News that needs my reframing for your entertainment~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Trans Mass Hysteria, Leticia James Supporters, Jonathan Turley, Jack Smith, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Russia's JFK Files, Young Republicans Chat Scandal, Jimmy Kimmel, Gaza Public Executions, Disarming Hamas, President Trump, Two-State Solution, Democrat Imaginary Problems, Democrat Paid Protesters, Steven Pinker, Trump Norms Violations, AIPAC Gavin Newsom, Alex Jones, Pentagon Press Policy, SCOTUS Racial Districting Ruling, Election Rule Changing, President Milei, Monroe Doctrine, Ukraine Military Innovations, Hong Kong AI Facial Recognition, Anti-Privacy Technology Future, 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.
My sleeping cat is behind me, so you can get a double show today.
Watch a cat and watch me at the same time.
Well, I'm checking your stocks for you, and it appears that they're doing pretty well.
And if you took um, well, I won't say my advice because I don't I don't give stock advice, but I did tell you about a year ago that uh nuclear power stocks would probably be a good idea.
And if you had an index fund, which I do of nuclear power stocks, you would see it's up 93%.
So that worked out.
The only the only advice I ever give for finance are two parts.
One is diversify, and the other is there may be once ever stock opportunities that just never can happen again, like the beginning of the cell phones, or like the beginning of PCs or the beginning of AI.
But uh the beginning of nuclear power being um, let's say reconstituted as a good thing, will only happen once.
There'll be one time when everybody says, Oh, we're gonna need a lot of nuclear power.
So that was the basis, and then again I diversify by an index fund.
I do not recommend this.
I do not recommend that you follow anything I say for finance.
Um that's not really my domain.
But that those are two investment tricks that you should know the once ever and diversify.
If you get those two things right, you might be in good shape as long as you don't make too big a bets.
Alright, I think we have a show to do here.
Do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the best thing that ever happened to you in your whole darn life.
But if you'd like to take it up a level, see if you can do that.
All you need for that is a copper muggra, glass of tanker chelestine, canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip, and it's gonna happen right now.
So...
So good, so good.
All right, I'm gonna give you a reframe from my book, reframe your brain, which I have not yet selected, but they're all so good that it won't be hard.
Um here's one.
Uh the usual frame is that you deserve to be treated well by other people.
How many of you think that that's a fair statement?
That you deserve to be treated well by other people.
Well, here's a reframe.
I'll improve on that.
You get what you give on average.
No one deserves anything.
You get what you give.
If you're not getting enough out of other people or your job or out of life, you're probably not giving enough.
So instead of thinking, darn it, why have I not been given enough just for existing?
Stop that.
Go make sure that you can get enough by giving more.
So that's one of the uh tips for happiness, too.
If you're in a bad mood, you've heard me say this one before.
One of the best ways to get in a good mood is just to do some unsolicited good thing for somebody, and if they appreciate it, or even if they don't, as long as it's a good thing, it will cheer you up.
So stop thinking about what people can do for you.
Think about what you can do for other people and watch the magic happen.
All right, I've got to see your comments here.
Let me give you a little update on my health situation.
Normally I wouldn't do that, but since you're all part of the ride, and you're you're wondering if I'm gonna conk out any minute.
So here's the current plan.
Current plan goes like this on Friday.
I'll get a scan that says special scan, PSMA, that will tell me if I'm uh can be qualified for this new cancer drug called Pluvicto by what was that?
By Novartis.
Um Friday I get scanned, and then my doctor will look at the scan and see if it's see if it uh what they do is they give me some nuclear juice, and if it lights up the tumors, then they know that the pluvicto can reach the tumors.
So you don't automatically get it because you want it, and you don't automatically get it because your doctor thinks it's a good idea.
You have to go through a process to qualify to be one of the people who can get it, probably because it's expensive.
There's there's something on my desk talking.
I don't know what it is.
I don't have any devices that should be talking to me now, but I'm hearing some voices.
I hope that's not my head.
Anyway, so the process is I take the scan, my doctor looks at it, and then he has to submit it to a board of people that only meet every two weeks specifically to decide who gets this limited drug and who doesn't.
It's very expensive.
Uh I assume that's why they do it, because it's costs so much.
Um if they say yes, that will take me a couple of weeks before I get the yes, then I also have to schedule the actual treatments, of which would be half a dozen.
