you know staying home for years.
That's why.
Um here's an idea that uh I've floated before, but uh it never seemed like a real idea, but now it does.
And uh this was uh written out.
Um did I not write that down?
Okay, Dr. Insensitive jerk, who's the anonymous, he's the anonymous economist I've mentioned before.
Um he said he's got a solution that you should just ban the guns for Democrats.
Now that's an idea you've heard from me before.
He he credits me with that.
Um if you were to reduce guns to Democrats and let Republicans keep them, how much would that reduce the rate of crime in the country?
Well, I don't know.
The Democrats think that fewer guns means less crime, and if the Democrats are doing most of the crime, most of the gun violence, I don't know if that's true, but but let's say it's a half of it.
If you can make half of the gun violence go away just by Democrats saying, hey, guns are bad, we'll give up ours.
Why wouldn't you do it?
I would love to see Trump suggest this.
Now, I don't think there's any chance it could happen for constitutional and legal reasons.
But wouldn't you like to make the Democrats have to deal with the question of whether guns should be banned only for them?
Because it's actually a fair question.
It's a fair question.
Let me give you an analogy that may or may not work.
So this is not an argument, it's an example.
Examples are not arguments, but it's just so you have some context.
You remember the uh, well, you know that the members of the Sikh religion, S-I-K-K-H, uh, or is it S-I-H-K?
I forget.
But they uh they have as part of their religious practice that the men should carry a knife at all times.
Now, of course, that was a problem at one time because people said, no, you can't take a knife to the places where nobody else can take a knife just because it's your religion.
But correct me if I'm wrong, I need a fact check on this.
It's S-I-K-H.
Um, the fact check is this.
Were they not eventually allowed to carry their knives under the understanding that they were a special group who were very unlikely to use them for violence, you know, maybe self-defense or something, but not to commit a crime.
Now, I've not in my entire life ever heard of a Sikh who used his ceremonial knife to commit a crime or rob somebody or murder somebody.
Does it even happen?
I don't know.
So there is, um, I'm not sure about this, but there might be some precedent for the idea that someone could have a weapon and someone could not while living in the same country.
So uh religion's special, so this, you know, the Democrat situation would not be about religion, but it would be fun to make them argue that they should have the right to guns when they believe that there should be fewer of them.
What would be the problem with Democrats being the ones who gave up all their guns first?
If the Democrats wanted it, because seems like it would work.
Um other news.
Well, let's see, let's wrap this up.
The the Charlie Kirk thing.
There's probably some news that's happened even while I've been talking.
Um we will stick together to get through this.
You should definitely look to see if there's anything you can do, even if it's small, about this.
All right.
You know what I'm gonna do, but maybe you could do something too.
Um, even if it's just talking about it or posting about it, or you know, um persuading.
But try to do something, you know, if if it's really gotten into you.
Do something.
All right, and get some exercise today, please.
Will you get outside if you can?
This is a day where you need to sniff a tree.
You really need to sniff a tree today.
So get outside and uh maybe take a long walk and see if you can ground yourself again.
We will be okay.
Charlie's family, they're not gonna be okay.
And we should not kid ourselves that they're gonna get over it anytime.
Really anytime.
It's not even anytime soon, they're not gonna get over it.
Um we should be thinking about them.
But uh I'll see what I can do in my limited way.
Well, as you know, Netanyahu and Israel bombed the leadership of Hamas, who were they thought safely staying in uh Qatar, Qatar.
And uh Trump apparently did not know that was gonna happen.
Now, he called Netanyahu, and I guess they had a tense phone call when Trump said some version of um, you know, why'd you do that without talking to me?
And he didn't think it was a good idea after the fact.
And that knew Netanyahu argued that it was a limited window.
You know, they weren't going to be there all day.
And if they talked about it too much, maybe it couldn't happen.
So I don't know if that's really the reason, because it does feel like Netanyahu could get Trump on the phone if he called and said, I can't tell you why, but you need to put the president on the phone in the next 10 minutes.
I feel like he might have been able to get that because the president takes calls and You know, if somebody walked into a meeting that he was in and said, uh Netanyahu says you need to talk to him in the next 10 minutes, you don't think he'd take the call and pause the meeting?
I feel like he would.
