God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Tucker's Sam Altman Interview, Microsoft's AI Pursuit, Anthropic AI, Charlie Kirk's Assassin, Tyler Robinson, TMZ, Harvey Levin, Ilan Omar, Stephen King's Mental State, Ted Cruz, Horrible Assassination Celebrations, Brainwashed democrat Hitlerians, Ben Shapiro, democrat Evil, Mike Cernovich, RICO democrat Funding, Tim Poole, Piers Morgan, FischerKing64, Charlie Kirk's Skill Stack, Chris Cuomo, Party of Murder, Elon Musk, State Dept., Dave Portnoy, Israel's National Best-Interest, Brazil Bolsonaro Sentencing, German Army Size, EU Green Deal Reduction, Deep Hole Nuclear Reactors, NASA Chinese Citizens, 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.
You've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.
Well, if you want to do that, all you need is a copper mugger glass of Tiger Chelsea, uh, canteen jugger flask, uh, vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine end of the day, the thing that makes everything better is called that's right, the simultaneous tip.
Go.
Unparalleled pleasure.
What's the best guy?
Literally.
Well, I will of course be talking about um Charlie Kirk.
And uh the big uh the book big update, if you haven't heard is that they have a perp in custody that they're pretty sure is the right purpose this time.
We'll talk about all that, but first a few other things just to wait for people to stream in.
Um how many of you saw the cringiest interview in the world of interviews between Tucker Carlson and Sam Altman, head of OpenAI, in which Tucker essentially accused Sam Altman of murdering one of his employees.
He didn't say it directly, but he kind of said it directly, and and Sam kept saying, uh, are you accusing me of murder?
Do you do you seriously believe that I murdered him?
Now I do not believe that Sam Altman ordered a hit on his employee.
I do believe there's a reasonably good chance that someone who just had a financial interest in open AI or chat GPT, somebody may have taken it into their own hands, because the whistleblower employee who g who died um would have cost a lot of people a lot of money.
You know, we're talking about billions that individuals would lose if they were investors early, I imagine, but I doubt that Sam Altman, you know, just one day decided to become a murderer.
All right.
Um but the real question is whether it was suicide or murder, and Sam says suicide, and he says if you looked the final report, you'd think that too.
So I don't know.
I'm open-minded on that one.
But it it would be weird if it was suicide, because you know, there's blood in multiple rooms, and you know, there's a lot of counterindications, so we don't know.
In other open AI news, Microsoft uh is buying a competitor, so they're gonna buy services from anthropic um to drive their Office 365 apps.
Now, if you've ever worked in a big organization, how do you interpret the following?
Microsoft invests a god awful amount of money in open AI so that they would have access to AI and you know all the things they can do.
But while they while they're the investor slash controller of the biggest, most important AI, they're buying services from another one.
What's that all about?
Does that mean they don't think open AI would have worked?
Do they think that for free because they already had open AI?
Well, maybe maybe there would be a charge for it across organizations.
But doesn't that suggest a really big problem under the hood?
Am I wrong about that?
If you found out that the biggest company that owns the biggest AI bought AI services from the competitor to their own company.
Wouldn't you say there's something very broken under the hood?
Don't know what.
Don't know what.
But that ain't right.
Something going on there.
I should tell you, I I do have a small investment in Microsoft stock.
Um wow.
So as I said, the uh there's a suspect in custody for the Charlie Kirk murder.
So today is not a perfect day, but yesterday was very bad, and the day before was very bad.
You know, yes, we we not only had the you know brutal murder of Charlie Kirk, but then on top of it, the very next day, you know, we're immersed in September 11th um memorializing.
So we got the double whammy.
We got the attack on the country, the attack on um Charlie, and some some would say attack on Republicans by extension.
Um, but today we have you know, we're we're past the September 11th memorial.
We probably have the perpetrator in custody, and uh we're seeing a lot of uh Democrats losing their jobs over the way they're try they're talking about on social media, usually, uh losing their jobs over acting happy that uh someone was murdered.
So this does not, of course, you know, compensate for the loss of the human being.
But it's something.
I mean, if you were the family, you'd be at least a little bit, I don't want to say happy, but you know, you you'd feel some comfort from knowing that the perpetrator had been caught.
So it's a little bit better.
Now, here's something I'm uh not up to date on because I was preparing uh preparing for this when news was breaking.
Can anybody tell me were the 4chan people right?
Because the 4chan people had done their own analysis tried to find the perp based on the photographs and some other stuff, and they had matched some specific person, a trans uh trans person, and they allege.
I'll we'll see if I can read your so it's not the same person, right?
Okay, good.
All right, thank you, Kevin and Bono and the others.
So I'm being told in the comments that 4chan did not get the right answer.
So that opens the following question.
They 4chan thought it was a trans shooter, which my first uh impression was is that a little bit on the nose, you know, it's a little too perfect, because it's exactly what you would have guessed.
When I heard that Charlie Kirk got shot, my first assumption was uh oh, radicalized trans shooter.
Didn't you think that?
I mean, if you just watch the news enough, you you sort of just automatically leap to that.
It's not fair.
I mean, it's not fair to trans people, they're not shooters, generally speaking, but it's the first thing I thought of, and so I was trying to keep my mouth shut about it until we knew a little bit more, but as far as we know, the person in custody, because we have a name and we've now we've got pictures of them and stuff, the person in custody is not trans, right?
As far as we know.
The the only picture I saw of him, there was no trans indication.
So what I heard is that uh the family priest, I think it was, or minister, religious person, uh, recognized the person and called the person's father, who it turns out has worked in law enforcement for decades.
So the father, being a patriot first, negotiated with his son, were told to turn himself in, and I guess that happened.
Now, negotiate is probably you know a weak word.
He probably didn't give them a choice, you know.
I'm sure he told them you either turn yourself in or I turn you in, but you're getting turned in.
That's my guess of how it went.
Now, an interesting side factor is that just before it was announced that they caught the guy, Bill Ackman had announced that he would give a million dollars for whoever could help them find the guy.
Now what happens if the guy's father claims tries to claim the million dollars because he legitimately is the one who turned him in.