So we might be a month away from me getting that into my veins.
And uh so my challenge is to stay alive until then.
One of the exciting things about having late-stage cancer is you don't really know how long you're gonna last.
Right.
The I I bought a little extra time with the uh testosterone blockers, but you know, they they fail after a while, predictably they fail.
So I'm in that failure range where things are getting much worse, but my solution is getting closer and closer.
No, it's not a solution, it's a chance of a solution.
Maybe a good solid 30% chance it buys me, you know, some meaningful extra time.
But we're only talking months, we're only talking months.
If I were one of the rare people who just the tumors just disappeared, which can happen, by the way, with that drug.
Um, it's just not the common experience.
So uh the other thing you need to know is that I've upped my painkillers.
I won't be more specific than that, but wow, am I high right now?
I am so high uh on painkillers, you know, legally, legally prescribed painkillers.
So uh for the first time that you've seen me in months, I'm in no pain whatsoever.
I have no mental pain, I have no physical pain, and this is the first time you've seen me anopane since a year ago, probably a year ago.
So I'm having a really good day, and I had a good night's sleep, and who knows what's gonna happen next.
So there's a uh story about the BBC that says your hormones might be controlling your mind.
Do you think they needed to do that study to find out that your hormones might control how you're thinking?
That's literally the most obvious thing in the world.
No, you didn't need to do that, just ask me.
Scott, do you think that people's hormones will affect their thoughts?
Yes, yes, but they're taking it further, trying to figure out how to change the hormones so it'll fix your mental problems.
But yes, your body is your brain, as I tell you often.
All right, here's another one.
Um, did they need to do this study?
Eric Nolan from SciPost is writing that negativity drives engagement on political TikTok.
How many of you were unaware that if you do negative things on TikTok and social media, you get more response than if you do positive things.
Didn't everybody know that.
But I was I would like to introduce um a competing thought.
So being as I am a professional humorist and professional writer, and specifically a cartoonist who writes short, pithy funny things.
I believe that when I do a uh a positive post that's that's all you know upside and and makes people feel good, that those are just as viral as the negative stuff.
What's different is it's harder to do.
It's really easy to do negative stuff.
You're usually just forwarding something that somebody else sent around.
But if you wanted to do something that would make people inspired and happy, you could do it, but it's sort of a high bar.
You know, if if you're not a professional writer, you're not going to hit that too often.
But if you are, positivity can sell.
It's just much, much harder to produce.
Well, almost every day I tell you there's a new study about um hallucinogens doing good things for people.
Here's one.
This is also Eric Dolan and SciPost.
Uh, that long-term ayahuasca use is linked to distinct emotional brain activity and higher resilience.
Now, what's different about this, and by the way, I don't recommend ayahuasca.
I'm pretty sure that that's one of the more dangerous ones.
I'm not an expert on this, but uh don't take this as a recommendation.
Um, you should look at the risks.
But the people who are long-term users of it, I guess some people do it more of the lifestyle religious kind of thing, that their brains are actually different, and the difference is a positive.
That uh and and this is also interesting.
Apparently, they can use machine learning to determine just by looking at your brain if you've used ayahuasca for a long time with 75% chance that they would get it right.
So they could it actually changes your brain.
Your brain is physically different if you do a lot of ayaska, but it's apparently it's a positive.
But it did not help, and this was this part of surprised me.
It didn't help anxiety, depression, or general mood in the long run, probably in the short run.
But uh the other the other uh hallucinogens like uh uh the mushroom type, I think that there's more indication that they last, but the ayahuasca will make you more emotionally resilient, which would be an amazing quality to have if you could build it.
I don't recommend it, I'm just telling you what's out there.
Well, X is apparently going to make a change so that you can tell what country the poster is from.
I feel like that would be really helpful.
Wouldn't you like to know if the post came from China or Israel or some other country that's in the news?
That seems like a good idea to me.
I'd like that.
Um they're gonna have to do a lot more to make you know the the comments trustable, but that probably helped.
You may have seen this already, that the uh percentage of people claiming to be trans uh among young people.
So this is only a poll of young people, the the number of people who claim to be trans is plunging.
Um it's gone way down, but the number of people claiming to be gay or lesbian is somewhat unchanged.
