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.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's Golden 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, glass of tanker chells, I can see and 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, 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 gonna 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 uh that they didn't need to do because they could have just asked me.
Save a little time.
Oh, here's one from uh Anglia Ruskin University.
So did some research to find out that you can unlock autobiographical memories about your own life.
That would be the autobiographical part.
Um by looking at an image of yourself that the computer makes younger.
So they can take your you know, your current face, and while you're looking at the computer screen, the AI will turn it into a you know a young version of you, and then they claim that by looking at the young version of yourself, it triggers uh better, more extensive memories of your life at that time.
So, did 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 uh 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 hymn to test.
If you did this study a hundred times in a row, a hundred times in a row, it will create false memories every time.
Will some of the memories also be true and you know, richer or deeper than if you hadn't done this?
Probably, yeah, probably.
So it's a combination of yeah, it probably works, but with 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 that's the if you don't believe that, look into the McMartan preschool uh legal case, very famous case of false memories.
Do a little research on false memories, and you'll know that uh that's what's happening here.
Probably probably some real ones, if they can figure out which ones are real.
Um here comes the cats.
So the big news.
I usually do the the technology news before the big news, but the big news is so big.
Apparently, and things could change quickly, even 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, uh, or Muslim countries in the area.
Um, 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 or just give up the big ones?
Are they going to have any role going forward?
And we got some cat action.
Uh, and the question is, um, 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 uh line of uh 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 were 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, um, I would submit to you that when it comes to these uh war related issues, that the fog of war never really clears up.
We talk about the fog of war being in, you know, during the middle of the 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 that 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're 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's some secret deals at work, and that the secret deals would look something like if you do this, we'll let you the current leadership that remains, you know.
I don't know what's left, we'll let you guys leave.
Uh 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 uh, 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 can imagine whether 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 uh hello, Current Hamas leaders, you know those hostages you have.
We're gonna bury all of them and you too, and we also uh have control of your family, and we're gonna bury them at the same time.
If one hostage dies, we're gonna bury your family and then send you the we're gonna 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 you know, controlling this deal in a way that we haven't seen before.
Could be anything, could be a threat, could be a bribe.
Um, 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 uh it's not the whole peace deal for sure.
Uh, 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 they would change all of their plans before tomorrow.
But the only situation I could see that happening is if they happen 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.
Uh it's gonna look weird if we bypass Trump now.
So, yeah.
So we'll 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's being rebuilt and everything's on the right track a year from now, it's gonna 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 gonna 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, uh, Data 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 I feel like the anti-Trumpers have had this building up that you know, they see the border being closed, and they're like, uh, oh, 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 them from citizens.
But then they go, hmm, he did close the border.
I do like that.
He is cleaning up crime in these cities.
Uh I can't say I like it, but of course I like it.
And then, you know, the economy, the tariffs, oh, 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 you're like, oh God, there's 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 down?
At some point, you're just gonna have to admit that Biden was two percent of the president that Trump is.
You're just gonna have to fold.
Yeah, the weight is too great.
You cannot carry that much weight on your back as a lying journalist while everybody's watching.
Uh you know that this is the fifth impossible thing he did in a row.
There, what do they have in common?
What are the tariffs and closing the border and getting 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?
I you know, name name one other thing that a president did that was thought to be impossible when he did it.
None.
I can't, I don't, 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 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, obviously, 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 uh it's just getting impossible for the anti-Trumpers to keep up their their fake narrative, because they're just watching him do miracles, like one miracle after another.
Uh 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 be luck.
And I think Trump, 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.
It 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.
I don't know if we had anybody who would do that before, or even thought it would work.
Yeah.
Anyway, uh, so I guess Trump has officially proposed that his own face would be in a 250 dollar bill to commemorate the 250th anniversary in 2026.
Um that's a really good troll.
Okay, 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.
Um but I love that.
The funny thing is, who needs a 250 dollar 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.
Hey, cartels.
Uh uh I've got a I've got an offer for you.
We're gonna make it much easier to move money around, cash, because there'll be a new 250 dollar bill.