You know, the the priest, I think it was a priest or minister, um, didn't turn him in.
He he did what was smarter, which was calling the father.
That was the better move, but probably doesn't qualify for the million dollars because authorities were not, you know, initially not uh brought into it at that point.
But what if the father says, hey, I turned him in, where's my million dollars?
Because I'm gonna need a million dollars to help my son on his defense to pay for the lawyers.
So it's entirely possible that Bill Ackman is going to pay for the defense of the murderer of Charlie Kirk.
I don't think he'll do it.
If I if I had to guess, I would think he would not pay the million dollars, or the father wouldn't ask for it, maybe.
But that's it's within the realm of possibility, which is crazy.
I mean, that's just crazy.
All right, um, let's see, what else do we know?
Uh so we don't know the motive yet, but I remember Trump said he thought that he did know the motive, but he wasn't positive or not willing to say it yet.
Do you think we know the motive?
Or is it just obvious?
He's just uh anti-Trumper, anti-Charlie Kirker, and he's a little crazy.
Does anybody want to take bets whether the shooter is on uh antidepressants?
Anyone want to take bets?
Because there's probably an 80% chance that he's on antidepressants, wouldn't you say?
Probably 80% chance.
Doesn't mean for sure, but I'll bet statistically it's at least 80% chance.
So that's something we're gonna have to pay attention to if it turns out, if it turns out, you know, we don't know yet.
So everything is still fog of war.
So anything I tell you, you probably better check it on the news because I'm I'm just using uh reports that were rapidly coming in before I came went live.
So let's talk about some more stuff related to that.
Uh I saw a useful uh post by Stephen Molyneux uh explaining why we feel the way we feel, and it sounded right to me.
He says, uh, your body thinks you were at war and the your village is being invaded, because normally the violence is something we hear about, um, but we rarely see that clear of a video that happens to be somebody who's beloved, at least to a big part of the country.
So um Stephens were reacting to it as if we're currently in a village under attack, and that does sound right to me.
Yeah, it sounds it sounds like the the video and the continuous reinforcement because it's in the news, it's the biggest story.
We're we're talking about it continuously, which makes you think of the video of the actual death, you know, makes you think of all that stuff.
So yeah, we're we're basically putting ourselves in a middle of the war situation, and your body and your brain are reacting to it.
So if you have a chance, today would be a really good day to try to clear your mind, you know, not forgetting about Charlie Kirk.
That's not what we're talking about, but just clear your mind.
Make sure you get outside today.
Try try to get a little exercise, try to eat right.
Um, if he can get some sleep tonight, because you probably need to take care of yourself.
This is this is a big blow to the you know, body America, and uh you can feel it.
Anyway, um so we saw some video of the killer, but that's sort of irrelevant now because they think they have them.
So yesterday I was hearing um that there would the person that 4chan thought was the bad guy, but we now know was not.
Um allegedly, the story was that on SoundCloud, which is an online place you can store music, that on SoundCloud, uh that that person that they thought was guilty uh had a song called Charlie Kirk is dead at 31.
Now when I heard that the first time, I said there's a pattern that that recognized that I recognize there.
Do you know what the pattern is?
Let's let's see if you recognize the pattern too.
If you were trying to determine if it's a true or BS, the claim is his SoundCloud had a song before the murder.
This is this is a key part, I forgot to tell you, that before the murder, he already had a song on his uh music list called Charlie Kirk is dead at 31.
Now, do you believe that that's really on SoundCloud and that somebody really had that?
Right, here's the pattern.
And I don't know, I don't know what's true yet, so I'm still speculating a little bit.
But uh, if that's not the perpetrator, do you think that that song is real too?
I don't know.
It's exactly the kind of rumor that you hear that you hear in this later debunked.
As soon as I heard that he had you know that that thing before the murder, I go, that's I've seen this pattern before.
The pattern is that this is one of the easier things for some troll to make up just out of nothing.
So it has that troll made it up kind of quality to it.
Whenever you see the the dates are weird or impossible, like how could they know or anything?
Those are almost always false.
Uh, could it be that the song exists is just not the shooter?
Uh maybe.
I mean it's not impossible, but it fits the pattern of things that are usually fake.
You know, not every time, maybe, but usually this weird date-related thing.
How could it happen then?
It almost always turns out it didn't happen.
That's usually the explanation.
All right.
Um, as you know, TMZ got a little heat because they were live streaming when the news came in that Charlie had passed, and there was the sound at exactly that time of his staff cheering in a nearby room, and people naturally jumped to the assumption that the reason they were cheering is that they're bad people and they were cheering the death of a human being.
That's what it felt like.
Well, Harvey Levin, the boss, um, went online to explain that they were not laughing or cheering, I guess cheering, that they were not cheering at uh Charlie Kirk's death, they were cheering because they were watching a car chase, and there something happened in the car chase that made them cheer.
To which I say, do people cheer for car chases?
No matter what happens.
Have you ever heard of that?
Have you ever have you ever thought to yourself, yeah, because you watched a car chase that went the way you wanted it to?
I've I've never heard of that.
But here's uh here's my take.
Uh, I think I've told you this before.
I I owe or owed TMZ a professional kindness.
Um, when I say I owed them, it's sort of the law of reciprocity.
Because TMZ once did me a favor, which is there was there was some controversy that somebody thought I said something.
This was years ago, and uh the only news Related entity that called me to check to see if the rumor was true.
It wasn't true.
It was literally not true.
Um, was TMZ.
They were the only ones who checked by asking me, you know, do you want to say something about this?
And I said, Yeah, it's just none of it's true.
Here's what here's what really is true.
And then once I told them what was true, they said, Oh, okay, and they didn't cover the story.
But a lot of other news entities did cover the story, which was not true.
It was fake news.
So they treated me right when nobody else was.
And I always said to myself, all right, someday maybe I'm gonna repay this.
I owe you one.
And uh so yesterday I posted that uh I owed him one, and I'm gonna take Harvey's uh word for it.
Now I think there's a deeper level to it, because we have to assume that Harvey knew the truth, but that would assume that his employees told him the truth.
