Hamas to release hostages, Nobel Peace Prize in play, lots more fun with news~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Hamas Hostages Pending Release, Nobel Peace Prize, President Trump, Trump $250 Bill, Climate Models, Survivorship Bias, AI Turing Test, Pluvicto Cancer Drug, Microsoft AI Healthcare, AI Moat Effect, Rare Earth Minerals, Rob Reiner TDS, Palisades Fire Arsonist, Dave Smith, Candace Owens, Jack Posobiec, FTO Antifa, Antifa Funding, US Venezuela War, Ukraine War, 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.
probably should do a show since you're all getting in here right on time good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization It's called coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass of tanker chels, a sign of canteen jugger flask, a vessel of what kind?
Any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called.
That's right.
The simultaneous sip.
go.
I think it's more delicious when I sell it harder, don't you think?
No?
All right.
Well, I've set up a little trap behind me for the cats who are wandering around.
We're going to do a test to see if the cats like laying on the blankets or in the empty cardboard boxes between them.
So you can keep an eye on that while I do the show, okay?
Watch for cats.
Gee, I wonder if there's any scientific stuff that they didn't need to do because they could have just asked me.
Save a little time.
Oh, here's one from Anglia Ruskin University.
So they did some research to find out that you can unlock autobiographical memories about your own life.
That would be the autobiographical part.
By looking at an image of yourself that the computer makes younger.
So they can take your current face, and while you're looking at the computer screen, the AI will turn it into a young version of you.
And then they claim that by looking at the young version of yourself, it triggers better, more extensive memories of your life at that time.
So do they need to do that research?
Or could they just have asked me?
Scott, do you think showing a picture of somebody looking youthful would increase their memories of those days?
To which I would say, maybe, but you know what it would definitely increase?
False memories.
Talk to any hypnotist.
If you do this study 100 times in a row, 100 times in a row, it will create false memories every time.
Will some of the memories also be true and richer or deeper than if you hadn't done this?
Probably.
False Memories and Hostages00:15:13
Yeah, probably.
So it's a combination of, yeah, it probably works, but the part that works would be completely buried and obscured by the fact that you would make up all kinds of fake memories to satisfy the researchers.
That's the, if you don't believe that, look into the McMartin Preschool legal case, very famous case of false memories.
Do a little research on false memories and you'll know that that's what's happening here.
Probably some real ones, if they can figure out which ones are real.
Here comes the cats.
So the big news, I usually do the technology news before the big news, but the big news is so big.
Apparently, and things could change quickly, even while I'm doing the podcast, there's an agreement between Hamas and it looks like Israel and the United States and all the other Arab countries or Muslim countries in the area.
Because that includes Turkey, non-Arab.
But it looks like we got a deal to release the hostages, all of them.
And it looks like it could happen Monday.
And as part of that deal, the IDF, the Israeli military, would pull back to some agreed lines, which I think they're still tweaking where those lines would be.
And then the rest of the, you know, the deal that you would need to have a permanent peace, such as what's going to happen with the remaining Hamas leaders, what's going to happen with their weapons.
Do they get to keep any small weapons or just give up the big ones?
Are they going to have any role going forward?
And we got some cat action.
And the question is, how do we get the other stuff done?
Now, here's the first question you should ask yourself about this.
If it's true, and it does look true, that Hamas has agreed to release all the hostages on Monday in return for just Israel moving its line of forces.
Why would Hamas give up their only leverage before they had gotten agreement on the things they care about the most?
Because they don't care about the hostages.
That's just something they're holding for leverage, right?
It's not important to them that they have hostages.
It's only for that purpose, to get the other stuff.
So why would they go through all of this and then give back their only leverage without getting agreements on other stuff?
Does anybody understand that?
Like, how in the world does that even make sense?
Well, I would submit to you that when it comes to these war-related issues, that the fog of war never really clears up.
We talk about the fog of war being during the middle of the actual fighting or when the war starts or something like that.
But the fog of war never goes away.
And we're still in it.
So here's what I suspect, but don't know.
Just a suspicion.
That the only way we would get to the point we're at now where it looks like they're giving hostages back for almost nothing in return, because the IDF could pull back.
And then after they get the hostages, you know, and they get some hostages in return.
They get like 2,000 hostages in return.
But that's not why they're doing it.
I don't think they care about their hostages that much.
I think they're doing it because they want to get to the end of the war somehow.
My guess, without any evidence whatsoever, is that there are some secret deals at work.
And that the secret deals would look something like, if you do this, we'll let the current leadership that remains, you know, I don't know what's left.
We'll let you guys leave.
You have to leave the area, but we'll let you leave and you can leave with your stolen billion dollars.
So you could be rich and you could be alive.
And, you know, and then they would think, oh, but I can also secretly reconstitute Hamas once they let me free.
Well, they don't have to say that part out loud.
But you could imagine why the Hamas leadership would take a deal that allowed them to go live in exile with a whole bunch of money.
And then who could really stop them from reconstituting?
You know, do it slowly, maybe, but still reconstitute Hamas if that's what they want to do.
Maybe from a foreign country, but still doing it.
So I feel like there's a secret deal.
Or there's a secret blackmail.
As in, hello, current Hamas leaders.
You know those hostages you have?
We're going to bury all of them and you too.
And we also have control of your family.
And we're going to bury them at the same time.
If one hostage dies, we're going to bury your family and then send you the, we're going to send you the video of us killing your family.
Something like that.
But there's something going on that we don't know about that's controlling this deal in a way that we haven't seen before.
Could be anything.
Could be a threat.
Could be a bribe.
But as long as it works, that would be the great thing.
I just don't see how the rest of this gets negotiated because that was the hard part.
Again, unless they've already made a secret deal.
So, Interestingly, assuming that this goes through and all indications are that it will, some people are sort of mistaking it for like a whole peace deal, but it's not.
It might be the most important part of the peace deal in the end.
Might be that it was the hardest part, maybe.
But it's not the whole peace deal for sure.
However, as fate would have it, the announcements are tomorrow for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now, presumably, the Nobel Committee has already chosen their peace prize winner, and that probably a whole bunch of work has to be done on their side secretly before they announce it.
So, in all likelihood, there's already a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and it's in all likelihood not Trump.
So, it's possible that they would change all of their plans before tomorrow.
But the only situation I could see that happening is if they happened to be MAGA themselves.
If the Nobel Peace Prize people were like full MAGA, yeah, yeah, they would just delete whoever they had on the list and say, well, you know, this is a really good argument.
It's going to look weird if we bypass Trump now.
So, yeah.
So, otherwise, we'll just give it to Greta.
Yeah, Greta will probably get it.
However, if this works out and it leads to a, especially if it leads to an expansion of the Abraham Accords and it looks like Gaza is being rebuilt and everything's on the right track a year from now, it's going to be pretty hard not to give it to them a year from now.
But I would bet against it happening on Friday.
And the fact that it won't happen on Friday, it's going to be another big news story because even CNN, MSNBC, ABC, all of Trump's enemies are saying today, okay, there's no way Biden could have gotten this done.
Do you realize what a big deal that is?
That all of his biggest critics, everyone I've seen, you know, the ones that you expect to look for whatever's the worst case, you know, Abby Phillip, Dana Bash, all of the, I don't want to say anti-Trumpers, but certainly not on his side, all of them are calling this out as something that Biden couldn't have done and is kind of amazing.
Isn't that weird?
That's what it took.
It took this for somebody to give him his due.
And I feel like the anti-Trumpers have had this building up that, you know, they see the border being closed and they're like, ah, he did close that border.
And then they see the tariffs not being a disaster.
And in some ways, including some I'll tell you about today, seeming to work and creating revenue that the government didn't have, albeit much of that from citizens.
But and then they go, hmm, he did close the border.
I do like that.
He is cleaning up crime in these cities.