So, you know, your 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?
Uh well, well, the bad news is that the picture on the front of the bill is the guy who's gonna 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 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 uh talk about how the climate models are are all bad.
But here's a follow-up on that.
Um apparently there's a 42-page report from the uh president's energy department that was released in July, and we've talked about it before, but I'm gonna add something to it.
And there were 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 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 had 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 a hundred, 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 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 a hundred, 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, rah, darn him.
He uh 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 uh model making experts, and you would have them argue how their models are actually good and not bullshit.
Anyone uh see that show?
Anybody?
Uh anybody remember seeing that on MSNBC?
I don't recall seeing it.
Anyone see it on CNN?
Hmm.
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 they just go silent.
No, they know they got caught.
They know they got caught.
Otherwise, otherwise, you wouldn't, you wouldn't see anything else.
If they could have used 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 do.
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.
You know, I would collect data to say, should we do this?
Would this be more expensive than that?
Should we, you know, 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 uh is telling us that the Turing test probably uh wasn't that important in the in the arc of AI.
The Turing test, if you didn't know, not mostly you know, um, 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 chatbots.
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've we passed the Turing test.
And when I see the uh 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, 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, the 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, um, then that would be a better test than the Turing test.
I agree with him completely.
Uh also, interestingly, I have uh 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 uh drug treatment that's a new one that was only approved in the US in the spring.
But you have to uh be the right kind of cancer.
I have the right kind of cancer, I think, and you have to have uh gone through certain things that didn't work, which is now the case.
The uh testosterone blockers worked for a little bit, but they they kind of stopped working uh as was anticipated.
We just didn't know how long it would take, didn't take long before it stopped working.
So now I'm riddled once again with tumors, but this new drug is called pluficto, 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, the 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 percent, 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 ship.
So the the treatments are you go to a place and you get a UV, or I an IV, not a UV, you get an IV, uh, you go home, there's not much side effects, and you do it you know, like four to six times, depending on your situation.
Um so it's fairly civilized, you know, it's not like chemo where I'm I'm gonna wish I hadn't done it.
Um, 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 pluficto can get to the tumors.
You 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 uh, 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 a several years.
If if none of that works, if I can't get on the Pluvicto, maybe six years, uh maybe six months left, my guess.
Six months to a year at most.
But we'll see.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is looking to start an AI um healthcare service.
So they're they not only are part owner of OpenAI and Chat GPT, but they don't want to be reliant on Chat GPT, 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.
Um, and maybe that's also where they're getting their their um, I guess their most reliable health care 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 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, uh, all that stuff.
So, how does Microsoft get to uh 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?
It's the same problem with humans, so maybe it's no worse than humans, might be better than humans, but I don't see how you get to AI when you're being trained on dumb A, dumb AI.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk uh got another 20 billion dollar funding led by NVIDIA.
So NVIDIA's going in on a lot of the uh AI companies because they want them to succeed so they can sell them more chips.
Um Elon Musk was saying something on X that uh the winner in the AI race will be, I'll paraphrase them, but it's basically whoever builds the biggest data centers and buys the most chips and puts the most cash into it, uh, 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.
Uh, but there won't they 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.
Um, 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 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 just by getting there first and the other social media too.
Now, um 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, you know, 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 moted.
And the reason I think it could never be moated is because uh startups will also have AI.
And the startups, somebody, this is my prediction, somebody fairly soon, maybe in the next five years, will spend one billion dollars to recreate what it took Elon and Chat GPT, 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 one billion dollars to get there, where the big AIs have put down one trillion and are figuring somebody to monetize that one billion to one trillion.
That's my 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 Erasmus and poll, only 48% of adults under 30 have a full-time job.
According to Michael Snyder who'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 that that's not most of them.
Um I do wonder if the time in history is sort of weirdly perfect, that uh 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.
Uh, 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.
I, you know, even if let's say I lost my current career completely.
Uh, but I but AI was giving me uh enough money to live, and I had a house and everything.
I would do a part-time job, and I would I would be happy that I had it.