Do you believe that the employees at risk of being fired were gonna say, oh yeah, Harvey, because uh man, darn, we shouldn't have done that.
But yeah, yeah, we were cheering the death of a human being.
Do you expect that his employees would have told him the truth?
If that was the truth, I don't know if it was.
Do you think they would have told him the truth?
I don't.
I don't.
But I don't think that Harvey is a liar.
I I think maybe he was just passing along what they told him, and you're you're sort of motivated to want to believe it, right?
Because he doesn't want to fire his longtime staff and put himself out of business and be disgraced forever.
So I feel like if you're gonna blame Harvey, maybe it's for let's say a little bit of intentional gullibility, you know, being a little bit too willing to believe something that doesn't look true to any of us.
So at the same time that I give him, uh I almost say I give him a pass, but I'm gonna take Harvey as telling the truth.
He's wrong, probably, but probably he's telling you the truth that that his staff told him, which doesn't make it the truth, but it would mean that the staff would be the responsible ones.
Now, I have mixed feelings about this.
And I'll talk more about other people getting fired and the bad reactions and stuff like that.
They're really bad.
But I feel like I feel like all of you are just kidding yourselves if you think there's there's no situation in which you would cheer for the death of another human.
Really?
Really nobody?
There's not a single person in the world that you would cheer if you heard they died.
If you're that Hitler died in his bunker wouldn't make you happy.
If you heard that uh, well, I don't want to name names because then I'll be part of the bad guys, but you don't think there's somebody that you believe is so bad for the world that you would literally be and act happy if that person had a let's say uh unexpected end.
And probably, you know, I would say a solid, you know, half or two-thirds of you would not be that kind of person.
You would not be, but it's a big world.
So I would imagine that almost anybody dying would get about a third of the public to act like they're happy if they were on the other the other side from the that person.
Now, here's here's my experience.
One of the reasons I didn't want to announce that I had terminal cancer, which at the moment seems to be in some kind of weird temporary remission.
But what one of the reasons I didn't want to announce it when I'd known it for months, is that I knew that bad people would be happy about it.
I knew that bad people would be happy that I announced I had terminal cancer.
What do you think happened?
Do you do you think anybody act happy about it?
Yes, they did.
Yes.
It was fairly common, and it happened, and it continues to this day, that in the comments on X, people will mention something that clearly shows they're happy about the prospect of me dying a painful death.
Are you surprised by that?
Uh I feel like we should stop pretending we're all shocked and surprised.
If you're a shocked and surprise that people act happy about the death of the people that they disagree with, what planet have you been living on?
Or are you just pretending to be shocked?
Let's talk more about that.
And again, I'm not I'm not defending anybody if it sounds like that.
I'm just saying we live in a world in which, yeah, a huge number of people are going to celebrate the death of somebody who's on the other side.
You know, when bin Laden got taken out.
No, I'm not comparing Charlie Kirk to Bin Laden.
That's not how fucking analogies work.
Analogies work because there's one thing about them that might be useful or illuminating.
It's not because all the things are the same.
That's not what an analogy is.
All right.
So uh representative uh Elon Omar said that uh George that uh Charlie Kirk, quote, uh downplayed the death of George Floyd, he opposed Juneteenth, and he once said guns save lives after uh after a school shooting, he said guns save lives.
So Elon Omar wants us to know that hey, you maybe he kind of had it common.
So she's reprehensible.
What about Stephen King?
Notable social media user and uh Trump hater.
Stephen King said um about Charlie Kirk.
Now this is not true.
So this is Stephen King spreading uh a really terrible lie.
He said, quote, in an ex post, he advocated stoning gaze to death, just saying.
Now, I don't have to do any research to know that Charlie that Charlie Kirk did not, did not recommend stoning anybody.
That would be literally the opposite of who he is or was and whoops, sorry, cat just fell off the desk in my lap.
So Ted Cruz jumped all over Stephen King on X, and he says, You are a horrible, evil twisted liar, to which I say Stephen King is a horrible twisted evil liar.
I thought, have you read his work?
If you've read his work, that's not a stretch.
I mean, I I don't think you could write what he writes unless you were a quote, horrible, evil, twisted liar.
I mean, that that stuff comes from somewhere.
Um, but Ted Cruz points out that uh Charlie King did not say that.
And he says, uh, your party, which you shamelessly shilled for, sent a hundred billion to the Ayatollah who does routinely murder homosexuals.
Why are you so dishonest and filled with hate?
I I do have a real question about that.
Does it sound to you like Stephen King is smart enough to write the books he's allegedly writing?
Does it seem that to you?
Or do you wonder if you know he had a horrible accident when he was walking down the street one day?
There was a some vehicle hit him and he was terribly injured.
Do you wonder if maybe he got a concussion or something?
Because I'm trying to square the fact that he's one of the most successful authors in the history of the United States.
That's true.
Everybody would agree with that, with the fact that he's also a huge fucking moron.
How could both of those be true?
I mean, you could you can imagine that you could disagree with him, but that's different from being a huge fucking moron.
He's just a huge fucking moron.
So yeah, you okay, you're on it.
You're ahead of me.
The rumor in the publishing world is that he hasn't written a book in a long time.
That they're they're all ghostwritten.
Now, I don't have confirmation of that, but try to explain it any other way.
Can you?
I can't.
To be the most uh the the only explanation that fits the observed facts is that he's not capable of writing the books that have his name on it.
That And there's an ordinary explanation.
Because people at his point of life, if they write fiction, it doesn't work for nonfiction so well.
But if you're a fiction writer, uh and you've put on a bunch of books legitimately, at some point you slow down, and then your publisher says, you know, if we could have two of your books a year instead of one, wouldn't that be great?
All we need is to have somebody pretend to be you and write a book.
So that's I'm guessing that's what happened, but I don't know.
So there are numerous stories of teachers and people associated with schools of various types who are getting canceled, meaning fired, for saying horrible things about essentially being happy or saying it was justified that Charlie Kirk got assassinated.
Well, what do you think about that?
That people are losing their jobs all over the place.
Well, let me tell you the thing that is most shocking about that.
The most shocking thing is that the people who spoke out that way believed they wouldn't get fired.
