God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Apple Translate, RICO Billionaires, Tyler Robinson Background, Cognitive Dissonance, MSNBC Hosts, Political Violence, Rhetoric Inciting Violence, Jasmine Crockett, Charlamagne Tha God, Chris Cuomo, Party of Murder, Elon Musk, Poverty Crime, Bill Maher, David Axelrod, VISA Holders Rhetoric, Andrew Tate, Female Voter Priorities, Male Priority Voting, Empathy Priority Voting, Epstein's Financial Records, Memphis Mayor Paul Young, Criminal Mayors, John Bolton's Email, Russian Oil, President Trump NATO Tariffs, Mamdani Anti-Israel Base, Zohran Mamdani, 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 uh get a cat in your lap if you have it if you have the option.
It's always better with a cat on your lap.
What came for?
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
You never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cupper mug or a glass of tanker, chalice or stein, 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 hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
All right.
Well, apparently Tommy Robinson has uh a gajillion people protesting in central London, I think it is, and it turns out a lot of those people are carrying American flags and chanting about Charlie Kirk in London.
Do you believe that the the uh the Brits maybe got a little bit more energy for protesting because of Charlie Kirk's tragic situation?
I'll bet yes.
I'll bet yes.
And you you might see a global effect to the assassination.
This might be the first indication that we cannot calculate how big this is.
Now I don't want to get ahead of myself because it's not that big yet, but the potential size of this is hard to estimate, but if you look at the clut the crowds, look at the crowd pictures.
That's a lot of people, and they all have flags.
Some of them American.
Well, after the show, as is our tradition for Saturday, um, Owen Gregorian will be hosting a spaces event.
That's the audio only event on X. So go to X after the show and just search for Owen and Gregorian and you'll find the link.
Um I wonder if there's any science that didn't have to happen, because they could have just asked me.
Oh, here's some.
According to the conversation, that's the publication.
Uh cats give you oxytocin.
So that's a brain chemistry that makes you feel good, makes you feel loved.
So it's true.
We don't get it just from being close to other humans.
We also get oxytocin from animals.
And I think they had already tested dogs, and that gave you oxytocin, but cats do too.
Uh, I will tell you that that was the primary reason I got my two cats.
I got them for oxytocin.
Like literally, I said to myself, um, I'm at a certain age in a certain health situation where the odds of me even touching other people are going way down.
You know, I'm lucky if I get you know a handshake once a week.
I have you know it's just natural when you're when you're not in a place where you could get into a relationship when you're not in one.
Um there's really a shortage of oxytocin, and I think that can make you crazy.
I believe that if you have no oxytocin, and that might be some of the problem with these shooters as well.
If they don't have access to touch, they don't get calmed down, and they don't find any sense of peace, just being in their own body and in their own life, And they're looking for something big to give them a dopamine or some kind of thrill.
So get yourself a cat and your dopamine.
Well, I don't know about dopamine, but oxytocin will be way better.
Hey, I wonder if I can find the cat.
All right.
I think I'll do the rest of the show with a cat on my cheek.
Mm-xytocin.
Mmm.
I'm getting all your oxytocin.
Steal it.
I'm taking it.
Yeah, give it up, Gary.
All right.
I'll need another hit later.
So come on back later.
Okay.
All right.
Well, they didn't really need to study that.
They could have just asked me, Scott, do you think your cat will give you oxytocin?
And I would have said, hell yeah, you don't have to study that.
Well, uh scientists have uh they claim reversed aging in monkeys.
They found a way to reverse aging, and I'm going to tell you exactly how.
But uh it was a certain kind of monkey called uh macaque, macock.
That's the name of the monkey, macaque.
So I was interested in making macaque younger.
So if you want to talk about macaque, this would be the place to do it.
They're monkeys, damn it.
You did you're disgusting.
Oh man, you could make anything sound dirty.
They're monkeys, people, they're monkeys.
Clean up your mind.
All right, you're probably wondering how in the world do they reverse aging?
But I'm gonna explain it to you.
Now pay attention.
I'm gonna, you know, I have a gift for summarizing and simplifying.
So I'm gonna take this complicated thing and try to give it to you in the simplest terms.
And if you don't understand this, well, I'm pretty sure the problem's on your end, because I'm gonna explain this so clearly.
All right, so mechanistically, the SRC derived exosomes, they reduce the cellular uh senescence markers, and I'm talking about the P21 CIPI1 and the YH2AAX, obviously.
Inflammation from your ILIB, your TNFA, your IL6, and your oxidative stress.
All right, you following me?
While enhancing heterochromatin stability uh in immune function.
So this suppresses the the C gas sting inflammatory pathways and promotes systemic rejuvenation.
Everybody got that?
See, it was kind of easy.
You just have to relax and listen, and it all makes sense.
All right.
So you already know that Apple introduced uh the new feature in their earbuds, their little earpieces that will translate, but I didn't realize how good it is.
Apparently, it's live translation without a delay.
I mean, there's gotta be some delay, but it's almost no delay.
But also it's so good that both people can be talking over each other and it will still translate the other person.
That's pretty that that is impressive.
Because in the real world, people talk over each other and there's lots of other noise, still works.
So imagine if you will, this becomes more of a normal thing.
Can you imagine traveling to places that you would have never traveled before?
Uh, but being able to understand everybody.
Oh, the problem is if you meet some villager in a remote place, they're not gonna have the translator.
So you would understand them, but they would have no idea what you're saying.
Uh, maybe you can use another app for that.
But uh, as I've said before, I have a hypothesis that the reason that the US, Russia, and China are sort of these frenemy rivals, you know, maybe more rivals than frenemy.
I feel like it might be because of language.
I'm not, you know, I'm not positive, I wouldn't bet my life on it.