I can't say I like it, but of course I like it.
And then, you know, the economy, the tariffs, I have to admit the GDP is looking kind of good.
And he did get a trillion dollars or whatever the number is of investments that no way Biden would have gotten.
And then suddenly you're like, oh, God, there's like a lot of weight pushing me away from TDS.
There's a lot of weight, but not enough.
And then he does this.
How do you hold out?
At some point, you're just going to have to admit that Biden was 2% of the president that Trump is.
You're just going to have to fold.
The weight is too great.
You cannot carry that much weight on your back as a lying journalist while everybody's watching.
You know that this is the fifth impossible thing he did in a row.
What do they have in common?
What are the tariffs and closing the border and getting the hostages back?
Maybe the rest of the peace deal, we hope.
What do they all have in common?
They were all impossible.
They were all impossible.
How many impossible things does one person have to do?
Name one other thing that a president did that was thought to be impossible when he did it.
None.
I can't think of any.
Can you?
I can think of things where a president tried hard things and failed.
Jimmy Carter with his helicopters in Iran, for example.
I mean, nice try, but it failed.
But Trump is dropping precision bombs down Iranian vent holes three times in a row.
I thought that was impossible.
Honestly, thought it was impossible.
Now, of course, you give the credit to the military.
Trump was not in the plane.
But the way it works is the president gets credit.
That's just the way it works.
He would get the blame if it didn't work.
So maybe we give him a little credit when some miracle works.
So yeah, I think it's just getting impossible for the anti-Trumpers to keep up their fake narrative because they're just watching him do miracles, like one miracle after another.
ABC News, one of their guys said today, make no mistake, it looks like President Trump has actually pulled off something here that many presidents before him have failed to do.
Yeah, you know how many presidents before him have failed to do it?
All of them.
All of them.
When MAGA supporters say that Trump is the best president of all time, it's this.
It's this.
That's the best president of all time.
Even ABC is like, nobody else could pull that off.
Now, some of it is you have to be in the right place at the right time.
So if the Israelis had not killed allegedly 65,000 people in Gaza, could we get to peace?
No.
If they had not taken out Hezbollah and Iran and weakened Syria and done all of those things that gave him some purchase, could we get to this point?
No, probably not.
So you can't beat luck.
And I think Trump actually said something like that himself.
You know, having everybody on the same page and having all the right situations so that you could get to this point, there's luck involved.
But what is one of the things that we wanted Trump to bring to the office?
I did.
I don't know if any of you had this explicit thought, but when I saw Trump running for president, one of the things I said is, would it really be bad to have the luckiest guy in the country as your president?
I mean, just look at his life.
He just looks like the luckiest guy in the world.
I mean, a good day for young Trump, I think a good day for him would look better than all of your good days put together.
And that would just be one day.
So don't you want the luckiest person in the entire country to be maybe bringing his luck to us?
Maybe that's what happened.
Because it does look like there's some luck involved, but a whole bunch of skill.
And one of those skills is that he was willing to push Israel as hard as they needed to be pushed.
That probably was the magic, is that he was willing to push Israel, not just Hamas.
Had to push both.
And I don't know if we had anybody who would do that before or even thought it would work.
Yeah.
Anyway, so I guess Trump has officially proposed that his own face would be in a $250 bill to commemorate the 250th anniversary in 2026.
Models vs. Reality00:15:45
Now, that's a really good troll.
He's the best troll.
I don't know how much he cares about it.
Probably doesn't care about it.
Probably doesn't think it would necessarily happen.
Although I suppose if it's his administration, maybe they could just pass it with a simple majority if it even needs a vote.
I don't know if it needs a vote.
But I love that.
The funny thing is, who needs a $250 bill besides drug dealers?
It would only be for drug dealers, but it would have the face of the guy who's going to kill them on it.
Hey, Cartels, I've got an offer for you.
We're going to make it much easier to move money around, cash, because there'll be a new $250 bill.
So, you know, your piles of money will be much smaller.
You'll be able to move your money.
So that's the good news.
What's the bad news?
Oh, well, the bad news is that the picture on the front of the bill is the guy who's going to fucking kill you.
So there's that.
That's such a good troll.
I don't care if it happens or not, but if it did happen, I would never stop laughing.
And I would immediately run to the bank and get me one.
I would put it on my wall.
It would be the best art worth $250 ever until somebody steals it.
Well, you've heard me talk about how the climate models are all bad.
But here's a follow-up on that.
So apparently there's a 42-page report from the president's energy department that was released in July.
And we've talked about it before, but I'm going to add something to it.
And they showed 36 climate models, and then they showed how they're all wildly off of the actual temperatures that we've observed.
36 models.
Now, if you've lived in the real world or you've been in like a real corporation, or if you're just a certain age, what do you know if the only thing you know is that there are 36 different models for measuring the weather?
What do you know for sure?
Well, what I know for sure is if science was sure that they could model things with models, there would be one.
There would be one because it would be the one where the scientists say, oh, yeah, that's the one.
If you have a 36, what's that telling you?
You know, you lived in the real world.
You're not a scientist, but you've lived in the real world and there are 36 different models.
Well, I'll tell you what it tells me.
It tells me there used to be 100 and that the ones that didn't come close enough to reality, they just quietly threw away.
So what you're seeing is the surviving models, and they still needed 36 of them.
So all you're seeing is a survivor bias.
They started with lots of models.
They looked at what was really happening.
Some of the models, by coincidence, were close to reality.
So they said, well, these must be the good ones.
No, they're not the good ones.
There were 100, and they were all over the place.
Some of them were going to be close.
There was no science there at all.
It's just, oh, let's keep the ones that were close as if they're scientific.
But do you think in 10 years that those will be kept?
I don't.
I don't.
So here's the thing I'm going to add.
If you knew that climate change was an existential risk and the biggest problem in the world, and then your darn new president, darn him, he puts his name on a report that says the climate models are all bunk and haven't come anywhere near reality.
What would you do?
If you knew that the climate models were real and that they represented an existential threat, it was the most important thing in the world, and the government said they were bunk, what would you do?
Well, if you were a CNN or MSNBC or any of the news people, you would immediately put together a panel of the top model-making experts, and you would have them argue how their models are actually good and not bullshit.
Anybody see that show?
Anybody?
Anybody remember seeing that on MSNBC?
I don't recall seeing it.
Anybody see it on CNN?
I don't have any memory of seeing it.
So the single most important thing in the whole fucking world.
And as soon as there's a dissenting government opinion, all the experts go away.
They just go silent.
No, they know they got caught.
They know they got caught.
Otherwise, you wouldn't see anything else.
If they could use this to bury Trump as the anti-science idiot that they've been trying to paint him for 10 years, if this worked in their narrative, they would be all over it.
Instead, it's very quiet.
It's very quiet.
If you wanted to see a climate expert defending these climate models, you'd probably have to invite somebody who didn't work on the models but thinks they know about them.
I'll tell you what you won't get is the person who actually is putting the variables into the model.
Because you know what that person knows?
That person knows models are bullshit.
Not just his or her own model, but all the other ones too.
They all know it.
If you don't think they know it, oh, they know it.
The reason I know it is because I worked in my corporate life collecting data for various projects.
I collect data to say, should we do this?
Would this be more expensive than that?
Should we lease or buy?
And what I learned immediately is that none of my data and none of my analyses were anything but bullshit that my boss wanted to see.
There's no science to it.
So once you're actually in the work, you can see that it's fake.
But then you're too invested because that's your job.
So you do what I did, which is, well, I guess if my boss or the person funding me wants me to do more of this, I guess that's my job.
Anyway, the dog's not barking.
There's not enough pushback on the climate models being good for me to have any belief that they're good.
Sam Altman is telling us that the Turing test probably wasn't that important in the arc of AI.