I think they were all surprised, which means they've been living entirely within a bubble in which they thought other people would agree with that.
Are you kidding me?
They they thought they were in the bubble of reality, where uh let's say that Hitler was an American and he died.
Would you feel bad about saying, thank God Hitler died?
No, you wouldn't, because you would assume that almost every single person would agree with you.
So it would be easy to say that.
These people are saying it in public for the world to see as if that's what a normal person would think.
How hypnotized would you have to be?
So in my mind, anyway, and I think I've said it online at least once.
I I think of these people as the hypnotized Hitlerans, hypnotize Hitlerians.
You can drop the hypnotized if you need to.
But the Hitlerians are people who live in this little world where they think Hitler actually came to power in the United States because so many bad people on the left have been saying that.
People who should know better.
So I actually have some weird empathy for these teachers getting fired for saying horrendous things about Charlie Kirk, because they actually think they're in a different reality than they are.
How do you think you're in a different reality?
Is it because you individually had some mental problem?
Probably not.
It's probably uh on really a predictable outcome of the rhetoric that we're seeing from the left.
It's the most predictable outcome that people would believe it as literal, all the Hitler stuff.
Oh, it's literally as bad as Hitler, we better do something about it.
So I would say the people getting canceled are in their own way, although you know, our system is that you have to hold them responsible.
I'm not saying they're not responsible, they are responsible, but they are also victims because they've been hypnotized to believe something hideous and going through life.
Imagine him going through life thinking that they live in a world that had been taken over by some Hitler character.
I I don't even know what that would feel like, but it would certainly distort your opinions and actions.
Well, there's a little fake news yesterday.
We can correct Ben Shapiro who says he is not canceling his uh planned college events, and uh he did a really good job of cursing.
You know, I I've been making fun of Democrats for doing this artificial cursing.
You know, they're they're just trying to work a curse word in there because they've been told that that's how you act tough.
Oh, if I curse more uh people really love me now, and they just do a terrible job of cursing.
Well, Ben Shapiro, who I've never heard curse, have you?
Have you ever heard Ben Shapiro curse on in a public way?
I I don't know that it's never happened, but I've never heard it.
I don't think it's common.
But he dropped one uh on a little video which he was explaining that he's not canceling his college events.
He said, uh, we'll never stop debating and discussing, we'll never stop standing up for what America is and she should be, and we will never let Charlie's voice die.
And then he said to those who would stop us, I have two words.
Fuck you.
Really well done.
Uh as a connoisseur of cursing, it if you use it sparingly, and you use it surprisingly, and you use it like you've been there before, like you've used the word before, you can sell it.
I mean, it's what Trump does.
Trump sells it perfectly because he uses it just enough.
And then when he drops it, and you know, Trump uses a F-bomb, you feel like he's used that word before, like it feels organic.
And uh Ben pulled that off.
So that's a good use of cursing.
Um Michael Schellenberg is uh saying that uh we're gonna need some kind of responsibility here.
We're not gonna be happy uh unless those responsible are held accountable.
And when he says those responsible, he doesn't mean just the shooter.
He means whatever caused the atmosphere to be so uh Hitler, as I like to say.
Um he said, look, I think it's not likely to happen, but the people that did this, dehumanization need to take responsibility for it.
Well, are the Democrats taking responsibility for uh ramping up the rhetoric that the the Nazis must be stopped?
No, the opposite.
They're saying that uh it's Trump's fault for raising the temperature of the rhetoric, and that, well, you know, you just gotta expect that.
Trump gets everybody worked up, what do you expect?
Okay.
Um I'm uh I'm firmly on the Mike Cernovich side of things now.
And by the way, if you're looking for what do we do and you know who's leading us and who's telling us how to act and how to how do we get to a better place, I would follow Cernovich.
So he seems to be the only person I'm seeing who's saying, all right, here are some real things we can do, and these will make a difference.
And the real things he wants to do uh involves uh some kind of a Rico-like investigation of the money flow from the evil billionaires to you know all the messaging, basically.
I think that would be the way to say it.
So it does seem like the Democrat organization is uh a criminal organization.
Now, I don't think that it's necessarily organized for that purpose.
I think each person is just doing what's you know good for that one person, but for reasons I don't understand, you see rampant crime everywhere, from the local politics to all the hoaxes that they run to all the fake news.
I mean, it's just non-stop criminal behavior.
Now, there are of course there are also Republicans who break the law, but there's more likely they're accused of breaking the law without doing it, or there's some lawfare involved.
The the uh the difference is striking to me.
Am I just imagining that?
That there's so much uh illegality and sketchy stuff, and some of it's not tactically illegal, maybe, you know, flowing money, dark money, uh laundering it through the NGOs until it comes back into politics and and then goes back into the NGOs and then back into politics.
But basically it's coming out of our pockets, the taxpayers, uh, in some cases.
In other cases, the billionaires are behind it.
But I would agree that the billionaire Democrat funding people are the Source of the evil.
Because if you take the money away, the rest just collapses.
And they are the money.
And by now, they know exactly what they're doing.
Right?
They can see it.
If you were one of the big, you know, Democrat backers and you were calling uh Trump Hitler.
You know what you did.
There's no way in the world that this is unrelated to the rhetoric.
The Democrats will lie to you about that, because they apparently are huge lying criminal organization that needs to be RICO.
So here's uh I told you that I was gonna dedicate my energy toward um dismantling the Democrat Party.
To be clear, I want the Democrat Party to be reconstituted as a reproductive, you know, a reputable organization that can compete with Republicans, because I think we're all better off if there's you know legitimate competition.
Right now it's not legitimate competition.
Right now it's one side getting stuff done, and the other side just criminals, liars, criminals, frauds, hoaxers.
It's not even close to anything like competition.
It's just there's evil on one side, you know, it's and again, it's not like the Republicans do everything right and there's no criminals there, but there's as far as I could tell, there's just a world of difference.
I just don't see even accusations against Republicans that are anywhere in this domain at all.
Have you heard of the the Republicans funding a bunch of NGOs?
They do.
I mean, I think it happens, but it's not much of a story, so it must be a small amount.