But doesn't it seem to you that whenever we're dealing with a country that speaks perfect English, even if it's not a you know, normally an English-speaking country, that whatever the leader is gifted in English, we get along with them.
Is that true?
I mean, it feels like that's mostly true, right?
So I just have this feeling that if the leaders can talk in the same language comfortably, that everything works out differently.
It just it just feels like that's true.
You would you wouldn't imagine that because you think it's no, no, it's not the way they talk, Scott.
You know, they have translators, it's really these big issues.
You know, the issues are the reason that we don't get away get along.
To which I say I challenge that assumption.
I don't think that's how brains are organized.
I be I think people, when they can talk to people comfortably, they just say, Well, I'm not gonna nuke my friend Don.
I don't, I don't want to nuke my friend.
But if the only contact you have is through an interpreter, I feel like that's like a little wall that allows you to say, all right, I'm over here, my enemies over there on the other side of that invisible wall.
Language is pretty important.
This might change everything.
Uh well, Ars Technica's reporting, uh, Ben Edwards, that uh there was an education report that was being put together by the Canadian government, so they uh they authorized it.
It took them 18 months to put together a report on the ethical uses of AI.
It's important that the report was about the ethical uses of AI, and now the humorous irony.
Apparently, the report uh included a number of uh fake fake sources because the AI lied to them, and they believed it, and they wrote down all the fake sources, and it took them 18 months, take it took them 18 months to create a report with fake sources that AI probably wrote.
They probably had AI write a report about the dangers of AI, if you if you use it unethically, I guess.
All right, good job, guys.
I saw a uh post by uh an ex-user, Justine Moore, who uh I believe is a uh high-end investor, and uh she said the best ex accounts are run by people who are so uh who are at some level unemployable.
You have to be posting takes that disqualify you from a decent chunk of jobs in your industry in order to have a good ex account.
Well, I would agree with that.
Um if I could just speak personally, I'm really sure that if I had a regular day job with a regular boss, that I wouldn't say 75% of the things I say online.
There's no way I would say the things honestly that I say now.
Um and still uh even though I didn't have a boss per se, I got canceled worldwide for one of my opinions, or at least the way I stated it.
It wasn't even because of the opinion, nobody disagreed with my opinion, but I got canceled anyway.
Well, President Trump has uh indicated that uh he's looking into going after George Soros, figuring out how his money is flowing through and possibly getting to violent protests and other bad distortions in our country, and he thinks that there might be a RICO case because Soros would be part of a larger organized group of people doing things that potentially could be illegal.
Don't know exactly what would be in that category of illegal, but uh Trump does, and he does include uh the younger Soros, so he's not just saying George, he's you know, saying the uh Alexander as well.
And my question is, and I'm sure Mike Cernovich would be asking the same question.
Why only one billionaire?
It seems obvious to me that there are about something like half a dozen billionaires who are running the show because you know, money drives everything.
Why would you only look into one of them?
It It feels like whatever they're doing, they're all doing it.
It seems like they're playing the same game.
So I would say you want to maybe expand that a little bit.
Find out where the money's coming from, uh, because it all it all looks dirty and unethical to me.
We'll talk about the Charlie Kirk situation, of course.
Um apparently uh Republicans, some Republicans, dozens of them, are trying to get congressional leaders to investigate what they call a sustained breakdown of law and order by anti-American ideology across the country.
Just news is reporting on this.
So Chip Roy is organizing this, I think.
And uh so they've signed an open letter calling for the house leaders to form some committee to look into it because of the numerous attacks.
But they also, so this is related to the story about Rico and Soros, but they also say they want to follow the money and uncover the force behind the NGOs, donors, media, public officials, and all entities driving what they call a coordinated attack.
Now, the real question will be the degree of coordination.
Because uh, was it uh uh who is the uh seven words you can't um George Carlin.
George Carlin used to explain that you don't need to be, you don't have to have a meeting with you know notes, and everybody says out loud, oh, I agree with you, if everybody knows what to do.
So the Democrat world is one of these, everybody knows what to do.
You don't have to have a meeting.
Do you think the hosts of MSNBC have to be instructed to call Trump a fascist?
No.
They just look at what other people do, and they say, all right, that's what we're doing, I guess.
We're just you know, maybe we'll be worse than the others or better, but basically we're all doing what the others are doing.
So you only need to sort of create the narrative, and then everybody else just snaps the grid and automatically conforms.
You don't really need to coordinate.
I feel another source of oxytocin coming.
Hey, look who it is.
It's Roman the cat coming to join his brother.
All right, we will move on.
So the alleged shooter of um Charlie Kirk, his name is Tyler Robinson, he's a high school student.
Not no, I'm sorry, he's not a high school student, he's 22.
But when he was in high school, he had a 4.0 average, and he even had a scholarship to college, but he I guess he didn't last long in college, so he's living at home.
And probably you're wondering, how could somebody with a 4.0 average be so stupid and so hypnotized to do what he did?
And I can tell you one thing that's really useful to go through life with intelligence does not protect you from influence, it just doesn't.
You're sure that it should, right?
You're positive that it should.
Yeah, you dropped out of college.
Um you're sure that he you're sure that the smarter you are, the more invulnerable will you be to influence.
But just look around.
There are people who are literally geniuses who are in completely opposite sides of things.
How is that possible?
If if intelligence uh got you to the right answer more often, wouldn't all the intelligent people be on the same side?
But they're not.
I mean, even if you looked at the geniuses that were part of the PayPal original team, you know, the Elon Musk, the David Sachs, uh Reed Hoffman, you've got Reed Hoffman on the you know, far left and funding things, and you've got Elon and Sachs on the right.
They're all geniuses.