The Turing test, if you didn't know, most of you know, for many years, it was thought that a computer could not be considered intelligent unless you could put it on the other side of a curtain and have a human being converse with it, not knowing if it's talking to a computer or a human on the other side of the curtain.
If the computer could fool the person on the other side of the curtain consistently, that would be considering passing the Alan Turing test.
Well, that happened.
It happened a while ago and it didn't make much news.
Here's why I think it didn't make much news.
Because AI can only fool stupid people.
Do you think AI could have fooled me?
No.
I would just ask it to use some banned words.
And then that would be the end of it.
There's no way that AI could fool me into thinking it was a human being.
Even the current best models, no matter how smoothly they talked, no matter whether it was text or voice, there isn't the slightest chance that they could have fooled me that they were a human.
I mean, I've used the chat bots.
I've tried out the anime Grok chat.
It's not even close to human.
You're not even in the neighborhood of fooling me that you're human.
Not even anywhere close.
But it did fool some stupid people enough to say we passed the Turing test.
And when I see the AI memes, they're clearly AI created.
And I see how many people repost them.
And I look at them, I go, well, that's obviously AI.
That's obviously fake.
But some large percentage of the public looks at it and goes, well, it looks pretty good to me.
That looks real to me.
So the Turing test was never super useful because you could always fool dumb people, but maybe there's no way you'll ever fool smart people.
So I don't know if the Turing test allows for that.
But Sam Altman has what I consider a smarter, better test for AI.
And he says it's when we see our first AI scientist, meaning that the AI will discover and invent things scientifically that humans just couldn't or didn't.
And once it can become like a peer of, hey, I just invented a new thing or discovered a new thing, then that would be a better test than the Turing test.
I agree with him completely.
Also, interestingly, I have a dog in this race because my current strategy for survival is that I've got one more scan I have to do to see if I can qualify for a drug treatment that's a new one that was only approved in the US in the spring.
But you have to be the right kind of cancer.
I have the right kind of cancer, I think.
And you have to have gone through certain things that didn't work, which is now the case.
The testosterone blockers worked for a little bit, but they kind of stopped working as was anticipated.
We just didn't know how long it would take.
It didn't take long before it stopped working.
So now I'm riddled once again with tumors.
But this new drug is called Pluvicto.
And for some people, but not all, it can remove, actually just remove all your tumors.
Not for most people, but for some.
It's like most things.
Everybody's different.
All the cancers are a little bit different.
People are a little bit different.
But there's a really good chance, you know, maybe if I had to put a number on it, 30%, something like that, 30% chance it could remove the tumors, which would not remove the cancer.
So I still have the cancer, which means that at some rate it would return.
But, you know, maybe I could knock it back again in a few years or whatever I needed to do.
So the treatments are you go to a place and you get a UV or an IV, not a UV.
You get an IV, you go home, there's not much side effects, and you do it like four to six times, depending on your situation.
So it's fairly civilized.
It's not like chemo where I'm going to wish I hadn't done it.
However, it's not a cure.
But if I can get this one extra scan done, it's a special scan that puts some juice in you just to find out if the pluvicto can get to the tumors.
It can't get to everything.
But if it can, or it can get to the tumors that matter the most, have the most lifestyle effect, then I can stall until AI gets up to speed.
I do think that AI is going to cure most cancers.
I do think so.
Maybe not in six months.
Maybe not in a year.
Maybe in two to five.
So my, you know, my Hail Mary is if I can figure out how to use current technology to stay alive two years, I might, no guarantees, I might be able to bridge it to something closer to an AR treatment or AI treatment or an AI cure.
So that's my current plan.
So I have a non-zero chance of making it several years.
If none of that works, if I can't get on the Pluvicto, maybe six years, maybe six months left, my guess, six months or a year at most.
But we'll see.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is looking to start an AI healthcare service.
So they not only are part owner of OpenAI and ChatGPT, but they don't want to be reliant on ChatGPT, apparently, for everything.
So they're building their own version that they'll work into their co-pilot program and essentially try to turn it into as much of a doctor as they can.
So everybody's got their own private AI doctor.
Here's the problem.
They want to build this thing based on the Harvard Health Publishing Arm.
And maybe that's also where they're getting their, I guess, their most reliable healthcare information.
But according to everything that I've seen about scientific studies lately, correct me if I'm wrong, but if AI trained itself on scientific studies, both existing ones that have informed what drugs are available, but also new ones that would tell us what's coming up, wouldn't it be wrong up to 50% of the time?
How do you train AI to be smarter than humans when you're training it on studies that we know a full half of them are fraudulent, but we don't always know which half?
Would AI know which half?
Not really, because AI is only going to look at the published studies.
It's not going to look into the data.
It's not going to find out if the publisher is a crook, all that stuff.
So how does Microsoft get to, or anybody, get to an AI doctor when it's being trained on 50% incorrect data and it doesn't know which half is incorrect?
AI's Unmoatable Future00:07:24
It's the same problem with humans.
So maybe it's no worse than humans.
It might be better than humans.
But I don't see how you get to AI when you're being trained on dumb AI.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk got another $20 billion funding led by NVIDIA.
So NVIDIA's going in on a lot of the AI companies because they want them to succeed so they can sell them more chips.
And Elon Musk was saying something on X that the winner in the AI race will be, I'll paraphrase him, but it's basically whoever builds the biggest data centers and buys the most chips and puts the most cash into it will be the winner.
Now, there will be more than one winner in the AI domain, I'm pretty sure.
I mean, I hope so.
But there won't be that many.
And it will definitely make a difference if you're the number one winner or the number three winner.
So he's trying to be number one.
I like his chances.
But what I wondered is if AI as a business is unique in that there's no way to put a moat around it.
You know, Facebook has its own moat because once everybody gets on there, there's a network effect.
And even if somebody built the Facebook competitor, which of course they tried, your friends wouldn't be there.
So that's like a moat that protects Facebook just by getting there first and the other social media too.
Now, there are lots of other big tech that you could say the same thing.
It's like, whoa, once I got there, nobody could really catch up.
Like nobody really made a search engine as good as Google, although it looks like that's happening with AI.
So my question is, is it possible, I'm just speculating here, that AI would be the first mega giant civilization-changing technology that could never be moated.
And the reason I think it could never be moated is because startups will also have AI.
And the startups, somebody, this is my prediction, somebody fairly soon, maybe in the next five years, will spend $1 billion to recreate what it took Elon and ChatGPT a trillion dollars to get to.
Anybody want to take the other side of that bet?
Within five years, an AI startup will match the biggest AI spending $1 billion to get there, where the big AIs have put down $1 trillion and are figuring some way to monetize that.
$1 billion to $1 trillion.
That's my prediction.
So if that's true, and we don't know that that's true, how would the big companies ever protect themselves?
Is it just owning the biggest data center?
Because if the small company figures out a way to do it with a small data center, how do they compete with the big data center?
I don't know.
I guess they buy that little company and put them out of business.
Oh, yeah, that would work.
I just realized that the big AI companies would just buy the billion-dollar startup and put it out of business and steal their tech.
Anyway, so maybe there is a moat.
According to Rasmussen poll, only 48% of adults under 30 have a full-time job.
According to Michael Snyder, he's writing The Economic Collapse.
Does that sound like a problem to you?
That only 48% of people under 30 have a full-time job?
Well, first you would have to subtract the people in college, right?
The people in college almost never have full-time jobs, but a lot of them have part-time jobs.
So, but that's the people in college under 30 would be, I don't know, 10% of them.
So that's not most of them.
But I do wonder if the time in history is sort of weirdly perfect that there are a lot of unemployed young people for reasons that probably have nothing to do with AI.
But AI is going to make a lot of people maybe underemployed.
Maybe part-time work is what we all want.
And then AI fills in for the rest.
Would you be happy if you had no job?
Some of you would.
I wouldn't be happy with no job.