So here's what you can do.
So and Cernovich is uh showing leadership on that.
So pay attention to that.
Nothing happens until first you have an idea of it, the concept of it.
And what he is doing is planting in the public's mind the idea that a RICO case against the billionaires funding all the evil that's coming out of the Democrat side, is a um legitimate useful practical thing that could really be done in the real world.
Because it's really hard to get the government or anything to do something that nobody's ever talked about or thought about or wrote about, there's no book about it, that sort of thing.
So that's what uh Cernovich is doing for us.
He's he's uh promoting the idea, which is step one.
Step one is you have to have the idea in your head that it's a possibility, right?
So he's doing that for you, and I'm gonna back him on that as much as possible.
So I'm I'm trying to boost that signal.
I too agree that you should consider a major RICO case to dismantle the Democrat machine, at least the the funding part of it that seems to be completely corrupt.
Um if you can get this into a national debate, which is not, but it could be by the time it gets on, say, TV news, and maybe maybe there's some point where Trump, who's no doubt watching the action, there might be some point where he goes, okay, now you've you've laid the groundwork, and now I can say it.
Do you remember that I did that technique um with using the military against the cartels?
And several years ago when I said we should use the military against the cartels.
I was thinking Mexico at the time.
That people said, Scott, oh, you crazy bastard.
Yeah, you know, it's unthinkable, it's unthinkable.
We're definitely not going to use the military against the cartels.
And I kept saying it until it became a thing.
And then Trump said it.
And people dismissed him immediately the first time he said it, but it was in their heads.
So by the next time it comes around, because let's say there are lots more deaths from overdoses or whatever, so it's it's always coming back around.
The next time you hear it, you've already heard it.
You think, oh, I I guess it's an option.
I mean, I'm not in favor of it, but it's part of the conversation now.
It's an option.
So that would be the second step where people go from, well, I heard it once to, well, I guess it's just it's on the table.
It's one of the options.
Maybe I don't like it, but it's on the table.
And then the phase after that is it's more than on the table.
Right.
So there it has to go through a few transitions from wildly impractical, there's no way that's going to happen.
It would rip or rip apart the country if you tried all that stuff.
You're going to get used to it.
You're going to get used to it.
And then it's going to happen.
All right.
So on the positive side, because it's not all negative.
The Green Bay Packers.
Um and the NFL had a moment of silence for at the uh Carolina.
Oh, and but the Carolina Panthers comms employee got fired for bad comments about Charlie Kirk.
And then you heard about the was it the Yankees who did a moment of silence for for him.
So the sports world, aside from that one fired comms employee, and I appreciate the firing.
Um they look like they're oriented in the right direction.
So I'm gonna give them credit overall.
And then Patrick Mahomes, I saw breaking news that the Chiefs quarterback said that he would promise to pay for both of Charlie Kirk's children's education and living expenses.
Now I assume that's not forever, but that's a hell of an offer.
That's a hell of an offer.
So yeah, the the sporting world, I'm gonna give uh an A for correct behavior.
Good job, sporting world, and Mahomes in particular.
Um, but I will say, I I think this is worth saying, that it's human nature that we've all kind of made the story about ourselves.
So there's a lot of um uh let's say signaling and displaying and showing that you're the one who has the most moral opinion and how it affected you and how you were his best friend.
So I'm gonna do it too.
So don't call me a hypocrite because I'm calling myself a hypocrite.
You know, I already got there first.
Um, it's almost impossible to not make it about yourself.
Uh, but it feels creepy to me, even when I do it, because I'm gonna do it even harder than I've done it, uh, even today.
I'm gonna make it about myself a little bit.
Um but you wonder if that's you know, where your brain should be.
It doesn't seem right, but on the other hand, we can't avoid it.
So sort of a sort of an unavoidable ick.
So Tim Poole is telling us on X that he was swatted 15 times in one year.
He had a bomb squatted his studio twice.
He had to evacuate for three hours once during his show.
And there was a man in a dress who attacked one of his employees at his old location.
They have armed guards now, and he said this is how it's been because of the left.
Now, arguably that's Tim Poole making it about himself, but I would also argue you need to know that.
You know, so I of course I want to know that.
And of course, it you know, it's this is really useful context.
Um, so I'm not I'm not making fun of Tim Poole.
Um, this is really useful context.
Um but I wonder how many other conservative podcasters are having this problem.
I have not had that problem.
Now I don't want to, I shouldn't bring it up because then I'll have the problem.
But uh makes me wonder is it only because I have a smaller audience, so the left um sort of doesn't notice me or doesn't think it matters or something?
I don't know, or is it because uh I spend less time talking about trans issues?
Because I think I think that's what really brings in the haters more than anything else.
All right, uh I saw Pierce Morgan say on X, he goes, I'm so shocked by the huge quantity of social media posts and clips of woke fanatics gleefully celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder.
So brazen, blah, blah, blah.
Let me ask you, are you shocked?
How could you be shocked?
Of all the things that could surprise you, you were suddenly noticing, Pierce, that uh there are people on social media who are the worst people in the world.
What were just figuring this out this week?
How in the world could you be shocked?
Can we stop pretending that you thought human beings wouldn't act this way?
Of course, human beings act this way.
And as I said earlier, probably there's somebody who could die that most of us would celebrate.
We're not above it.
So uh while I don't like it when they do it, I mean it's just hideous.
Uh, you know, try not to be shocked.
I mean, really, who was shocked by that.
Um, I saw a post by Fisher King.
I often quote Fisher King.
See, he's a really good follow.
If you want to follow him, Fisher is spelled with a C in the middle.
F-I-S-C-H-E-R K-I-N-G.
Fisher King, one word has lots of good thoughts.
And he said, uh, destroying the lives and careers of people celebrating this political murder is essential.
Uh, the people doing this have participated in cancel culture, but never felt it.
They need to feel it.
They need to know what it's like to have a mob ruin your life.
And I thought to myself, yeah.
I wonder what that feels like to have a mob cancel you and ruin your life.
What would that feel like?
Oh, wait.
I know what that feels like.
Yeah, I do know what that feels like.