But they're you know, they're they're not immune from being influenced by something in the environment like that.
There's uh just no protection whatsoever.
That's that's my official uh word as a trained hypnotist, because hypnotists learn that the smarter you are, the easier it is to hypnotize you.
Let me say that again.
Hypnotists learn in school, we're actually taught that the smarter and more confident the subject is, the easier it is to hypnotize them.
Don't know why.
You know, I I can speculate because they're I don't know.
I I don't I wouldn't even speculate, but it's a known, it's a known phenomenon.
It's it's well enough known that um it's actually taught taught in school.
All right.
Um what else we got here?
Um the as far as we know, but I think it's still a little fog of war.
The uh the perpetrator, the shooter was a far left kind of guy.
You might be seeing online some rumors that I think are unsubstantiated that he was actually further right than Charlie Kirk.
Um, I believe that's all unsubstantiated stuff, but there's enough to it that I would say, hmm, you better wait and find out more about this guy, because it's not impossible, you know.
Just almost anything that you're sure you know about this story might be wrong.
You know, we're we're at that point in the story where really there could be really basic fundamental things that we find out are just not true.
So uh, as far as we can tell, he was a far left guy, but uh maybe not.
We'll see.
All right.
Um one of his friends from high school says he knows he's definitely far left.
And to me, that's pretty convincing.
I I feel like if it if his good high school friend said, oh yeah, he's he's way left.
That's probably dependable.
That that seems like a reasonably strong statement.
It's uh it's unlikely that he went from high school far left to a few years later far right.
You know, that doesn't seem likely.
All right.
So as you know, we're in sort of a contest to blame whatever you think is the other side.
So of course, conservatives are blaming the left for the um all the the dangerous talk that looks like it may have encouraged people to get violent, and of course, the left the the left is arguing that Trump's rhetoric is the the root cause.
Unbelievable.
Yeah, you know uh we always joke about the uh the Democrats projecting, like if they murder you, they will accuse you of murder as they're stabbing you, right?
How many times have we seen that example?
As they're stabbing you, stop murdering me.
Stop it.
You're murdering me, stop it.
And you know, we're I'm just in a different movie, so all I see is they're murdering us.
Uh but they're apparently, I don't know if they believe their own movie.
What do you think?
Do you think the hosts of MMSNBC believe that Trump is really the root cause here and that they're not, and that they believe they're not?
Do you believe they believe that?
It's possible because of cognitive dissonance.
So cognitive dissonance um won't allow you to form an opinion of yourself that's too negative if you're if you have a healthy ego, if you're not mentally ill.
So if you're perfectly normal, your brain is working the way it should, it will malfunction when you're presented with a situation where uh you have obviously done something stupid or evil, and you don't think you're stupid, and you don't think you're evil?
That's what triggers cognitive dissonance when there's a there's a disconnect Between what you're doing or experiencing and what you believe to be true?
And then your brain spontaneously comes up with a story that usually sounds ridiculous to observers.
So here's the test.
Did the MSNB ho NBC hosts, are they experiencing the situation in which there's strong indication that they are the bad guys?
What do you think?
Have they created are they in a situation where it's becoming somewhat obvious that they're the bad guys and that they might be stupid and they might be evil?
Would you agree that that's sort of becoming obvious?
Now, what would smart people with normal brains?
No, you don't need any mental illness, just a normal brain.
What would they do in that situation?
Well, they would hallucinate that the real problem is something else, so that they're off the hook.
And so they and they snap the grid on uh on Trump.
It's like uh, why do you have a bunion on your toe?
Trump, Trump.
Why does it look like it's gonna rain today?
Trump, Trump, Trump.
So you've got this little Trump reflex that they've developed because everything's Trump's fault.
But the tell, the way you can tell it's cognitive dissonance as opposed to just a different opinion, is that the people who are not experiencing the cognitive dissonance look at it and they say, um, are you drunk?
I mean, are you are you in mushrooms or something?
Because your opinion is so disconnected from any kind of reality that surely you can tell that you're completely on the wrong page, but they act like they can't, and that's cognitive dissonance.
They're they're probably not acting, they're probably actually having an experience in which their brain has calculated somehow that they're innocent.
So here's the test.
When they say that the reason that that guy killed Charlie Kirk is because of Trump's um rhetoric, does that sound well, maybe that could be true?
Is that how you think of it?
And even if his rhetoric is what caused people to get worked up, what rhetoric is that?
Is it where he said, I'm gonna protect you people in the United States by sealing the border?
Is that the part?
How about the part where he said I'm gonna reduce crime for all you poor people, especially poor black people living in DC and now Memphis?
Is that the part?
You know, what was the dangerous rhetoric?
So anyway, yeah, cognitive dissonance.
So and then, of course, we're all trying to uh keep score, and and we're the people on the right are positive that the political violence is almost but not completely limited to the left, right?
How many of you believe that to be true?
That the political violence is largely not 100%, but largely on the left.
Well, I'm not even sure yet, because these stories are all a little uh, you know, the various stories all have a little uh wrinkle to them.
For example, the guy who tried to kill uh Governor Shapiro in Pennsylvania, he tried to burn his house down and uh probably wanted to kill his family.
That was somebody who is mad about him being pro-Israel or anti-Israel, uh being maybe too pro-Israel?
Was that it?
But it was something about Israel, so it wasn't even about left or right, you know, because the left and the right are kind of mixed on Israel, it wasn't even that.
So how do you score that one?
Is that the left or the right when it really was a specific issue?
What about the uh guy who uh dressed as a police officer and killed or shot two different families, right?
Uh that were both in politics.
It was a husband and a wife, and um, but that was over, I think that was over a specific issue, wasn't it?
Was it over abortion or something?