You know, even if, let's say I lost my current career completely, but AI was giving me enough money to live and I had a house and everything.
I would do a part-time job and I would be happy that I had it.
And it could be working as Starbucks or something, but I'm definitely going to have to get out of the house.
I'm going to have to do something.
I mean, I'm not going to sit around and pet my cats and wait for my universal payment check to come in and the robots to clean my house.
What kind of life is that?
So I feel like we're moving toward almost everybody will have a part-time job because the AI will do the other part of the job.
China is allegedly tightening up on their sales of rare earth materials.
This might be preparing for a meeting with Trump so they have more leverage.
Ha ha, you can't get our rare earth materials.
So they're doing a number of things to make it harder for anybody to cheat and send out any rare earth materials from China that they don't know about.
Given that that seems to be China's primary leverage over us, more so than almost everything else, is this rare earth material stuff?
Whatever we're doing to take that leverage away, we really need to do that quickly.
Whatever we think is our biggest problem in the world, it might be this.
It might be the biggest problem in the world that China has us by the rare earth materials, if you know what I mean.
So I do see the government doing what looks like a lot of stuff to open up mines and get past regulations and partner with companies that need a little help and all that.
So I do think they're putting a lot of effort into it, but it seems like the right amount of effort would be just all hands on deck kind of thing.
So I don't know if we're up to that challenge yet, but we're probably heading there.
Well, I saw a meme that I was so impressed with.
I've told you before, you should follow a user called Maze, M-A-Z-E.
Pelosi's Politicking00:10:51
If you're looking for his account, it's Maze Moore, M-A-Z-E-M-O-O-R-E, all one word.
And he found, and I don't know how he did this exactly.
There must be some kind of video search engine I don't know about, but he found, I think there were like eight different interviews in which Rob Reiner was saying, let's see, several years ago, he said in an interview, well, we've got 241 years of self-rule that basically depends on keeping Trump out of office.
So he was saying 241 years of self-rule in the United States, and Trump's going to take it all away.
And then the year after, he said, we only have 242 years of self-rule and Trump's going to take it away.
And the next year he said, we got 243 years of self-rule, but this Trump's going to take it away.
And then the next year he said, well, he got all the way up to 249 years.
And then the last one was teasing, was teasing that, I don't know if we'll make it to 250 years.
Now, it gets funnier as you go along.
When you read the first one, you're like, why are you even doing this?
Then the second one is incremented by one year.
And you go, okay, is this what I think?
Then the third one is incremented by one year.
And then you start laughing.
And then every time it goes up a year, you laugh harder.
And you realize that for 10 years, he's been saying that we're going to lose our freedom any minute now for 10 years in a row.
And basically nothing's different.
Now he says we only have a year to correct our 250-year experiment.
Well, what's going to happen if we don't correct it?
Will the border get closed and the GDP be 3.7?
And will there be peace in Gaza?
Is that what he's worried about?
Poor stupid bastard.
And then, yeah, there's definitely something happening here.
Jon Stewart, who, of course, is no friend to MAGA, but to his credit, he's also a pretty straight shooter.
Like, you know, he is willing to say things unpopular if they ring as true.
So he is a special kind of character, somewhat like Bill Maher, that they're, you know, braver than most people who would identify more with the left than the right.
But he's going after Chuck Schumer.
he's made fun of chuck schumer being a you know bad uh face of the democrats because he has to be a democrat uh yeah okay um But now Jon Stewart just did a piece where he called Chuck Schumer, quote, a human flat tire.
Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be to be a real serious Democrat and then watch the face of your movement be Chuck Schumer?
How would that feel to you?
And this has nothing to do with policies or anything else.
Would you want that guy to be the face of your party?
I mean, seriously, even Jon Stewart is saying, ah, we got to do better than this.
We got to do better than this.
Anyway, another news, former FBI Director James Comey has pled not guilty on charges of making false statements to Congress.
He did not get a burp walk.
His home was not invaded at 6 a.m.
Nobody handcuffed him as far as I know.
So it's kind of a quiet news story that doesn't have much of a visual element to it.
I'm expecting him not to be guilty.
What do you think?
Or maybe the case will even be thrown out for lack of something.
I don't think there's really any chance that he's going to get convicted.
I don't know.
Maybe.
I mean, it's not impossible.
I just don't think the world works that way.
I think even if they have him dead to rights, they're just going to say, eh.
And there'll be at least one juror who said, eh, you know, I'm not going to convict him just for that.
Everybody lies.
All you need is one juror who says everybody lies.
And that's it.
Trump lies.
Why isn't he in jail?
All these other people lied.
Why aren't they in jail?
So I'm just going to put this one guy in jail, the one guy.
Everybody's lying to Congress all the time.
But I'm going to put this one guy in jail.
Honestly, if you put me on the jury, I don't know that I would convict him, even if I thought he was guilty.
I'm being honest, because I like to live in a world where there's at least some consistency, right?
And if I knew that tons of famous people on both sides had lied to Congress for years and years, would I care that somebody like Navarro or Bannon went to jail for not talking to Congress?
I guess they went for not talking, not for lying.
That's different.
I don't know.
I feel like as a juror, I might just say, go screw yourself.
If you're just going to put this one guy in jail, that looks like lawfare to me.
I'm not in favor of that.
Now, that would be if I'm a juror, but I'm not a juror.
So I get to sort of look at it with my dispassionate, not my responsibility kind of public opinion.
My public opinion is that you can lawfare the lawfarers, but not anybody else.
I don't want to see anybody getting lawfared because you don't like their politics.
No way.
It wouldn't matter if they had a technical violation.
No way I'd find them guilty if it was just lawfaring.
But if you're lawfaring the person who tried to lawfare you, literally out of office as the presidency and into jail, yeah, lawfare him as much as you want.
I call that fair.
I don't know if I'd call it fair if I'm on the jury.
But from my current perspective, yeah, lawfare of the lawfarers, absolutely.
Dana Bash was talking to Nancy Pelosi, and her last name sounded right.
She actually bashed her.
So Dana Bash points out that the Republicans, I'll just read it, Republicans are voting yes to open the government.
This is CNN.
Dana Bash.
She's saying to Pelosi, Republicans are voting yes to open the government.
Democrats are voting no.
So how are they shutting down the government?
Republicans.
It's a pretty good question, right?
So the yes would be in the continuing resolution that just keeps things the way they are, funded, for seven weeks until they start arguing about the new budget on the schedule that they plan to argue about it.
So yes, all the Democrats would have to do is sign the thing that says, oh, we'll just pay everybody for another seven weeks.
Then everybody gets their Obamacare subsidies.
Nobody loses anything.
Everybody gets a paycheck.
That's what the Republicans want.
And the Democrats are keeping it shut.
So was that a fair question from CNN?
Yeah, that's a fair question.
How are you saying that the Democrats are shutting it down when all the Democrats have to do is sign this document that keeps everything exactly the same, which is what they're asking for for at least seven weeks until you can work out the details.
And what did Pelosi say when challenged with that?
She said, it's not a clean CR.
A clean one means all it does is say we're going to continue the way we were.
A non-clean one would be adding things.
But the whole point of the CR is that it doesn't add things.
That is what it is.
It's the thing that doesn't add things.
That's exactly what it is.
A clean CR.
Nothing added.
The Republicans know they can't add shit and get away with it.
Of course there's nothing added.
And they're also smart enough to know that if they give the Democrats what they're asking for, they'll still say no.
And they did.
And even CNN isn't going to let Pelosi get away with that.
So Bash says, what's not clean about the CR?
What do you think Pelosi said?
I quote, the point is, oh, oh, oh.
Would you like me to repeat that again?
Pelosi's answer was, the point is, oh, oh, oh, oh.
End quote.
Destroyed.
That's what I call getting Dana bashed.