And yes, um, it probably is productive to return the favor.
So even though I completely understand that they're hypnotized and they're victims in their own way, too, you still have to do it.
That's just the way things work.
You can't let evil just go unchecked, even if the reason somebody's evil is, you know, it wasn't their fault.
You still have to check it.
So, yeah, they need to feel the pain.
And uh it needs to be mutually assured destruction.
I saw Robbie Starbuck say that uh, and I've heard a bunch of people say this actually, that Charlie Kirk was likely to be someday be president.
How many of you believe that Charlie Kirk inevitably would have been president someday?
Might have been in 30 years when he's 61.
But did you think that?
I I not only thought that, but I was planning to do a segment on the show before before he was killed.
Uh, like that week, that very week I was planning to do a segment where I said, Oh my god, this guy can be president someday, almost guaranteed.
Like I was literally planning to do a show about Charlie Kirk, in which uh I was talking about his future and his potential.
Because he was a very impressive individual.
Um, his his skill stack was almost second to none.
I mean, it was incredible.
So yeah, um, I believe the uh the Democrats probably, I assume that this is a Democrat shooter, probably took a potential president off the board.
Do you know how big that is?
I mean, just think about the size of that.
It's it's sort of like going back in time to, you know, I almost say kill Hitler because it's the opposite of that.
But that's that's a hell of a play to take out their, you know, one of the strongest players who have ever been on the board.
That's a hell of a play.
Um let's see.
So Chris Cuomo was going after Elon Musk.
He did a little video in which he said uh essentially he said he wouldn't be surprised if Elon Musk's Rhetoric got him uh murdered as well.
Now, obviously he's not in favor of him being murdered, but it's not a good idea to put that idea in people's heads.
Unfortunately, it's probably already there.
And uh Cuomo said, Chris said, when the richest man who controls the most powerful platform writes that quote, the left is the party of murder.
That's what Elon Musk posted the other day, the left is the party of murder.
He says, when that happens, uh I'm not gonna excuse it because he because he's autistic.
So uh I don't know why you have to bring that in there.
And he says, uhistic people are not all morally bankrupt.
Okay, I feel like he's down, he's run he's on the wrong path with this criticism.
Um and he he goes, he has, in my opinion, so this is Chris Cuomo talking about Elon Musk.
He says he has, in my opinion, exhausted his usefulness.
Wow.
Exhausted his usefulness.
Are you kidding?
Or are we already living on Mars?
He's the only person who's literally has a uh a concrete plan in action to save the future of the planet, because we know at some point the planet will become uninhabitable.
That's there's no way around it.
So yeah, he's exhausted his usefulness.
Really?
Um, and then Must responded to that.
He goes, by implying that I might be murdered by the radical left, Cuomo is exactly proving my point.
Yeah.
That's exactly right.
So the so-called autistic guy sure has a better read of the room than the the guy who is allegedly not.
Um if you talk about just the concept, yeah, I can see why he'd be murdered.
Doesn't that make it way more likely he will be?
You you're putting that you're putting the thought in people's heads.
Uh so as I said, uh, you know, I gave a big talk about that just earlier in this podcast.
The first step for persuasion, any kind of persuasion, the first step is planting the seed, planting the seed, making it something that people are thinking about.
Now, I was I had to debate with myself whether to talk about it, because it also makes it also plants the seed.
So the more the more attention it gets, the more dangerous it is.
But Elon himself has replied to it, and you know, Chris Cuomo's got a big footprint, so I I feel like it's already out there.
But I agree with Elon that he made the point.
He made Elon's point by talking about this topic.
All right.
Um, the State Department, the U.S. State Department has decided to bar foreigners who glorify the Charlie Kirk assassination.
What do you think of that?
Do you think people should be barred from the country if they had glorified the assassination of uh an American leader?
Uh yes.
Um, here's the way I would word it.
If you act like a Democrat, you're not allowed in the country.
Yeah, you didn't say that comment, did you?
The State Department literally has a rule that says if you act like a Democrat, you're not allowed in the country.
Just think about that.
Just think about the fact that the Democrats who are here wouldn't be allowed in the fucking country.
Some of them would.
Bernie Sanders, by the way, put out a nice little video, you know, asking for a peace.
Appreciate it.
But he ignored the the base problem, the root problem.
The root problem is the rhetoric.
The action doesn't happen without the thinking and the you know, the ideation and the talking.
So the root problem is the way the Democrats talk about it.
And the State Department is going after the root problem.
If you talk about it, You don't even get to be in the country.
So I kind of love the fact that the State Department is barring people who act like Democrats.
Am I wrong?
Is that too far?
Too much of a summary or simplification?
That's what I see.
The only reason that they even thought to have a rule to bar them is because the Democrats are doing so much of it.
They're saying we don't need any more of that.
So you don't even get to come in the country.
Literally barred from coming in the country if they act like Democrats.
Now, obviously, like I said, not all Democrats, it never works that way.
All right.
So Dave Portnoy, you all know him from uh Barstool sports.
Um, he's getting some heat for something he said online that I believe is misinterpreted, because what he said is what every one of us agree with.
But you could, you know, if you've got a problem with Dave Portnoy, you can you can kind of turn it into something it wasn't.
So let me let me talk about that.
I'm gonna defend Dave Pornoy, because we don't need friendly fire.
The the thing we don't need is to cancel the people that are often largely on our side, or at least are dedicated to free speech and common sense, which he is.
He's a free speech common sense guy.
You don't want to cancel him, even if you disagree.
But here's what he got in a little trouble with online, and I'm gonna defend him.
Well, he said, quote, when I say Trump has a huge part in it, meaning the violence, he says, when I say Trump has a huge part in it, I don't necessarily mean he's to blame for it, but he's so divisive, and he went on to say that even his face is divisive.
Like people look at his face and they they get enraged, and people hate him so much.
Now, the way people are choosing to interpret this is kind of dumb.
Uh, they're trying to interpret it as Trump is to blame for it because of his rhetoric.
But that's the opposite of um that he's not to blame.
He said it directly.
He said directly he's not to blame.