But I'm not sure.
Do you count the ones where somebody is mad at a specific issue, like Israel or like Ukraine or like abortion?
Is that the same as saying it's a leftist?
Or is that just somebody who's got this real you know real issue with this one issue?
I don't know.
But uh it feels like the violence is coming from the left.
I don't I don't know if the people on the right feel like it's coming from the right.
They might.
They have different news, so maybe they think that.
I don't know.
But we we don't really have a if if anybody's done it yet, I'd like to see it, but a really good accounting of you know how much of this is from the left versus the right.
It seems to me, and let me let me ask you this question.
I asked, I asked my locals subscribers earlier, but I'm gonna put it out to the rest of you.
Who's the first person in sort of the political talking head world?
Who's the first person you ever heard say if the Democrats keep talking about Hitler and fascists, that it's gonna turn violent.
Who's the first person who told you that's gonna happen?
Might have been me.
And that would be informed my my background in hypnosis.
If if the words um start to converge in a certain way, the words cause action.
You know, words, words are thoughts and thoughts become action.
So and then uh Greg Gaffeld uh was saying it on the five and on his show, Gaffeld, and he he has the bigger platform, so I think he's the one who made it a common thought.
But now it's the only thing we're arguing about.
It's that the number one issue in the country is that that rhetoric is causing uh violence.
Now, do you remember when I told you that when Trump uh back in 2015, I predicted that Trump would change more than politics, that he would change our very view of reality.
This is one of those times.
Once you understand that uh words, words are the basis of your brain, you know, we think in words, that if you change the words, you change the thinking.
That's why people are always arguing.
Use my definition of the word.
I say it's a genocide.
If they can get you to accept their word, then it changes your thinking.
So words change thinking.
The way you think of it is that you think and then you come up with the words to describe what you think.
Not the case.
We're a lot like uh AI and large language models.
The words come first.
If you if your brain has a certain set of words in it that it that it accesses you know more easily, or first, that's where your thinking is going to end up.
It'll end up where your words are.
So that's a hypnotist take.
So, yes, this rhetoric is absolutely lethal.
Um let's see.
Yeah, MSNPC is is going all in on this Trump's fault.
And then you've got uh Jasmine Crockett, Democrat Jasmine Crockett.
She falsely claimed, I guess she was on the Breakfast Club maybe yesterday, and uh she says that both attempted Trump assassins were registered Republicans and had not voted Democrat.
Now that is completely made up.
That's not true.
How in the world did she imagine that the attempted assassins were Republicans?
So I believe um, I think she got fact checked on that.
I I think uh Charlemagne may have fact checked her on that.
Um then she doubled down on calling Trump a quote, wannabe Hitler.
She said it again.
She said it yesterday while Charlie Kirk is in a box.
He's not even in the ground yet.
And she decided that that was all right.
I'll say that again.
Um and she she's she argues that uh calling Trump a uh you know a Nazi Hitler kind of guy is is no worse than when Trump said I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Everybody who heard him say that knew that he was making uh a hyperbole kind of an you know uh statement.
Not a single person said, hey, I've got an idea.
Why don't we shoot people on Fifth Avenue?
Because our leader thinks he can do it, so why don't we do it?
Let's go shoe some people on Fifth Avenue.
No, not a single person in the whole world thought that that was a call to violence.
And listening to Jasmine Crockett, the stupidest person in the Democrat Party, I do think she might be the dumbest person in the in the entire party.
Um but at least uh Charlemagne de God, who who is the uh host of the Breakfast Club, um, he admitted on the show where Jasmine was that uh he has engaged in rhetoric um that could be determined as inciting violence against Trump.
He he said, I think we all incite, whether we think we do or not.
And what I mean by that is I've definitely called that regime fascist.
Um and he said, if you hear somebody call him Hitler, if there's somebody that thinks, oh, Hitler, and then they look at a lot of actions that are going on, they're like, well, let's prevent this before four million people get killed.
So I can understand how it all incites violence.
Good for you.
Uh I have to say, I have uh you know continuous mixed feelings about Charlemagne the God.
Certainly agree with uh some of his takes, and I appreciate that he's taking the the both obvious and the honest take that there is something about our language that probably causes some action that we don't want, and that a lot of people are involved, and he's he's admitting that he is too.
So I don't know if he'll stop doing it.
Yeah he he came close to almost sort of forgiving that kind of stuff because everybody does it.
He didn't say that, but it sort of bumped into that thought.
Let's see.
Uh I'm I've also noticed that the people who are most angry about Charlie Kirk have a belief that he was a completely different person, completely different person.
I've I've heard somebody raging about how he was racist against blacks.
Now, I don't know every single thing that Charlie Kirk ever said, but I would still be willing to bet a large amount of money that he's never, not even once, said something that anybody could construe as racist against blacks.
I'll bet nothing.
I'll bet not once.
I'll but even I'll bet he never even brushed against it.
It's completely opposite his Christian identity, and he and he would be way too smart to do it accidentally.
He was way too good.
So no, where in the world does that even come from?
Where does that come from?
I mean, do people just make shit up and other people say, well, uh I've never heard him talk, but my friend Bob says he's this terrible person.
So this is again, you know, the two movies on one screen that I always talk about.
How in the world would they have that opinion about him?
I I'm completely baffled.
Uh well, Chris Cuomo um was uh criticizing Elon Musk, and he said, quote, I know there's power in playing the victim, but Elon Musk is the one saying that the left is the party of murder.
So that's what Elon said the other day.
The left is the party of murder.
Uh and he acts like that is pushing extremism.
To which I Say, is he really saying that Elon Musk should stop complaining about the left trying to kill him?
Do you know how much security that guy needs?
Can you imagine the number of death threats that Elon Musk has gotten, all from the left?