And and it could be working as Starbucks or something, but I'm definitely gonna have to get out of the house.
I'm gonna have to do something.
I mean, I'm not gonna sit around and pet my cats and wait for my you know universal uh payment check to come in and the robots to clean my house.
What kind of life is that?
So I feel like uh 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 uh allegedly tightening up on their sales of rare earth materials.
Um, 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 down any rare earth materials from China that they don't know about.
Um, given that that seems to be China's primary leverage over us, more so than almost everything else is this rare earth material stuff.
Uh whatever we're doing to uh take that leverage away, we really need to do that quickly.
Well, what 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 and you know 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 you know 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.
Um, I've told you before you should follow a user called Mays, M-A-Z-E.
If you're looking for his account, it's Mays 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.
Um, there must be some kind of video search engine, I don't know about.
But he found uh I think there were like eight different interviews in which Rob Reiner was saying, uh, let's see several years ago.
He said in the 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 gonna take it all away.
And then the year after he said, We only have 242 years of self-rule, and Trump's gonna take it away.
And the next year he said, We got 243 years of self-rule, but this Trump's gonna 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 what 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, I don't 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 gonna 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 gonna happen if we don't correct it?
Will the border get closed and the GDP be 3.7, and uh will there be peace in uh Gaza?
Is that what he's worried about?
Poor stupid bastard.
Uh and then yeah, there's definitely something happening here.
Uh John Stewart, who of course is you know 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 if they ring as true.
So he is a special kind of character, somewhat like Bill Maher, that uh they're you know, braver than most people uh who would identify more with the left than the right.
But uh he's going after Chuck Schumer.
He 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 okay.
Um but now uh John 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 you know real serious democrat and then watch the face of your movement be uh 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 John Stewart is saying, ah, uh, we gotta do better than this.
We gotta do better than this.
Anyway, you know, the news uh former FBI director James Comey has pled not guilty um 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.
Um I'm I'm expecting him not to be guilty.
What do you think?
Or maybe the case will even be thrown out for you know lack of lack of something.
I don't think there's really any chance that he's gonna get convicted.
I don't know.
Um, maybe.
I mean, it's not impossible.
I just don't think the world works that way.
I I think even if they have him dead to rights, they're just gonna say, eh, and there'll be at least one juror who said, eh, you know, I'm not gonna 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 gonna put this one guy in jail, the one guy.
Everybody's lying to Congress all the time.
But I'm gonna 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 and if if I knew that tons of famous people on both sides had lied to Congress for years and years, would I care that uh somebody like Navarro or Bannon went to jail for not talking to Congress or uh I guess they went for not talking, not for lying.
That's different.
Um I don't know.
I I feel like as a juror, I might just say, go go screw yourself.
If you're just gonna 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 law fare the law fairers, but not anybody else.
All right.
I don't want to see anybody getting law fared because you don't like their politics.
No way.
That's you know, it wouldn't matter if they had a technical violation.
No way I'd find them guilty if it was just lawfairing.
But if you're law faring the person who tried to law fare you literally out of office as the presidency and into jail, yeah, law firm 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 uh talking to Nancy Pelosi, and uh her last name sounded right.
She actually bashed her.
So uh Dana Bash points out that the Republicans, um, I'll just read it.
Republicans are voting yes to open the government.
All right, 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 the yes would be on 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 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.
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 uh 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 gonna 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 gonna 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.
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 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, 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 we'll feed them.
And we've we found a clever way to do it that only Trump could do.
Tariff money.
That's pretty good politics right there.
Anyway, in other news, the Palisades fire starting bastard has been caught.
It's uh 26-year-old or 28 or something.
Young guy with long hair.
Looks to have mental problems, would be my guess.
Um 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 uh anyway, this uh young man set the fire on uh, I guess it was the first of the year, but it was spotted and the fire department uh 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 that's the uh 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, uh, 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, I don't know, 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 uh, let's say, guilty in any kind of uh 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.
Guess we'll find out.
Somebody sent me a uh a clip yesterday that uh it cut out the mention of my name, but it was about me and one part.