But is it true that the divisiveness of Trump probably leads to the other side getting violent?
Yes.
That would be obvious.
Who disagrees with that?
Now it's not Trump's fault that he says stuff like uh we need to close the border, but we all absorb we we all observe that that makes uh half the country flip out.
That would be divisive.
It's not wrong, it's not wrong.
It just happens to make half the country mad.
So that's what makes them a great leader.
The best leaders make big changes.
There's no such thing as a leader making a big change, no matter how awesomely great that change is, that isn't divisive.
Divisive means you're making big changes, in this case, ones that most of the country likes.
So, no, let's not argue whether Trump is divisive.
That's just so obvious.
It doesn't mean it's a flaw.
It means that people are you know in their little bubble, and if they see a different bubble, they're like, oh, oh, I can't I can't live in this planet with the people in that other bubble.
So the divisiveness comes from the environment when you inject a powerful leader.
Trump's problem is that he's powerful, and so that creates more, you know, more energy.
So, yes, he he is one of the variables that absolutely should be considered when you're trying to figure out what's going on here.
But he's not to blame, he doesn't need to change.
I don't think, in my in my opinion, he's not over the line.
But um I I would say that uh nearly a hundred percent of Trump supporters would agree with the fact that most great leaders are divisive, would you?
Is there anybody who would disagree with that?
Most great leaders are divisive.
And you wouldn't want it any other way because there's not really any chance it could go any other way.
We don't all want the same thing.
So if somebody is a leader and says, all right, I'm gonna get you this set of things, it's a guarantee that there are other people who don't want that set of things to happen.
Of course it's divisive.
It's not a mistake, it's not an error, it's not bad leadership, it's good leadership.
That's just what it costs to get stuff done.
You get divisiveness.
So let's not take Dave Pornoy out with friendly fire.
He's mostly on your side, right?
He's not gonna agree with you on all the topics, but he's one of the good guys, in my opinion.
Although I have him I have him blocked on X, but I don't know why I must have been mad at him or something sometime in the past.
Um I guess uh here's some non-Charlie Kirk stuff, finish it off here.
Um I guess Memphis is next for the crime fighting from Trump.
So he wants to send the National Guard to Memphis.
All right.
You know, every time I don't, well, it's only happened once so far in DC, but if Trump can make this a thing that he can say, all right, I picked the city and I drove the crime rate down.
I don't know if it stays down, but if he can make that a thing, man, if he can do it just twice, then it's it's a thing, and that's gonna be fun.
And I think it will work, so we'll see what happens.
Um Ryan Ruth or Routh or whatever is the attempted assassin of Trump, the golf course guy, um, he's he's defending himself, and it's just as amusing as you thought it was because he's bad shit crazy.
Um, so I guess he spent seven minutes rambling about Hitler, Putin, Sudan, and Netanyahu, um, until finally the judge says sent the jury away and said, uh, all right, we we're not doing this.
Now, I don't know that Routha Ruth has the capability to pull back from that.
I I think that no matter what, he's gonna go full crazy.
Um, but Judge Aileen Cannon, she's got a she's got a handful there.
So we'll see.
Well, the UAE is uh had some stern words for Israel about Israel's bombing of Qatar and uh not of Qatar, but of the Hamas leadership that was um safely in Qatar, but no longer a safely because I think five of them got killed with the bombing.
So the UAE is you know saying you're bad, and uh they're saying that uh it uh killed any hope for Gaza hostages.
So Qatar's prime minister said that that the bombing killed any hope for the Gaza hostages.
Do you think there was any hope for the Gaza hostages?
You know, do you do you think that maybe we're past hope?
I don't know.
I I guess there's always hope.
Uh I wouldn't want you to lose hope.
Yeah, they you know should do everything we can to get them back, or they should.
Um, but the the thing that I shake my head every time I see comments of this, why would you assume that Israel wants peace?
Like what would suggest that they want peace?
Now, if they if the only way they can get the peace is by letting Hamas survive, do they want that?
They don't want that.
They don't want peace on Hamas's terms, and those are the only terms offered.
If the only terms that will be offered are we're not surrendering, we want to be in charge when it's all done, um, and we're not gonna release the hostages.
I I think uh Israel's national best interest, which is different from me saying I Support it.
All right.
If you're new to me, I'm not saying I support this.
I'm observing that Israel's national best interest probably isn't peace.
It's definitely in the best interest of the hostages.
You know, it might increase the odds that they they get released.
But I feel like Israel's you know, hundred year advantage is just to gain land, gain control over it and reduce the uh reduce the risk room Hamas.
I think that's their national interest.
And probably that will come at the price of maybe some hostages that you could imagine might have been released if they had let Hamas reconstitute and essentially do what they did before.
So I don't expect that.
What why does anybody think that Israel's pushing for some kind of quick peace plan?
To me, that would look like a mistake, geopolitically strategy-wise.
I'm not telling you my preference.
This is not my preference.
I don't have a preference.
I'm just observing that they seem to be acting in their own best interest and they're supposed to.
That's that's what the government of every country should be doing, acting in their own best interest.
They're doing a good job of it.
But you know, if you've got if you've got opinions about the moral or ethical boundaries, that's for you to discuss with whoever you want to discuss it with.
But I don't believe that those are factors in international affairs.
In international affairs, everybody break breaks agreements if it's for their country's benefit.
So nobody really acts morally or ethically uh in terms of international affairs.
It's it's not really something that happens.
So pretending that our moral or ethical opinions in this country should somehow have some effect in some other country, that's just silly.
You know, that as soon as you get into that um you know, moral ethical domain, it's just blah blah blah.
Well, I don't follow Brazil politics too much.
So what I know is that uh former president uh uh Bolsonaro has now been, I guess he's gone through the court system entirely, and he will go to jail.
Um I don't know exactly what he's being uh uh accused of or whether it's just lawfare.
I believe Trump believes that the charges are more political, you know, lawfare kind of thing.
It's probably reminding him of his own situation.
So since I don't have any uh insight into Brazil, I'll just point out that uh I think Brazil's sort of on thin ice because I don't think that Trump is going to be happy with them jailing the former president.
So we'll see what happens.