So when he says that the left is the party of murder, yeah, there's some hyperbole in that, obviously.
But to imagine that Elon Musk is the problem, he's literally the victim of all kinds of death threats and entirely from the left, I would guess.
You know, if it's not 100%, it's probably 99%.
So I think uh Chris Cuomo missed the mark on that complaint, because the problem is not the person complaining about getting murdered.
That's not the problem.
Oh my god.
Yeah, Charlie Kirk got murdered, but the real problem is the people complaining about it.
What?
What?
The real problem is the complaining about the murder.
I think the real problem is the murder.
There's a uh it's reminding me of a Norman McDonald joke.
You've probably all heard it by now.
When he he talks about uh Bill Cosby, he goes, you know, some people say the worst part about the Bill Cosby situation is the hypocrisy.
And then he pauses for a fact and goes, I don't think it's a hypocrisy.
I think the worst problem is the rape.
And it feels like that.
It's like, no, the worst problem is not the complaining.
It's not the complaining, it's the murder, it's the murder.
Um here's uh another example.
The account of media lies spotted this.
So the Tennessee House representative, uh Justin Pearson, he was on MSNBC just recently, and here are some of the things he said after Charlie Kirk's murder.
So wouldn't you think people would tone it down after he gets murdered?
Well, some of the things he said was uh Trump's an authoritarian dictator, the the cities that he's sending the National Guard into will be quote, occupied by the military.
Yeah, he's a white supremacist.
Um he called uh federal assistance for law enforcement terrorism, we have to fight back against it.
Uh, these are not benign acts, and black people are being used as pawns.
Now, does that sound like somebody who is trying to get a solution to any problems?
No.
That is not somebody who's trying to solve a problem.
I don't know what that is, but it's not a problem solver.
And when asked uh about what the problem is, um, Representative Pearson said that uh instead of more policing, what they need is uh things to battle poverty, resources basically, to battle poverty.
Because if you battled poverty and you improved the schools, you would have less violence.
Well, he's a stupid idiot because if you don't solve crime, you don't get any of that other stuff.
There's there's no such thing, as far as I know.
I've never heard of any high crime area that solve their crime by uh helping the poor, have you?
I've never heard of that.
As far as I know, that's a completely impossible thing.
However, I have heard of cities such as New York City under Giuliani, where they they beat back the crime, and then the economy prospered, and presumably people did better in general.
So there are examples where battling crime first can get you to a place where you have at least the opportunity to work on whatever you think are the other problems.
But if you don't do crime first, you're not gonna have a uh base of business, you're not gonna have a tax base, you won't have money to You know, improve your schools from the tax space.
Um this guy's an idiot.
This is not a difference of opinion.
This is a fucking idiot.
And he's elected.
He's in charge.
All right.
Um, I guess an MSNBC, Peter Baker, he said that the people who are calling the left radical and lunatics are the ones ratcheting up the political rhetoric.
Yeah.
Um, do you think any Republicans are gonna get a gun and murder somebody because they've heard the words radical and lunatic?
Do you think that's likely?
Where do these people come from?
They have the worst takes.
Well, Bill Moore was on Friday night, his normal show, and he had some things to say.
He uh he did helpfully tell his audience, and they got really quiet, that Trump is not Hitler, you assholes.
He was very forceful about Trump is not Hitler, you so you're not really helping yourself if that's where you're going with your narrative.
Um then he then he said uh I'm paraphrasing that a little bit, but he but he said directly, Trump is not Hitler.
So thank you for that.
That helps a lot.
Um, and he said that the people who mocked Charlie Kirk's death or tried to justify it.
He says, I think you're gross, I have no use for you.
So that was the right take.
I agree with that.
So I think he's on the the right side of this.
He's a free speech guy, so that makes sense.
Um, but I wonder, I I didn't hear him acknowledge like Charlemagne the God did that he might have been part of the problem.
Did Bill Maher ever accuse Trump of being a fascist or trying to steal democracy?
Because I think he might have.
I think he might have.
Uh, but I'd rather I'd rather be happy that he said Trump is not Hitler and happy that uh um he he's not happy with the people who celebrated it.
So that's something.
But I feel like I feel like he needs to kind of come clean that he may have used some of the words.
I mean, he's not to blame.
You know, I'm not gonna say he's the blame, but collectively, don't they think they don't you think they all knew the risk?
You know, you've heard the phrase stochatic um terrorism, the idea that you just use words to condemn somebody to the point where somebody said, Man, I'm gonna have to take care of this, and they they get violent.
So it feels like the Democrats knew on some level that they were putting Republicans in mortal danger, but they were okay with it because they wouldn't personally be blamed.
No, I'm just one person who said a few words.
You know, if there were hundreds and hundreds of people on TV saying a few words, well, you can't put me in jail for that.
So David Axelrod, famed uh Democrat consultant sort of guy, he torched the Democrats over a few uh what he calls the mistakes.
He said it was insane to spend three years before you did something serious about the border.
Insane.
And then he also said it was wrong not to be much more active in trying to reopen schools.
All right.
Um does it strike you as odd that these two problems that every Republican understood were gigantic problems, that the Democrats had to wait uh what a year after they were out of office to even admit that, oh yeah, this is like insane, just insane.
Did he not know that at the time?
I I think he did.
I think he did know that was insane, at least the border part.
Um then uh Axel Rod is complaining about the Republicans who may have used the word war recently, as in uh, you know, we're in a war with the other side.
And he said uh the words have specific meaning.
When you say you're in a war, it's an invitation for people to commit acts of violence.
And it didn't take long for social media and Western lensmen caught this on X. Um, there's a clip of Chris Murphy, prominent Democrat, who is saying, you know, I think the day before Charlie Kirk was killed, he said, we're in a war to save the country.