It was a uh comic Dave Smith talking to provocative Nick Fuentes, both of them are provocative, I guess.
And uh so Dave Smith mentioned me and uh a story about he saw what I shockingly said to get canceled in 2023, and his first reaction was, oh man, guys, 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 but then he said, I wasn't expecting this.
He said that uh a minute later, he realized that uh 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 percent 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 uh anyway, Dave Smith said a minute later, I realized that that's what I had done, meaning what he had done.
And they tells the story of looking for uh a place to move with his wife and I guess children, and then they're looking for a good school, and he humorously tells the story of looking at uh, I guess the school they ended up picking, and it was uh uh I'm paraphrasing, so this is not exactly what he said, but it was stuff like okay, their uh their college acceptance, A plus, you know, their their math teaching, A plus, their their English teaching, A plus.
And then it got to the bottom of the list, and it was like they got a grade for diversity, and their diversity was I think D minus, and uh 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 uh unfortunately, you know, again, I'm paraphrasing, the the level of diversity can really reliably tell you what the life would be like in that school, and that he wanted didn't want that for his children.
So uh I feel like that was one of the more honest things that anybody said this year.
And that's 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 if they had the ability to move, Not everybody has the ability to move, but the ones who had 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 it's you know, 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.
And then just because I was having fun watching the uh uh the people who were the most uh provocative, I was watching a clip of Candace, Candace Owens.
Now, I've told you I have a very positive um just personal feeling about Candace, having just met her once, she's very warm.
And uh, 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 uh so I'm grateful that you do.
But uh I usually can't hang, but oh my god, is she talented?
If any of you had the same reaction, her voice is just perfect.
Her her mastery of her topic, impressive, the ability uh the ability to find uh like a an angle on something or uh a point of view that you haven't seen everywhere else, amazing.
Um the fluency with which she communicates.
Oh my god, so smart, so smart, so talented.
I I watched that show and sat there thinking, I need to get out of this business because I'm I'm nowhere near that, right?
I say great things about um Meghan Kelly and of course Joe Rou 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 Macron 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, uh when she suggests but does not say that she's 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.
She actually successfully demonstrated that Israel had a motive to kill him, which is not funny, but uh I'm just sort of like so impressed at how well she can bring things together that I don't believe, but still, you know, quite expertly uh sort of teased.
So um, 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 one percent chance you'd get caught, that would be the end of the game.
That that would be a dumb risk management versus just trying to deal with him and you know, bring him back, you know, bring him back to a positive opinion, much more doable, much less risk than trying to off them, you know, even if you thought you could hide your tracks.
No, no, that's too risky.
So I don't believe it at all.
And uh the one thing you should keep in mind when you watch um any of the top influencers when they've got a 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 it a little stronger in your mind.
Number one, the documentary effect, which I mention all the time.
The documentary effect means that if you're listening to one point of view for an hour, you're gonna 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 gonna 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.
Um 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's it reinforces it.
The Bible code was years ago, it might have been the 60s or 70s, I forget.
Somebody wrote a book called the Bible Code, in which they found that uh 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, uh, and I'll make up this example, but there'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.
And it'd be like big bomb, 1949, uh, whatever it is.
Uh, and then you say, Yes, there 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 do you want do you want me to prove that uh aliens were complicit in uh killing somebody?
I could probably do it.
I 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 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 it yourself.
There's the 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 gonna have a version of events with a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence to show the person is innocent?
The The uh 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 uh Candace's show, I recommend it.
It's it's tremendous.
But be careful.
All right, uh, there was this uh meeting that Trump was at to I guess talk about the looking into the sources of Antifa funding, and I had a bunch of uh independent journalists who were there.
Some of them had 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, uh, 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.
Um, so if I had to give some advice to Brandy, who went from an anti-Trumper TDS person to a, oh, maybe I was wrong about all that.
Maybe Trump is the way.
Uh, 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 gonna think of her now that she's come out as a MAGA supporting person?
Do you think all of her friends are gonna be okay with her?
You think they'll invite her to parties now?