In other news, the White House says if the government doesn't reopen, that it will use maybe tariff money to pay for some of the nutritional programs that are very important that are being cut.
So the White House will be able to say, well, we're not monsters.
So we're going to make sure that people are eating.
And we can do that with some tariff revenue because I'm so darn smart.
I've got all these tariffs and it created this money that's not spoken for.
And why don't we just use that to plug the gap?
I mean, better would be you sign the clean CR and then everybody gets what they want right away.
That's better.
But if you Democrats are going to starve people, well, we'll feed them.
And we found a clever way to do it that only Trump could do.
Tariff money.
White House Food Aid00:02:33
It's pretty good.
That's pretty good politicking right there.
Anyway, another news, the Palisades fire-starting bastard has been caught.
It's a 26-year-old or 28 or something.
Young guy with long hair.
Looks to have mental problems would be my guess.
Based on that, on the fact that he speaks French.
No, I'm just kidding.
I'm just kidding, but he does speak French.
I don't know what that means.
But anyway, this young man set the fire on, I guess it was the first of the year, but it was spotted and the fire department put it out before it injured any structures.
It burned a lot of grass, but they got it all out.
Well, not all out, but they thought they put it out.
And then they monitored it for a while because that's the protocol.
They know that sometimes the fire will have some underground smoldering things that they can't detect.
So they hang around a little while just to make sure the smoldering doesn't take off.
However, depending who you talk to, which fire experts, they will tell you that the fire department did not stay there long enough.
Now, some would say that you need to stay there 36 hours.
Some would say, no, that's not even close.
You might need to stay there for two weeks.
I think that was the other estimate.
So they definitely didn't stay there for two weeks, but they did stay there, you know, more than more than just putting out the fire.
So nobody has been found, let's say, guilty in any kind of lawsuit, but I think some of them might still be pending.
So the LA Fire Department probably has some questions to answer because there does seem to be some alleged certainty by the, at least by the police, that they definitely got the guy.
He definitely set the fire.
It definitely was put out.
And it definitely recurred, you know, some days later.
So is that enough for the fire department to get sued?
I don't know.
I guess we'll find out.
Somebody sent me a clip yesterday that it cut out the mention of my name, but it was about me in one part.
Dave Smith's Provocative Take00:03:32
It was a comic Dave Smith talking to provocative Nick Fuentes.
Both of them are provocative, I guess.
And so Dave Smith mentioned me and a story about he saw what I shockingly said to get canceled in 2023.
And his first reaction was, oh man, God, you, you know, who went too far.
So his first reaction was like most people's, you know, some form of disgust and shock and condemnation.
But then he said, I wasn't expecting this.
He said that a minute later, he realized that what I had advised, which is to get away from people who say they don't like you, which seemed like just reasonably good advice in all situations, to stay away from people who say, who say they don't like you?
Not people you suspect.
But if there's a, you know, 30 or 40% of some group that you know says, I don't even think you should exist, or there's something wrong with you, you should stay away from them.
Doesn't matter who it is.
It doesn't matter at all who it is.
You should just always take that advice.
So anyway, Dave Smith said, a minute later, I realized that that's what I had done, meaning what he had done.
And then he tells the story of looking for a place to move with his wife and I guess children.
And they're looking for a good school.
And he humorously tells the story of looking at, I guess, the school they ended up picking.
And it was, I'm paraphrasing, so this is not exactly what he said, but it was stuff like, okay, their college acceptance, A, you know, their math teaching, A plus, their English teaching, A plus.
And then it got to the bottom of the list.
It was like they got a grade for diversity.
And their diversity was, I think, D minus.
And comic Dave Smith jokes, that's the one.
So they picked the one that had the highest academic standards and the lowest diversity.
And he liked both of those things.
And he joked that unfortunately, you know, again, I'm paraphrasing, the level of diversity can really reliably tell you what the life would be like in that school.
And that he didn't want that for his children.
So I feel like that was one of the more honest things that anybody said this year.
And that's pretty honest.
I will also go so far as to say 100% of all adult humans did the same thing.
All of them.
Black, white, Asian, all of them.
Every single person who was trying to get their kid into a good school, if they had the ability to move, not everybody has the ability to move.
But the ones who have the ability to move, you don't think they looked at the quality of the school first.
You don't think they looked at the diversity to see if their kid fits in.
I mean, if you had a black kid, you'd want enough diversity that they feel comfortable.
So you're not always going the same way.
But aren't you making the decision based on diversity?
Of course you are.
Every single person, black, white, rich, poor, everyone.
He just admitted it.
So that was fun.
Candace's Persuasive Point View00:09:09
And then just because I was having fun watching the people who were the most provocative, I was watching a clip of Candace, Candace Owens.
Now, I've told you I have a very positive, just personal feeling about Candace, having just met her once.
She's very warm.
And so I turned it on, and it was, you know, a whole episode.
It wasn't a clip.
It was like a whole long episode.
I watched every minute of it, which I almost never do.
I don't watch usually the whole episode of anything.
But so I'm grateful that you do.
But I usually can't hang.
But oh my God, is she talented?
Have any of you had the same reaction?
Her voice is just perfect.
Her mastery of her topic, impressive.
The ability to find like an angle on something or a point of view that you haven't seen everywhere else, amazing.
The fluency with which she communicates, oh my God.
So smart.
So smart.
So talented.
I watched that show and sat there thinking, I need to get out of this business because I'm nowhere near that, right?
I say great things about Megan Kelly.
And of course, Joe Rogan's a legend.
And, you know, you can name a bunch of others.
Tucker is amazing, you know, just talent-wise.
You don't have to agree with everything they say, just talent-wise.
But she might be the best of all.
She might be the best in the entire business.
She might be the best.
And one of the ways I judge that is if every minute is interesting.
And it actually is.
Now, let me say clearly, I do not believe Brigitte Macrone has a penis.
I don't believe that at all.
But when you see how well she supports that theory, that is entertaining.
All right, if you're not entertained by that, I don't know what it takes to entertain you, but that's entertaining.
Now, when she suggests, but does not say that she is sort of open to the possibility that some foreign entity was involved in the Charlie Kirk murder, and she doesn't have to say it, but we all know based on the context that she's thinking that maybe Israel had some involvement in that because Charlie had turned against Israel at the end.
And that would be a pretty big risk for Israel because he would be important enough that if they lost him, that could be very expensive for Israel.
So she did demonstrate that they have a motive.
I didn't expect that.
She actually successfully demonstrated that Israel had a motive to kill him, which is not funny, but I'm just sort of like so impressed how well she can bring things together that I don't believe, but still, you know, quite expertly sort of teased.
So, and I told you yesterday, I don't believe there's any chance that Israel was involved because they're way too smart, Nanyahu especially, way too smart to do something that if there was even a 1% chance you get caught, that would be the end of the game.
That would be a dumb risk management versus just trying to deal with him and bring him back, bring him back to a positive opinion.
Much more doable, much less risk than trying to off him, even if you thought you could hide your tracks.
No, no, that's too risky.
So I don't believe it at all.
And the one thing you should keep in mind when you watch any of the top influencers, when they've got a point of view that is not common and it's not held by other people.
Two things I want to teach you about persuasion that I've mentioned before, but every time you hear them in context and apply to a real world thing, they get a little stronger in your mind.
Number one, the documentary effect, which I mentioned all the time.
The documentary effect means that if you're listening to one point of view for an hour, you're going to kind of come away thinking it's true because you listen to one point of view for an hour.
It has nothing to do with how true it is.
It will just seem more and more true the longer you watch.
That's just what the documentary does.
So Candace is sort of a, you know, an example.
It's not a documentary, but you know what I mean.
It's one point of view for an extended period.
So yes, that's going to be very persuasive coming from, in my opinion, maybe one of the best communicators who's ever been alive.
I mean, she's really good.