You have to be willing to do whatever is necessary.
Now, if you say the context is a war, and then you say you have to do whatever is necessary, that does allow killing.
That would be whatever's necessary to some people, not to me, obviously.
Um, Axelrod, um I would sort of partially agree that war is uh it's a fighting word, but when I see uh when I say Republicans talk that way, um I know that they don't mean it literally.
But when Democrats talk about Trump being uh you know the next authoritarian Hitler, they mean it literally.
You know, I mean, not that he's gonna have a little mustache and change his name to Hitler, but they would act like that.
I believe they mean that literally.
I I've never heard any, I've never heard a Republican who would believe that we're in a literal war, as opposed to a political one.
Anyway, uh Trump has ordered the uh State Department to expand their screening to uh disallow people who are trying to get into the country on visas, uh, to disallow them if they've said bad things um about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
And I guess they're using AI to search for things that they might have said.
Now, I'm happy about that.
Yeah, I I feel like you don't get to come in the front door and and be our guest uh unless you're saying good things, at least on day one.
I mean, you know, you shouldn't have a history of criticizing the country and then trying to get into it.
So I'm all right with that.
I don't know if that will pass any legal muster, but I'm definitely okay with it.
Well, Andrew Tate, who sometimes is going quiet, but now he's re-emerging.
He was on Pierce Morgan uncensored, and uh he says one of the problems, the big problems in the country is uh uh women voting.
And he says, who votes for liberalism?
Who votes for soft on crime?
Who votes for open borders?
Who votes for DEI by and large?
Male or female, which sexes?
Female.
So he he says, uh, why was this woman, you know, the Ukrainian woman who got stabbed on the light rail train?
He says, why is this woman going to work and riding the tram uh alone at night instead of thinking this is dangerous?
She believed that she can go and fend for herself.
Bad things happen when we ignore reality.
Society was built by evil misogynistic men.
I love the honesty of that.
And then these feminists came along and destroyed it all.
I believe in protecting women because I don't believe they can fight.
And he says, if that makes me a misogynist, so be it.
Well, now, of course, Andrew Tate uh is brilliant at being the most provocative on whatever the topic is.
So this again is is more that.
He's very good at this communication thing, if you haven't noticed.
Um, but I'll tell I'll give you my take.
I also believe that uh women are did not evolve for defense, protection, defense, to be their top priority sort of biologically designed to do it.
Men did, you know, men are designed for violence.
We're designed to protect what we love and kill what we don't and kill what we need to eat.
And so uh I just ask you this.
Male or female, let's say you've got a date, one of you is male, one of you is female, you go into a restaurant.
Which one of you knows where the exits are?
Which one of you plans just automatically, reflexively, what would happen if uh if an armed person came in and shooting in the restaurant?
Like what would be the first thing you do?
Men do that.
We are designed, we're trained from birth, I think, uh, to be defense-oriented.
So if you're talking about uh what should we do about the border of the country, you don't want women involved in that.
If you do, you're gonna get an open border because women are trained, designed, evolved to put empathy first.
Now, before you call me a misogynist, uh let me be clear.
I do think that a woman could be you know the president and the best protector of the border.
You remember Hillary was pretty hard-ass about the border before, you know, before she lied and said she wasn't.
Um so yeah, you could get uh Margaret Thatcher.
Um, you know, I I could probably name half a dozen women um who would be you know perfectly strong on all the things, strong on crime, strong on the border.
So it's not about individuals, right?
It's about averages.
And the average applies to voting, but it doesn't apply to any one person who wanted to be extraordinary at one job.
So any job is fine if they you know, if they're qualified for the job.
But as soon as you go with averages, it's like, all right, everybody vote.
Men and women, everybody vote.
You're gonna get the male vote, which would protect you from violence, watered down by the average of women are like, oh, we don't want to treat people badly, let them in.
So I won't go as far as Andrew Tate did, but I will say, uh, and obviously there's there's not really a practical way that that uh women would lose the vote.
I don't I don't think that's serious, but he makes the point that if you're looking for the source of the problem, that's it.
That's it.
I'm pretty sure that if only men voted, we would have a very different looking world.
Yeah, maybe in some ways it'd be worse, but in ways that uh matter a lot to us, I'm pretty sure it would be better.
Yeah, we we never would have opened a border, for example.
That never would have happened, I don't think.
Well, Comcast, um, who owns MSNBC issued a public apology.
Uh, you already know this story.
One of their one of their commentators got fired for um kind of suggesting that maybe Charlie Kirk's uh narrative got him killed.
And you know, they say they'll do better, etc.
But I don't know, I don't know if their apology means anything because then they put the same bunch of lying idiots on the air to make the same claims that uh Trump's the one to blame for the uh the violence.
They all need to be fired if you're gonna be taken seriously.
And if you're not gonna be, if you're not gonna fire the liars and the morons uh who are making everything worse, and they're basically triggering killers, in my opinion.
Uh, if you're not gonna do something real about that, don't give us your little press release about that what guy you didn't care about anyway, who didn't have his own show?
They didn't care about him.
They might have even wanted to get rid of him.
Maybe it wasn't that good anyway.
So they lost nothing, and they just went right back to saying things that'll get Republicans killed.
So no respect whatsoever for MSNBC or their management.
All right.
Um, I guess the House Oversight Committee, James Comer's committee is uh requested uh Epstein's financial records from the Treasury.
It looks like they'll get them.
To which I say, really?
What we're just now gonna look at his financial records.
Has anybody looked at him?
Uh have his financial records been thoroughly examined by some police entity in prior prior case, you know, prior situation.