So I'm not sure I believe Netanyahu, but Netanyahu is very good at risk management.
And you can hate him for what he's doing.
Uh I would I would get that people are on different sides of that.
But he's really good at risk management.
And once again, I feel like he called it right.
Because this is definitely in the category of, well, it might be better to apologize for it than to take a chance of not getting it done.
Because how often are you going to get you know five Hamas leaders in one room?
And the other thing is, uh I don't know if Netanyahu calculated this specifically, but do you like the fact that Qatar is now out of the business of hosting bad guys?
I like that.
I I like the fact that Qatar is saying, uh, maybe we just shouldn't do that anymore.
You know, maybe maybe if the bad guys are in a war, they they need to go somewhere else.
So I think Netanyahu killed several birds with one bombing attack, uh, and that he got rid of that model where they can just live in luxury in Qatar while their soldiers are dying in the field.
Nope, you can't do that anymore.
If they're dying, you're dying.
We'll find you wherever you are.
So I think that that was strategically probably brilliant.
Um, and I think that Netanyahu, I hate to say he's managing Trump, because the way I see it is they try to manage each other, you know, they both have some influence over the other.
But on this particular turn, Netanyahu probably managed Trump successfully.
I don't love that, because that's not my country.
You know, my country is the United States, and I want us to be in charge of the United States and nothing else.
But uh given that Netanyahu, in my opinion, doesn't want to make peace with Hamas.
I think they want to uh capture all the territory and dismantle Hamas, and if he did a peace deal, they would still be in power in some way.
So uh I don't think that Netanyahu has any serious interest in peace.
I think he has a serious interest in completely clamping control down everywhere that they don't already have it, and they're doing a good job getting there.
The only price, and I say only like it's small, I think that Netanyahu is intentionally trading off their biggest asset.
Now, remember, I told you I think he's really good at risk management.
What he's risking, by the way, he's prosecuting the war, is the goodwill that um and whatever you know persuasive magic comes out of the Holocaust.
I I believe he's trading that away.
Because even though the 60,000 uh ish that have been killed in uh Gaza, that's a big number.
60,000 people, my God.
Um, but it's only one percent of the six million who died in the Holocaust.
However, as I mentioned earlier, we have a recency bias.
So the six million that died decades ago, no matter how you know, horrible that is beyond any imagination.
What happened more recently still has sort of a bigger footprint because we're we're affected by things that happened recently.
So Israel is uh you know trading on October 7th, but also trading on the Holocaust.
You know, that would be their entire narrative for goodwill.
And I think that Netanyahu, love him or hate him, is really good at risk management, and I believe that he is very intentionally saying, you know what?
This would be one time we're giving up some of that Holocaust goodwill makes sense.
You know, maybe we can get it back, but at the moment we're gonna spend it, and that looks like what he's doing.
So I remind you that I don't back Israel.
Um I'm not supporting them, and I'm not uh disavowing them either.
I'm simply observing that they're pursuing their their self-interest as a country.
That's what every country does, everyone all the time.
They're not the ones who are doing trying to do what's good for their country.
That's every country.
So that part I can observe without liking, maybe you know.
So sometimes I'm not happy with it, sometimes I don't care, but in either case, it doesn't matter what I think.
So I don't have an opinion on whether it's moral or ethical.
I don't believe that countries operate on a moral or ethical dimension.
I don't I don't think they try to, and I don't think they should.
I think they should operate on pure self-interest, and if they're not operating on self-interest, you should change your government and get one that does.
You know, your country should come first if you're in that country.
So don't ask me my moral opinion about what Israel is doing.
I believe that if the other side was in power, that they'd be doing lots of stuff you don't like, and it would be really, really bad for the people in Israel.
So it's two sides that look like they want to um say I won't even use the word.
I'm not I'm not gonna say genocide because uh I don't like word thinking.
We all know what's happening, we don't have to put a word on it.
Um apparently the uh the military uh industry and um that's uh lucky palmer's company.
I guess they have uh new product they're selling to the Pentagon that would make uh the U.S. Army soldiers like superheroes, so they'd have uh some uh augmented reality glasses on that they could do all kinds of things that a regular soldier couldn't do.
But 159 million, they're betting on it.
So it's uh that could be a big deal.