The other example is the other thing you need to know is the Bible code.
Again, I've mentioned it, but every time you see an example of it, it reinforces it.
The Bible code was years ago, might have been the 60s or 70s, I forget.
Somebody wrote a book called The Bible Code, in which they found that you could determine that the Bible, you know, the regular King James Bible, had a bunch of hidden codes in it that could have only come from God.
And they gave all kinds of examples.
They said, all right, and I'll make up this example, but it's stuff like if you took the first word of the page and then the second word of the second sentence, but the third word of the third sentence, they would form a prediction, which you can see in history actually came true.
It'd be like big bomb, 1949, whatever it is.
And then you'd say, yes, it was forecasting the nuclear bomb.
And the trouble was that although those codes did in fact exist, you could go look for yourself.
They would say, all right, yeah, well, sure enough, third word, second word on the next page.
You know, if you follow this algorithm, it does make a sentence and it does predict because you can see for yourself that it happened.
Do you know how the Bible code was debunked?
Somebody took their algorithm and applied it to war and peace, and it also made a lot of predictions that came true.
In other words, you can take any big body of anything that's complicated, could be a book, could be a story, could be a real world event, and you can always find what looks like circumstantial evidence to any fucking thing you want.
Do you want me to prove that aliens were complicit in killing somebody?
I could probably do it.
I could find all kinds of, well, did you know that there was a report of an alien in the area that day?
Did you know that there were reports of aliens in other places where people were murdered?
I mean, it would look like that.
So pretty soon I could build this story of all this circumstantial evidence that would be so, so compelling to you that you would really think the aliens were involved.
So when you watch Candace, remember the documentary effect means that it will be convincing because it's long and because she's really, really good at this, like really good.
And secondly, if you say, but Scott, the evidence is real, like you can check yourself.
There's the text message, you know, all that.
And I would say, yep.
Yep.
The Bible code guarantees that any complex situation will have multiple hypotheses that all seem to have evidence.
That's the whole point of a court case.
Do you know that, you know, the defense in a court case is going to have a version of events with a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence to show the person is innocent.
The prosecution will have a whole bunch of stories of circumstantial evidence that says they're guilty.
So in every case, you can make the case and the opposite case if it's a complicated situation, something like a book.
And the Charlie situation is complicated enough that that's possible.
Anyway, if you haven't watched Candace's show, I recommend it.
It's tremendous.
But be careful.
All right.
Strong Positions Matter00:12:39
There was this meeting that Trump was at to, I guess, talk about looking into the sources of Antifa funding.
And I had a bunch of independent journalists who were there.
Some of them had run-ins with Antifa, I guess.
And one of them, Brandy Cruz, said, quote, I'm living proof that you can recover from TDS.
So she said this in front of the room and in front of Trump.
She said, I think I even got a little more attractive after I get rid of my Trump derangement syndrome.
Boy, talk about saying something that is going to amuse Trump.
Trump couldn't get the smile off his face.
I think he agreed with her that she became more attractive.
Anyway, so if I had to give some advice to Brandy, who went from a anti-Trumper TDS person to a, oh, maybe I was wrong about all that.
Maybe Trump is the way.
If I had to give her some advice, you know what I'd say?
You know all of her old friends, the Democrats she was hanging around with?
What do you think they're going to think of her now that she's come out as a MAGA supporting person?
Do you think all of her friends are going to be okay with her?
You think they'll invite her to parties now?
No.
Do you know what advice I would give her?
Get the fuck away from Democrats.
Just get the fuck away.
Because you know that at least 60% of them are going to think you're fucking garbage because you like MAGA.
Forget it.
You're going to have to get away from those Democrats.
That's what I did.
When I first became known as a Trump supporter, I lost pretty much my entire social structure.
Everything except family and just a handful of close friends.
But mostly I lost my entire Democrat structure because I didn't even know the politics of my friends.
Do you know that?
For years, we'd spent a massive amount of times together.
I didn't know their politics.
No idea, because it never came up.
But boy, when it came up, I could feel the hatred.
Not from all of them, of course, but you could feel it.
And what did I do?
I got the fuck away.
And I would give this advice.
People think that this is somehow limited to the one situation where there was a Rasmussen poll that said something like 30 or 40% of black people said it wasn't okay to be black.
And then I said the word that gets forgotten, if.
When people tell my story, they always leave out if.
Have you noticed that?
It's the most important word.
I said, if this poll is accurate, and a couple years later, they redid it with a bigger sample.
It was accurate.
I said, if it's accurate, you should stay away from groups of people if 40% of them think it's not okay to be you.
It wouldn't matter if they're black.
It wouldn't matter if they're LGBTQ.
It wouldn't matter if they were a bunch of Democrats who are your best friends.
That was my case.
It was a bunch of Democrats.
They were all different from different countries.
And by the way, a vast percentage of my closest friends were born in other countries or their parents were born in other countries.
So they had that, you know, the immigrant anti-Trump view.
I understand it.
But why would I spend time around it?
Would it make sense for me to spend time around it?
Now, I only had one, only had one family friend who said directly, don't want to spend time with you.
What did I do when my one friend, very close friend, said, you know, it's better if we don't spend time together because of my cancellation?
Do you know what I said?
I said, fine.
Block the phone and we'll never talk to them again for the rest of my life.
I'm going to stay the fuck away from them.
Why would I spend a minute with somebody who would harbor that feeling about me, even if they were nice enough not to say it out loud?
The minute you find somebody dislikes you on that level, get the fuck away from them.
And I'm not going to ever change that advice.
Why?
Because you all agree with me.
Everyone who cancels me also agrees with me.
Everyone, every person who canceled me, everyone agrees with me 100%.
If they listen to what I said, if they heard a version and a context, then that's different.
But if they listened to what I said, I have never once insulted black people.
That's never happened.
Would you agree?
You're the ones who watch me the closest.
Have I ever insulted Black people?
Never.
I love Black people.
Like on an individual basis, all good experiences.
All good.
Anyway.
But group-wise, you can act differently in group decisions versus individual decisions, of course.
Never discriminate against an individual.
That's bad for them.
And it's limiting your own choices.
Why would you limit your own choices?
Unless you believe that every single person in one group is going to be worse than every single person in another group.
And nobody thinks that.
Literally nobody thinks that.
So, yeah, don't discriminate against individuals, but groups, yeah, totally.
If it's for your safety, that's the only good reason.
During that same meeting, talking about Antifa, somebody asked Trump if he would designate Antifa as a foreign terrorist organization.
They're already designated as a domestic terror organization.
And Trump did that Trumpy thing, which I love so much.
He looks at his top advisors who are also in the room.
He goes, is that a good idea?
Should I do that?
And one advisor says yes.
He looks at the next one.
Well, we're all watching.
It's televised.
We're all watching.
He goes to the next one.
Is that a good idea?
Should we do that?
Yes.
Should we do that?
I think he looked at three or maybe four, and they all said, you know, yes.
He goes, all right, yeah, I think we'll do that.
Now, did you see that moment where you watched him take a public comment and turn it into a policy?
Because it was two words, two words.
What was it?
Describe what you saw in two words.
Common sense.
Somebody gave him a total common sense suggestion, which apparently he had not noodled on before.
He recognized his common sense.
He tested it with three or four people live.
They all seemed to give answers that would suggest it's compatible with common sense.
And then he said yes.
It was, in a weird way, it was the smallest thing that happened yesterday.
But boy, was it impressive?
All right.
You know, maybe you have to be pro-Trump to be as impressed as I was.
Was it Jack?
Was it Jack Basabek who mentioned the international thing?
I didn't catch who said it.
But anyway, if you've ever seen anybody president more impressively than that in front of you, I'd love to hear the example.
Because that was solid presidenting right there.
And Nick Sorter was there with his semi-burned flag.