Um would the uh treasury department have to start from scratch and say, oh nobody nobody's looked into this, but you know, we'll we'll spend a month trying to put it together.
Um, maybe we'll find out everything, because or maybe we don't we won't, because uh allegedly Epstein was an expert at laundering money.
So if we see all the official and legal ways that he moved money around, it might not tell us anything, but I'd love to see the dollar amounts, wouldn't you?
Wouldn't you like to see if suddenly I don't know, 50 million dollars came into his account one day and there's no explanation for it?
I don't know.
And I don't know how much of his money would have been, let's say, in Swiss accounts or something like that.
I don't know if we can penetrate them these days.
So we might not find out anything.
Well, did you know that one of the ways to get rid of all those microplastics from the water?
Um scientists found out that you could put uh extracts from okra and fenogreek, some kind of plant-based thing, um, and tamarind.
And what it does is it sticks the plastic and makes it heavy enough to sink to the bottom, so they can get rid of 90% of microplastics just by putting these natural goo they call it into the water.
Now, this is one of uh several scientific breakthroughs I've told you about recently that all deal with microplastics, and I think microplastics will be another one of those Adams Law of slow-moving disaster situations, where it looked like uh are we gonna all die from eating plastic because it's in everything and we can't get it out.
Well, it looks like we had enough time for the smart people to figure out some solutions.
They don't have the solutions yet, but they're definitely knocking on the door with a number of different technologies.
Well, as you know, Trump said he's gonna deploy the National Guard to Memphis next, um, because they have a very high crime.
I think they're the highest crime in the country.
They have a Democrat mayor, but the Democrat mayor has uh allowed them to come in, but he's trying to have it both ways.
He he's trying to basically criticize Trump while while uh accepting his help.
So he's really he's really walking a fine line here.
Um what do you say?
Uh he said uh there are a lot of citizens in our community that are scared, uh said uh Mayor Young uh about the National Guard coming in.
And he says he doesn't think sending troops will bring down crime, but he welcomes the help.
What an idiot.
There's so many Democrats who you can't even say, well, you know, I have a slightly different opinion.
That's not about opinion.
This is just a fucking idiot.
I mean, it it's hard to it's hard to say anything except, oh, oh, you're an idiot.
Oh, okay.
That's all we need to know.
There's no point in discussing, because you're not going to change the mind of an idiot.
But he thinks that sedative troops will not bring down crime.
After he watched Washington, DC, he thinks it won't bring down crime.
Well, at least temporarily it will.
I don't know what happens in the long run.
Um says these citizens are scared.
Really?
They're gonna be scared of the National Guard who won't be arresting anybody.
They'll just be sort of a resource and you know, being uh a presence.
And they're more they're more afraid of the people who are stopping crime than the crime.
So you'd rather take your chance with a murderer than a National Guard member.
Is that what your citizens would prefer?
You fucking idiot.
You just you absolute fucking idiot.
Now, I've said this before, but I think all local uh governments are criminal organizations.
I think they're all just finding ways to move money around.
By the way, when the founders of the country designed our form of government, there wasn't that much money moving around, was there?
If you were a mayor, it wasn't like, oh, we've got these giant contracts for you know building the new thing, we're building the new town center, we're building, I don't know, fixing the highways in town, or whatever we're doing.
If you didn't have a ton of money flowing through the city, well, maybe maybe the people you elect will just do the job of taking care of the city.
But the moment the the dollar amounts go through the roof, which would be the current situation, you know, anything you did in a city would be ridiculously expensive.
And then you let those same politicians decide where the where the money goes, you know, which vendors do the work, you are guaranteed, guaranteed to create a criminal organization around siphoning off some of that money just because there's so much of it.
So I would argue that the founders who brilliantly created a great system and constitution that if they had known how much money was going to be flowing through the cities eventually, they would not have designed it the way they did.
There's a part missing, the the audit, you know.
Now, obviously, anything can be audited if people want to, but it needs to be a permanent part of the system.
You've got to have something where the auditors change out often so they don't get corrupted or owned by the you know the people they're trying to audit.
Um, and I don't know exactly what the system would be, but there needs to be gigantic transparency about where every dollar goes, and we should all be able to easily look at it, and we should look at, oh, it went to this vendor.
Does this vendor have any connection, family or best friends or anything with the people who made the decision?
Well, then you can maybe drive crime out of and the governments.
But at the moment, I just assume that any mayor of a big city is a criminal.
How many of you assume that?
I assume that every mayor of every big city is a criminal, and that maybe that's what attracts them to the job.
I don't know.
There might be some exceptions, but my but my assumption every time I see one is like, why would you even have that job?
Who would want that job?
Who would have so much skill that they could be a mayor, and that that was their best career opportunity?
Criminals.
Criminals.
So I believe it ends up being all criminals in local government.
anyway so we'll see what happens in memphis Um if you're wondering, 63% of Memphis is black.
43% in Washington, DC is black.
Now, the mayor said that the base problem is poverty.
Um, and as I've explained, you can't work on the poverty until you work on the crime.
Um so there you go.
So uh Elon Musk and JD Vance are agreeing with each other on X that uh you could do a lot about crime if you just put in jail forever the few people who commit all the crimes.
Now you're probably aware that they're just individuals who can do hundreds of crimes and even be caught hundreds of times and released to do hundreds or more.
So if you don't put them in jail forever, your crime rate probably never goes down because they don't stop doing crimes and they're not going anywhere.
So if you don't lock them up forever, there's no really hope of crime ever going down.
It's it would be impossible.
Uh, but if you lock up the most dangerous people who are Doing probably, I don't know what the ratio is, but 80% of the crime.
Probably maybe 5% of the criminals are doing 80% of the crime.
And we know who they are because we keep catching them.