No.
Do you know uh you know 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 gonna think you're fucking garbage because you like mega.
Forget it.
You're gonna 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 uh and and just you know, 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, and we spent you know, 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 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 there was a Rasmussen poll that said something like 30 or 40 percent of black people said it wasn't okay to be black.
And then I said the word that gets forgotten, if 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.
Um, I said, if it's accurate, you should stay away from uh 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 uh Democrats who are your best friends.
That was my case.
There's a bunch of Democrats, they were all all different from different countries, and by the way, uh a vast percentage of my closest friends were born in other countries, or their parents were born in other countries.
So they 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, um, 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 will never talk to them again for the rest of my life.
I'm gonna 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 gonna 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 if they heard a version and a context, then that's different.
But if they listen to what I said, I have never once insulted black people.
That's never happened.
Would you agree?
You you're the ones who watched 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 could you can act differently in group decisions versus individual decisions, of course.
Never never discriminate against an individual.
That's bad for them.
And it's limiting your own choices.
Why would you limit your own choices?
You know, unless you believe that like every single person in one group is gonna 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.
Um, if it's for your safety, that's the only good reason.
Um 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 he looks at his top advisors who were 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.
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 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 somebody gave him a total common sense suggestion which apparently he had not noodle done 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, you maybe you have to be pro-Trump to be as impressed at it as I was.
Was it Jack?
Was it Jack Basabak who who mentioned the 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 that was solid presidenting right there.
And uh Nick Sorter was there with his uh semi-burned flag, and uh 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 I don't think he would be prosecuted, but uh 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 uh then it would be considered um inciting violence.
So then it would move out of the free speech category into the you know the special illegal category.
So I don't believe I can be talked down to this, but I don't believe the flag burner made much difference to the overall event.
I think it was just a side show 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.
Um, but we'll see.
Uh remember, I always tell you that uh 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 uh 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 the 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 uh 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 a hundred million dollars 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.
Uh 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 uh fishing network.
Um they were involved, they funded allegedly.
Neville Royal 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 a hundred years old.
Uh Johann George Hansorg.
Some 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 um, then there's a bunch of additional foreign cash and other stuff.
So I am impressed that the uh 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 even heard about it until uh yesterday.
Um post by Eric and Doherty, good follow, by the way.
Um, if you want to get independent uh journalist kind of stuff, uh Eric Dorty spelled D A U G H E R T, spelled like daughter with a Y on the end.
Um it turns out that the Supreme Court is going to vote on uh abolishing a specific part of the voting rights act that allowed special uh districts to be allocated for black voters.
Um, they say for minorities, but I suspect uh the majority that was for the benefit of the black community.
But just 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.
Um 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 you know they would never be able to elect a black leader because there just wouldn't be enough black people in any one uh one voting area.
So it looks like in order to protect against discrimination in redistricting, uh the the law allowed them to redistrict for the purpose of making sure that black voters, I think mostly black, um 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 think I would have been in favor of this, actually, you know, if you took me back in time, but it is time to re-reassess because I don't know that uh that Republicans would do that in 2025, especially if it's really obvious.
You know, the the other way to handle it is not to make it illegal, but make it public and say, look, look at what these dirty Republicans did.
We Democrats would never do something that bad to you.
So I feel like uh this might be exactly the right time to overturn it.
Um, and not because it didn't have a purpose.
Uh I would say the same thing with um with all of the racial improvements that have been made over time.
There's a time to do it when you need the tourniquet, like things are just so bad.
You gotta you gotta eliminate racism, or not racism, you gotta eliminate slavery.
Like you just gotta do that.
You gotta eliminate Jim, you know, Jim Crow.
You gotta you gotta make sure that black people have a you know 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'd still have to redistrict to get it.
But uh imagine getting 19 more Republican seats in the House before the midterms.
That would pretty much guarantee the Republicans keep the house.
Um so I can't believe I didn't know about that story before.
Um 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 can work.
So uh I have a largish account on X, which means a lot of people will see what I what I post, but I also read and consume a lot of smaller cut accounts, usually they're commenting, right?