And Trump suggested that Bondi should prosecute the person who was burning the flag under the theory that I don't think is proven.
So I don't think he would be prosecuted.
But that the flag burner was the one who incited maybe more trouble.
So the current situation, as I understand it, is that it's still 100% legal to burn a flag if you're only doing it to make a point.
But if you're doing it as part of inciting violence or maybe some other kind of damaging trouble, then it would be considered inciting violence.
So then it would move out of the free speech category into the special illegal category.
So I don't believe, I can be talked out of this, but I don't believe the flag burner made much difference to the overall event.
I think it was just a sideshow at a bigger event.
If that's the case, then I would not want that person to go to jail.
Unfortunately, then it's just free speech.
But we'll see.
Remember, I always tell you that one of the things I like about Trump is that if there are two positions to take on any issue, and one of them is the strong position, and the other is sort of weak, he'll take the strong position every time, even if it's not the winning position.
And this might not be the winning position because I don't know that there's enough to convict, but he took the strong position.
And what you'll remember about Trump when all the fog clears is that he was the strongest leader.
You won't remember that maybe that court case didn't work out.
You'll just remember he always took the strong side.
And it was a strong side on behalf of America.
You don't forget the person who always takes your side even stronger than you do.
You don't forget that person.
Anyway, I guess the White House released the names of people, rich people funding Antifa.
Who do you think it was?
If you guessed it was a network of NGOs, you'd be right.
If you guessed that $100 million of taxpayer money somehow got funneled through NGOs that got funneled into Antifa, meaning that your taxpayers, that are your tax money, is paying the people trying to kill you, well, trying to destroy your system, which would end up in a lot of us dying, you'd be right.
But also, if you guessed George Soros, you'd be right.
If you guessed Arabella Funding Network, you may have heard some of these names before.
The Tides Fishing Network, they were involved, they funded, allegedly.
Neville Roy Singham.
I don't know who he is, but he's got a network.
And then there's a Swiss billionaire guy who's like 100 years old, Johan George Hansorg.
For some reason, there's some Swiss billionaire who cares deeply about destroying America by funding all the wrong people.
What's up with that guy?
Yeah, I don't see how we let foreigners do that, but then there's a bunch of additional foreign cash and other stuff.
So I am impressed that the Trump administration is going after the funding, but also finding it.
So if you imagine that Antifa is not a real organization, who's getting the money?
If it's not a real organization, who are they funding?
What is there to fund?
There's no organization there, right?
But apparently there is an organization and they're taking in a lot of money.
Well, here's a story that could be gigantic, but I never heard about it until yesterday.
Misty's Warning00:14:30
I saw a post by Eric Doherty.
Good follow, by the way, if you want to get independent journalist kind of stuff.
Eric Doherty, spelled D-A-U-G-H-E-R-T, spelled like daughter with a Y on the end.
So it turns out that the Supreme Court is going to vote on abolishing a specific part of the Voting Rights Act that allowed special districts to be allocated for black voters.
Well, they say for minorities, but I suspect the majority of that was for the benefit of the black community.
But did you even know this?
I didn't know this was a thing, that there were districts that were drawn for minorities to favor Democrats.
So I guess the idea was to make sure that minorities did not get closed down of having representation by a bunch of white people redistricting, because you could redistrict, you know, to cut up the black neighborhoods so that they would never be able to elect a black leader because there just wouldn't be enough black people in any one voting area.
So it looks like in order to protect against discrimination in redistricting, the law allowed them to redistrict for the purpose of making sure that black voters, I think mostly black, had representation.
Now, like most things, that sounds like kind of a good idea, right?
If you have a real problem with black representation being eliminated, you know, intentionally by redistricting, yeah, I think I would have been in favor of this, actually, you know, if you took me back in time.
But it is time to reassess because I don't know that Republicans would do that in 2025, especially if it's really obvious.
You know, the other way to handle it is not to make it illegal, but make it public and say, look, look what these dirty Republicans did.
We Democrats would never do something that bad to you.
So I feel like this might be exactly the right time to overturn it and not because it didn't have a purpose.
I would say the same thing with All of the racial improvements have been made over time.
There's a time to do it when you need the tourniquet, like things are just so bad.
You got to eliminate racism, or not race, you got to eliminate slavery.
Like, you just got to do that.
You got to eliminate Jim Crow.
You got to make sure that Black people have a seat at the table and that they can get interviewed like everybody else.
And if they've got the skills, they can get the job.
All that's great.
And it's time.
So the only question is not whether those were good ideas, but whether they currently match the time.
And I don't think that they currently match the time.
I think we have other better ways to handle that sort of thing.
But we'll see.
There's a good chance that that will happen, and that would result in 19 more Republican House seats, potentially.
I think they still have to redistrict to get it.
But imagine getting 19 more Republican seats in the House before the midterms.
That would pretty much guarantee the Republicans keep the House.
So I can't believe I didn't know about that story before.
I saw a suggestion by a user on X, nobody famous, that I thought was so good.
It's one of those examples where maybe the magic of social media could work.
So I have a largish account on X, which means a lot of people will see what I post.
But I also read and consume a lot of smaller accounts.
Usually they're commenting, right?
I'll see them in my comments.
So that creates a system where I can see an individual who's not famous or noted for anything.
They can talk to me, and then people will see me because I'm more public and 1.3 million people.
I can guarantee that important people in the administration, not all of them, but important people, will see my show or see my ex-posts.
And then if the idea is so good that the individual gets to me, I'm impressed.
I post it.
It goes to somebody maybe on the White House staff.
They're impressed.
Next thing you know, something happens.
Now, this might be one of those.
So let me tell you the situation.
The suggestion is from a user on X named Misty Sunrise.
Again, don't know anything about the person.
It's just a user on X. Misty Sunrise had this suggestion talking about Trump surging the forces into the cities for a crime.
Misty said they need to frame these as quote gun violence reduction missions.
Do you feel it already?
And she goes on, or he goes on, I don't know who Misty is, but white female voters love to virtue signal on the gun violence issue.
So connecting the National Guard deployments to the zip codes with the highest rates of gun violence would be powerful.
We need a map to go along with it.
Zip codes with highest rates of gun violence and National Guard deployments.
Okay, do you feel that?
You feel that, right?
There's some suggestions that you feel.
I feel that.
Meaning that how in the world did we miss the point that each time they do one of these surges, one of the data points that they always report is the number of guns confiscated, right?
If you're trying to satisfy the pro-gun crowd, MAGA, and you're also trying to do as best you can to satisfy the Democrats because they're citizens, right?
They get a service too.
If you're trying to satisfy everyone, how did we miss the fact that we're doing it?
And it's not being highlighted.
Now, it could be, remember, Trump reads the room better than anybody.
So it could be that he doesn't want to open that anti-gun box.
Maybe just give the data, but don't frame it as anti-gun because then maybe it just starts a whole anti-gun thing.
So maybe he just wants to avoid the topic.
But when I saw this, I thought to myself, okay, I don't know about Portland.
I don't know if there's a lot of gun violence in Portland, so it might not work for every city who wants to surge.
And honestly, I think Portland's a little overdone.
I just don't know there's that big a problem in Portland, but politically it works.
But if they pivoted, they wouldn't have to make every deployment about guns.
But if they said, the one thing that MAGA and Democrats will agree on is that the criminals should not have guns.
So we're going to at least do the thing we all agree on.
And you just make it a gun reduction thing instead of a crime reduction thing, instead of just a violence reduction thing, which it also is.
But I think the illegal gun reduction is just sort of irresistible for Democrats, is it not?
So here's my suggestion from Misty Sunrise.
Maybe the administration should think about highlighting what they're doing to reduce gun violence because they're doing it the way Republicans like to reduce gun violence.
Take them away from criminals.
Put the criminals who do gun violence in jail.
You know, that doesn't solve everybody's problem, but how do we disagree on that?