It's not like they're even hard to catch.
They've been caught maybe dozens of times already, but they're just let go.
So JD and Elon agree on that.
And I feel like that would be a way better approach than the National Guard.
The National Guard's not a bad idea.
It brings attention to things and maybe calms things down temporarily, but doesn't seem like a permanent.
I don't think it's a permanent fix.
But jailing the people who do all the crimes, that would be permanent.
Now, if you wanted to get clever and say, hey, it's too evil to put people in jail for life because they uh let's say they shoplifted three times in a row or something like that.
I don't know if that would be enough to be life in prison.
But I feel like some people just need to be, you know, sent to the island where they can live with the other crooks, and they're just not near people who are not crooks, and maybe keep them there forever.
But it doesn't have to be in a jail cell.
You know, you can let them just wander around and eat cheap food and grow their own, or you know, they can survive.
It's just you just can't let them with other people.
All right, get the F away from those prisoners from the uh from the criminals, I say.
Um Missouri passed a uh Trump-approved redistricting plan, which would give them one more Republican House seat, probably the AP's reporting.
So that's uh pick up a one.
And uh remember the House is really close, so one seat could be the difference between a majority and not having majority for the Republicans.
Well, we know now that John Bolton's personal email account, he was using a non-secure personal email for some stuff, he's being a cue stuff, uh, was hacked by a foreign entity.
Uh, New York Post is reporting.
Now, I don't know what foreign entity it was that's not being reported.
Um, but how do you feel knowing that he was using his personal email for some things that may have been uh classified, at least that's an allegation, and uh that foreign entities had hacked it.
Well, that's bad.
That's bad.
Um, Trump is calling for a 50 to 100% tariff on uh China by NATO countries, so he's not talking about just the US, he's talking about NATO countries.
Apparently, the NATO countries are still buying a lot of oil.
I don't know which ones are buying the most, but so NATO is fighting a war or supporting Ukraine, fighting a war against Russia while funding the war for Russia by buying their oil.
Now, I don't know what options they have.
Could it be that there's just not physically enough oil that you can get there to replace it?
Or it's way too expensive, but even expensive doesn't expensive doesn't seem to be a good enough reason, you know, in a war scenario.
Anyway, so Trump says that NATO's commitment to win has been less than 100%.
Now, I don't know if he's gonna get away with this, but he wants to go major sanctions on Russia and major sanctions on China for buying oil from Russia.
Do you think that'll pan out?
Do you think first of all he'll get these uh tariffs that the European Union will do it?
And then secondly, do you think it would work?
You know, do you think it would make any difference?
Because anything short of crashing Russia's economy isn't gonna work, and even that is fraught with danger.
So, but it does look like Trump is serious about taking down the Russian economy.
Well, Momdani, the the Kami, who's running for mayor and probably will get elected in New York City.
Um, he vowed to arrest Netanyahu if he ever got a chance, if he ever came to the city.
Now, the reason he would arrest him is that what is it?
The uh uh International Criminal Court, which the America is not a party to, so we're not bound by it.
But it it issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
I think they're alleging him war crimes against humanity in Gaza.
And uh Mom Dani says he would push to get him arrested.
Now, it doesn't look like that's within the power of a mayor.
So I don't know what he would do to get him arrested.
I don't know.
Encourage the police to do it.
He couldn't order them to do it, he wouldn't have the authority.
But I don't know, but he's making that promise.
Now, does that seem like a good idea to you?
Well, um, apparently his pro-Palestinian stance drove 62% of the primary voters to the polls.
So Momdani has a very big anti-Israel support base.
But I'll tell you, if you had told me that New York City would be electing a mayor who seems somewhat obviously anti-Israel, I would have said, no, no, that can't happen.
Has anybody told you the size of the Jewish um citizens of New York City?
I mean, there's so many of them that there's no way you can elect some anti-Semitic guy.
Well, I guess I was not aware of how many pro-Palestinians there are in New York City, because it looks like it looks like that's gonna happen.
Now, I would not have predicted that in a million years.
Anyway, um, but it'll be a good test of Israel's influence.
You know how uh there are many Americans who say Israel really runs the United States when it comes to Israel and Middle East policy, not not everything.
But uh when it comes to what we do in the Middle East and wars and stuff like that uh in the Middle East, uh people say Israel is controlling our government.
And there's you know a reasonable argument for that.
APAC is very successful and uh blah blah blah.
Um but it but this will be a good test.
If momdami can get elected in New York City, you could have to wonder just how powerful is the Israeli lobby in the United States.
Because I feel as if you know Israel would want to try as hard as possible to influence events so that that guy didn't get elected.
But what happens if they don't have any impact?
Would you be willing to reassess your belief that Israel is controlling the government of the United States?
Because there's no way they'd be in favor of that, momdami getting elected.
And so keep an eye on that.
You know, anything could happen.
Well, according to interesting engineering, there's a uh new, or at least I never heard of it, method for storing energy, where they freeze air so cold that it turns liquid, and it's much smaller, um,
takes up much less room when it becomes like liquid, and then they store it overnight, so they they cool the air when the electricity is plentiful and cheap, and then when they need to release it, they've got some kind of device where when they warm it up a little bit,
the the super frozen air, which had become liquid, changes from liquid to air again, and then it expands greatly, and the expansion drives some turbines and it drives a generator.
So apparently uh Korea says they're South Korea says they're close to being able to build that.
They've got a prototype.
All right, um, I guess there are other countries that are they're pursuing it too.
So that's all I had for you today.
Uh remember that Owen Gregorian will be running his spaces event right after I'm done.
I'm gonna say a few words privately To the local subscribers, and then uh Owen will be firing up his spaces at NX.
If you want to follow up on anything that we said today.