I'll see them in my comments.
So that 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 you know 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 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 uh 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 uh Trump surging the forces into the cities for a crime.
Um said they need to frame these as quote, gun violence reduction missions.
You feel it already?
And she goes on, or he goes out, I don't know who Misty is, but uh white female voters love to virtue signal on the gun violence issue.
So connecting the National Guard deployments to the zip goes 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 um you know, each time they do one of these searches, one of the 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 they're citizens, right?
They get a service too.
Uh, 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 Trump reads the room better than anybody.
So it could be that he doesn't want to open that anti-gun box.
You know, maybe just give the data, but don't frame it as anti-gun, because then it 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 I honestly, I think Portland's a little overdone.
I I just don't know there's that big a problem in Portland, but you know, politically it works.
Um, but if they pivoted, they wouldn't have to make every deployment about guns.
But if they said uh the one thing that MAGA and Democrats will agree on is that the criminals should not have guns.
So we're gonna 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 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 gonna put up with the masks a lot a lot more easily.
By the way, is it illegal for the bad people on the streets to wear a mask?
Or is it only illegal for the people put in trying to stop them?
I wasn't clear on that.
Well, you've seen some uh some uh online influencers, podcasters say things like the U.S. is on the brink of civil war.
You've heard Tucker talk about it.
Tim Poole's talked about it.
I don't think he's predicting it per se, but sort of warning about it.
Um I'm gonna be I've seen enough of 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 gonna shoot?
If it started tomorrow, what would you do?
We it's not like we have some big issue, you know, like slavery or you know, some 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 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 no, nobody's gonna be a risk to the system.
You you're gonna 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.
Uh, if there became a bigger risk, you know, whether it's Antifa gets bigger or whatever, if it becomes a bigger risk, I will spend more time persuading it out of business.
And and I think that one of the things that we have today than not everybody fully recognized, 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 to there's no way for me to tell this story without making it about me, so I apologize in advance.
You don't think you don't think I could stop a civil war?
I probably could.
The I can 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 gonna like it.
You're gonna talk to your friends.
So as long as there are enough people like me, who I guarantee you, I'm gonna 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, um, cash patel said there's 110,000 gang members in Chicago streets.
Gay we pundits 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 gang bangers with you know guns in their pants, working the streets and selling drugs.
It might be more MOS and the gang and little billions in the gang because everybody has to be in the gang just to say stay safe.
So I don't know what that number means, but it's a shocking number.
According to the Reese Group, domestic violence uh in California impacts two thirds of Californians.
31% identify as survivors.
The rest that would have some family connection to it.
Does that sound right?
Do you believe that number?
That in California, two thirds of Californians are 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.
Sometimes it's both of them.
You know, both the the husband and the wife will claim that they were domestic violence victims.
Now I do think domestic violence is way bigger problem than maybe we all realize.
So I'm not doubting the seriousness of it.
Just to be clear, uh, 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 get 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 get that divorce, oh, everybody's a everybody's an abuser.
Well, if you don't know that a war with Venezuela is coming, um, it looks like it is.
So the uh 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 gonna have boots on the ground in Venezuela.
Now, I hope that when that happens, and it's definitely gonna 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 you know, 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 they would have to stay in that frame.
Or we're taking out a drug dealer.
So I think that's coming.
Um there's a story in the New York Times about how Ukraine's still the most corrupt place in the world.
Now that you know that that Ukraine is still one of the most corrupt places in the world, and all the government money is being stolen in different ways.
Uh 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 you're all a bunch of crooks.
I appreciate Trump for that.
Uh, did you know that in the city, the Ukraine city of Kherson that uh Russia would like to take, but hasn't yet, that what they're doing is depopulating the city with drones.
So apparently uh Kyrasan used to have 300,000 people, it's down to 65,000.
And the reporting is that the Russians are using drones with you know small explosives like a hand grenade to target and kill civilians so that they'll move out, so that if they ever want to, you know, move in with their with their own forces and take over the city, there won't be anybody there.