There's no disagreement on that.
You know, even if you said, oh, I don't like the federal, you know, the feds coming in and scaring everybody with masks and all that.
Well, if what they're doing is removing illegal guns, you're going to put up with the masks a lot more easily.
By the way, is it illegal for the bad, the people on the streets to wear a mask?
Or is it only illegal for the people putting trying to stop them?
I wasn't clear on that.
Well, you've seen some online influencers, podcasters say things like the U.S. is on the brink of civil war.
You've heard Tucker talk about it.
Tim Pool's talked about it.
I don't think he's predicting it per se, but sort of warning about it.
I'm going to be, I've seen enough this, and I don't want this to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy, which I worry about.
In my opinion, there's no chance of a civil war.
Do you know why?
Who would you shoot?
Who the hell are you going to shoot?
If it started tomorrow, what would you do?
It's not like we have some big issue, you know, like slavery or some nations are trying to withdraw from the union or who would you shoot?
Your neighbors?
You just go out in the lawn and start blazing away at your neighbor's house.
There's something missing with the whole Civil War thing.
There's nobody forming a militia, right?
There's no militia being formed.
At least, you know, there might be somebody in some forest somewhere, but nobody's going to be a risk to the system.
You have to connect a lot more dots before you can get me to worry about a civil war.
Right now, civil war is my smallest, smallest concern.
I think everything is a bigger risk than that.
Everything.
Now, I will make you this promise.
If there became a bigger risk, whether it's Antifa, it gets bigger or whatever.
If it becomes a bigger risk, I will spend more time persuading it out of business.
And I think that one of the things that we have today that not everybody fully recognizes is that the influencers can stop a civil war.
I believe the influencers are getting a little bit reckless in warning us that one might happen because, you know, the self-fulfilling prophecy thing, once you get it in your head, things become possible just because they're in your head.
So there is a little extra danger in talking it up.
But what we have now is people like me.
There's no way for me to tell this story without making it about me.
So I apologize in advance.
You don't think I could stop a civil war?
I probably could.
I could do it the misty sunrise way.
It's not that I have influence.
It's that if I say something that makes common sense to you, you're going to like it.
You're going to talk to your friends.
So as long as there are enough people like me who I guarantee you I'm going to be looking to stop a civil war if it got anywhere near, there'll be others like me, and we would be powerful enough to stop a civil war collectively, not me by myself, but collectively, yeah, we could stop a civil war now.
I'm sure of it.
I don't even think the government could pull it off or a militia could pull it off unless there was some kind of public support and we just make sure there isn't.
There just won't be.
Anyway, Cash Patel said there's 110,000 gang members in Chicago streets.
Gateway Pundit's reporting that.
Do you think that's true?
110,000 gang members?
I think what might be true is that if you live in a lot of places in Chicago, you have to at least identify with a gang to be safe.
So I don't know that that's like 110,000 gangbangers with guns in their pants working the streets and selling drugs.
It might be more Mas in the gang and little billies in the gang because everybody has to be in the gang just to stay safe.
So I don't know what that number means, but it's a shocking number.
According to the Reese group, domestic violence in California impacts two-thirds of Californians.
31% identify as survivors.
The rest would have some family connection to it.
Does that sound right?
Do you believe that number?
That in California, two-thirds of Californians have a domestic violence problem?
Well, I don't know how they collect that data, but if they get it from divorcees, it's pretty much every divorcee claims that they were domestically abused, either verbally or otherwise.
Drones And Depopulation War00:06:40
Sometimes it's both of them.
Both the husband and the wife will claim that they were domestic violence victims.
Now, I do think domestic violence is a way bigger problem than maybe we all realize.
So I'm not doubting the seriousness of it, just to be clear.
I'm not minimizing domestic violence.
I think it's a huge, huge problem.
And it does affect huge numbers of people.
I just wonder how they got the data.
Because if the way they got the data is from people who are in divorces, there's a little bit of overclaiming of domestic abuse in divorce.
In the real world, it's underclaimed.
But as soon as you hit that divorce, oh, everybody's an abuser.
Well, if you don't know that a war with Venezuela is coming, it looks like it is.
The Senate rejected a measure that would have required Trump to seek congressional approval before authorizing further U.S. military action in the Caribbean.
So the Senate doesn't want Trump to have to get permission to go to war with Venezuela.
What's that tell you about the odds of war with Venezuela?
Oh, we're definitely going to have boots on the ground in Venezuela.
Now, I hope that when that happens, and it's definitely going to happen, that it's a decapitation strike and nothing else.
What I don't want to see is anything that looks like a ground war, not even a little bit.
But if we have an opening and we can take out the top guy and maybe several of the top lieutenants, probably worth doing under the theory that he's really a drug dealer and not a head of state.
They would have to stay in that frame.
We're taking out a drug dealer.
So I think that's coming.
There's a story in the New York Times about how Ukraine is still the most corrupt place in the world.
Now that you know that Ukraine is still one of the most corrupt places in the world and all the government money is being stolen in different ways, don't you appreciate Trump more?
That he's the one who said, we're not giving you any money.
If you want to give us money, we'll take it to sell you weapons.
But we're not going to give you more money.
You're all a bunch of crooks.
I appreciate Trump for that.
Did you know that in the city, the Ukraine city of Kherson, that Russia would like to take but hasn't yet, that what they're doing is depopulating the city with drones.
So apparently Kherson used to have 300,000 people.
It's down to 65,000.
And the reporting is that the Russians are using drones with small explosives like a hand grenade to target and kill civilians so that they'll move out.
So that if they ever want to move in with their own forces and take over the city, there won't be anybody there.
They'll just take over an empty city.
And apparently it's working.
If they're down from 300,000 to 65,000, and they showed a video of just some senior citizen in his SUV being targeted by a drone, you know, he sees the drone, so he gets out and he runs, and the drone chases him and drops a hand grenade on him.
He survived, but it got wounded pretty badly.
Now, that is intentional.
So that very much means that the military is trying to depopulate, just kill the residents.
So it looks like there are two parts to the Soviet Soviet, to the Russian plan.
Just got to update my references.
The Russian plan.
So they're taking out more power plants.
Breitbar London is reporting this.
So Ukraine lost one of its thermal power plants in another attack.
At the same time, Ukraine is doing the same thing, trying to take out the energy production in Russia.
So we have a robot energy war, but also a robot depopulation war using robots.
But it's all a robot war.
Once the robots clear out the humans from Kherson, then there'll be a robot war in Kherson.
Germany apparently is going to allow the police, according to Reuters, to shoot down drones because they still don't know what is the deal with the drones over Germany or other European countries either.
But at least the Germans are going to let the police shoot them down.
I think we're going to find out that they're domestic.
I think that's German people with German drones that are just not admitting it's them.
So I think some will get shot down, but in the end, we will not learn that they were Russian.
They might be.
I wouldn't rule it out.
But I think it's just a little more ordinary that it's domestic.
Or maybe most of them are domestic, but Russia had a few.
It does make sense for Russia to make Europe a little more nervous by showing them that they have no air control.
That would be very nervous making.
It was nervous making when we had drones in New Jersey.
If Trump had not come out and said that there are, and I would have to live with the knowledge that we had drones all over our major facilities and we didn't know what to do about it, that would have been scary.
So I don't really trust Trump's statement that they're all our drones.
I don't think they're aliens, but I would definitely not rule out that some of them were foreign for the very purpose of testing our air defense and or showing us that we don't have one.
So I would be okay if Trump or the government lied about the question of whether there ares.
That would be an acceptable government lie because the military is not, they're really not tasked with the truth.
Government Lies for Lethality00:00:31
They're tasked with lethality and keeping us safe.
So, you know, I wouldn't mind that specific lie.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you today.
I went extra long because it was so good.
I guess I won't need to talk to the local subscribers.