But I don't know.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a little tariff action going on there pretty soon.
We'll see.
All right.
Cat.
Apparently, Meta and TikTok were successful uh defeating the European Commission, um, who wanted to charge them for supervising them.
So you know Europe has this Digital Services Act that uh would really penalize the big platforms, the digital platforms, for allowing what they would call misinformation and hate speech and stuff on the platforms.
Now, there's no way that these companies could stay in business if they had to police all of that.
It's just too hard to police.
Um it's a big deal that they don't have to pay for their own policing, so that's worth something.
Um, but they still have to, at this point, they would still have to follow the European Union rules or else pay fines or be blocked from doing business over there.
So I feel like Europe has become our frenemy.
I mean, they're not our enemy, but they're definitely not our friends right now, because this uh Digital Services Act is that's really that's the pretty uh direct attack on the interests of the United States.
And they don't have any big digital platforms like this.
So it's no big deal for Europe.
All they're doing is charging American companies.
That's not cool.
Make your own digital platform.
Europe.
According to new economic thinking, there was a study that found that uh males and female economists have different views.
Is that surprising to you?
That female economists look at things differently than men.
Now, that's no surprise.
But here's the thing.
What's the difference between economics and an opinion?
If it's true that men and women come to different opinions about economics, it's not because they're looking at different data.
It's not because they learned economics wrong.
If they know economics and they're all looking at the same data, what would cause women and men to have different opinions of what to do and what's happening?
Well, it sort of tells me that there's not much difference between economics and your opinion.
Because if your opinion could be anywhere, no matter what the data is, and no matter what the rules of economics are, that kind of tells me that it's all bullshit.
And that you know, where you started from is where you're gonna end up, you know, no matter no matter what the data tells you.
It's like, well, if I started here, according to Polinico, gasoline's gonna hit uh a 20-year low.
That's cool.
I mean, if only so we stop complaining about gas.
I I would love to not hear about gas or eggs ever again, unless I'm ordering eggs.
Well, Germany, I don't even believe this story.
Reuters is reporting that Germany is wants to double its uh its military.
What would you guess?
Oh shit.
What would you guess is the current size of the German army?
What would you guess?
The German army.
How many people do you think are in it?
Well, according to this Reuters, there are only 62,000 troops in all of Germany.
They only have 62,000 troops.
Is this all because we're afraid if they get to any large military size, they'll try to start World War III.
That is really not many not many uh troops.
So I don't know.
They're only talking about army in this case, so maybe they, you know, maybe if you add the other ones, it's not so bad.
But I didn't know there was any major country that had that few troops.
I just assume everybody, you know, I assume the major countries have you know half a million to a million normally.
Uh that shocked me.
So maybe I'm reading something wrong.
I might give me a fact check on that if you all right.
So the the uh European commission uh has allegedly, according to Brussels Signal, that's a publication, has uh downgraded their their green deal initiatives.
So it's not that they're you know saying that uh climate change doesn't matter, but they're de-emphasizing it and more emphasis on uh uh independence and competitiveness.
So here's what I say cats on the roof, you know, cats on the roof, it's based on a joke, but it means that um they're signaling that there's some bad news coming.
In this case, the bad news would be for them, not for you, and it would suggest that they're not so concerned about climate change anymore.
I I feel like you're just gonna see more and more of this.
Um, it's not my imagination that the news media has backed off on climate change.
Am I right?
Now, part of that might be that the data is not working, you know, the climate models that did not predict correctly, so they're just backing off.
It could be because you know the politics of change and the Republicans are in charge, but that wouldn't affect Europe.
Uh I feel like there, yeah, it feels like there's a tipping point coming where it will go from climate change, of course, is real.
I think the next tip will be well, we don't know if it's real or not.
And then it will go to, okay, it wasn't wasn't that real.
That's happening.
Cats on the roof.
There's a US nuclear firm.
According to interesting engineering, they got um just got approval to dig a one mile hole in the ground and drop a little mini nuclear reactor into it.
And uh, let's see.
And uh the first one will be a pilot, but they'll be able to produce nuclear electricity.
Uh I'm sorry.
They'll there it's a nuclear power plant that they'll put in a one mile deep hole because that solves a bunch of problems if it's in the hole.
So, what it solves is uh um it's safer, and it's got you know natural containment and stuff like that.
But here is the part that really caught my interest.
So they just got approval, and they believe that they'll have their first pilot up and running by July 2026.
That's only next year.
Do you believe that there's a startup in the nuclear space that can dig a one mile hole and put a functioning nuclear power plant in it in less than a year?
How many how many of you think that that can happen?
Well, I don't know.
But if that's possible, everything's about ready to change.
You know, because I think nuclear was always a situation where uh it was going to be nearly impossible to commercialize something until it's not.
And then when you hit it's not, because you've engineered yourself to a better place, and then it's gonna go wild.
So if this is true, do you know how many holes they're gonna have by 2027?
A lot of holes, if it works.
So it's a pilot program.
But uh, I will be amazed and dazzled if they can get that working in mid-2026.
That would be impressive.
That that would make me feel um faith in America and ingenuity again.
Because I'm losing a little faith in our American ingenuity, but if we can do that and start building nukes, nuclear power plants that that work in less than a year.
I don't know.
I think China's got some catching up to do if that if we can do that.
Well, NASA is apparently gonna uh ban Chinese citizens from all of its facilities and his networks and even Zoom calls.
So if you're a Chinese citizen, even if you're here uh legally and you're working you know completely legally, you will not be allowed anywhere near NASA facilities or even to be on a Zoom call.
Why is that?
Well, you know.
You know why.
And uh is that a good idea?
I don't know.
I mean probably.
It's probably a good idea.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you.
Is there any topic I left out?
Any any new breaking news in the last hour?
All right.
Uh American privilege.
Yeah.
Yeah, I know Germany was still to demilitarize after World War II, but um I thought that might apply to you know, not necessarily troop levels.
But uh good Democrats are changing the subject.
Yeah, the Democrats are trying to talk about health care.
They get a problem, those Democrats.
All right.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm gonna talk to my beloved subscribers on locals.