I I feel though that giving human soldiers these you know high-tech abilities is probably just a very short window between why do we have a human there?
Like what's the point of having a human?
A robot could do that.
So I feel like it's gonna be robots robots pretty soon.
But at the moment, it's uh humans who are cyborgs.
Um according to Newsmax, the White House is gonna cut grants for minority serving colleges.
So, in other words, they're gonna stop giving money to colleges that are spending that money based on your ethnicity.
And I said to myself, uh is it Palmer Lucky or Lucky Palmer?
Well, I I apologize to him in advance, and also for all the other times that I randomly put his name together.
So, what I've decided to do is since he's done the the bad thing of having two first names and two last names.
Um I I'm gonna say that I don't care which order they're in.
It wasn't my problem.
I'm not the one who gave him two first names.
So if he could have two first names, uh is sort of my life.
Some people call me Adam Scott, some call me Scott Adams.
Same problem, but I don't complain about it.
So he probably doesn't either.
Anyway, I like him.
Um but I'm surprised that there were any colleges in 2025 that were still doing large expensive things only for some ethnicities, but not for white white men, I guess.
So putting an end to that.
There's a uh theory, popular mechanics is talking about this, Darren Orf, that the internet will be more dead than alive within three years.
Now, dead means that it's bots instead of humans.
So apparently there are now so many bots that the percentage of humans are going to be crowded out.
So it's called the dead internet theory that eventually the internet will be only robots, and that humans just won't even be there.
I suppose we would ask our robot, hey robot, what's the capital of France?
And then the robot would go on the internet, and then the robot would tell you the answer.
But you wouldn't have to go on the internet because the internet is just robots, or something like that.
It's called the dead internet theory.
Anyway.
Well, the British ambassador to the US got uh canned, because it turns out uh he was one of the people who wrote a friendly birthday card to Epstein, and he was real good friends with him, called him his best pal.
Yeah, if somebody if somebody is his best pal, probably you gotta get rid of him.
Um and today the trial starts for Ryan Ruth Routh, the guy who attempted to assassinate Trump at the golf course.
I guess he's representing himself.
Um I would pay a ticket to watch that.
I would pay a ticket to watch him represent himself because he's just crazy enough that it's gonna be fun, but he's not so crazy that the judge will say, alright, all right, all right, you know, I'm gonna assign somebody or we're gonna have to do this different because you can't handle this.
I think that might happen.
I don't know.
What do they do?
What do you do if somebody says um if they say I want to represent myself, but then 10 minutes into it, the judge realizes, okay, you can't represent yourself.
You don't know what you're doing.
Can they force somebody to take a lawyer?
I don't know.
Somebody will tell me the answer to that question.
Uh it's open court, you can just show up.
Hmm.
I know he has a right to represent himself, but does that right ever get overridden by a lack of competence?
You know, like many things too.
You can't own a gun if you're raving lunatic, for example.
A lawyer sits next to him.
They would do a competency evaluation, and you would get a shadow lawyer.
He'd have a standby counsel, some people are saying there's so many lawyers on this uh in the in my audience.
How many of your lawyers in the comments?
You know, just tell me, lawyer or no lawyer.
Uh one of the reasons I get a lot of lawyers in my audience is because I talk about persuasion a lot.
And if you're a lawyer, what's more important than persuasion?
So a lot of lawyers watch us to pick up the persuasion tips and hear about the news at the same time.
Wouldn't make it an insanity plea.
My understanding of insanity plea.
Wow.
You deny being a lawyer.
Some people are making sure I know that they're not lawyers.
And you stayed at a holiday in, but you were not a lawyer.
That's all you need.
Law year.
All right.
You're not a lawyer, but you cheated on your ethics class.
Stop it.
All right.
Um, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I had for you today.
Um, we'll keep an eye on the news.
Hope we hope we have some progress.
Well, Nobody's caught the uh the shooter yet, right?
The Charlie Kirk shooter.
While I was on here, there's nothing that broke, is there?
No new words.
Or no no new uh news.
All right.
Well, I'm sorry, my cat didn't make an appearance today.
She was here earlier before you were.
What's the best way to embarrass people celebrating Charlie's death?
Well, I think the ordinary shame mechanism works, where you just it's your attitude as much as your words.