What does that tell you?
If the trans identifiers have gone way down, far, far less of them just in the last year or two, but the gay and lesbians stay the same.
Well, it tells me that gay and lesbian is real and trans was always a mass hysteria.
How many of you knew from the beginning that the trans thing was a mass hysteria?
Uh and mass hysteria might be slightly wrong description, but you know what I mean.
That it was a psychological phenomenon and not a biological phenomenon.
Pretty much all of you knew that, right?
For some of you, this might be your first um first identifiable uh mass hysteria.
The more of these you see, the easier it is to spot them.
And I've you know, I've been trying to teach you how to do this for years.
But TDS is, of course, another mass hysteria.
Um, and even TDS is starting to give way because of Trump's recent successes and the fact that you know you just sort of get used to his personality, and then it becomes just part of the show.
I think I think Trump's personality went from, oh my God, we can't have a president who says and does things like that.
No, no, look what he said again.
Oh my god, did he say that?
And then you just get used to it.
And now we're at the point where he says outrageously provocative things, and even his critics just sort of give up on it.
It's like, yeah, okay.
All right, that's just what he does.
Uh, does it work?
Well, apparently there's more upside than downside for Trump being Trump.
So, yeah, you'll you learn to spot all these mass hysteria.
Um, however, let's see if you think this is a competing number or not.
So if you knew that trans is way down, and you knew that gay and lesbian was stable, uh, what would you make of the fact that there was uh in Brown University, there's a one in three people identify as LGBTQ or LGBT.
No Q. One in three.
Do you know what the the uh the secret?
Well, not secret.
Do you know why the number is so big?
The one in three people at Brown are LGBT.
Well, one uh hypothesis, which I think is right on, is that young females um still find it trendy.
I feel like it's trendy, it's not it's not a massive stereo, it's just trendy, to say that, well, you know, I'm a little bit bisexual.
If I met a woman that I fell in love with, you know, I could imagine.
I could imagine that maybe something would happen there.
So I think it has to do with women, young women saying, yeah, no problem.
If I fell in love with somebody of the same sex, you know, I'm not I'm not exactly gay or bi, but if it happened, it happened.
So I think that's what's happening.
The one in three is mostly young women.
All right.
Let's talk about Letitia James.
So Letitia James, you all know who she is.
She's the one who tried to law fare Trump into jail, but she's got her own law affair problems with alleged banking fraud for her several mortgages.
Anyway, she appeared in front of some group and got like a hero's welcome.
And I thought to myself, how?
How do you get a hero's welcome for being a credibly accused of being a gigantic fraud while also being the attorney general?
Like, huh?
How?
But apparently she had lots of supporters, and she was quite happy to raise her hand and what if she were Elon Musk, they would call a Nazi salute, but instead she was just waving to the crowd.
Um, but but uh Jonathan uh Turley, one of my favorite observers of anything, uh had a good comment on X about her.
Uh Jonathan Turley says, Letitia James declared yesterday, this was at the event, that her indictment is nothing more than a desperate weaponization of our justice system.
Turley says, it is like Katie Porter objecting to a hostile workplace.
That's a good line.
The fact that the audience applauded rather than laughed is the ultimate test of rage politics.
Yeah.
That's a perfect comment, Jonathan Turley.
I'm going to mention him again later.
He's so good.
Uh you remember Jack Smith?
What do you call him?
Uh special counsel or whatever he was.
So he was investigating uh Trump.
And he went on MSNBC.
He was talking to Andrew Wiseman, who Molly Hemingway reminds us was the architect of the Russia collusion hoax.
Now, what two people could be less Credible than Jack Smith talking to Andrew Weisman on MSNBC.
If you're if you were to try to come up with a movie plot of the two least credible people in the least credible place saying the least credible things, it would look a lot like that.
So Jack Smith actually said in real words that uh the idea that politics would play a role in his cases against Trump is quote, absolutely ludicrous.
It's ludicrous to imagine that politics had anything to do with lawfaring Trump.
No, it's ludicrous.
What are you crazy?
Stop looking at me like that.
That's crazy talk.
And not only do I know it's crazy talk, but Andrew Weisman would totally agree with me on MSNBC.
So that was that was wonderfully insane.
Uh in other funny news, uh Representative Anna Paulina Luna.
I don't know, I don't know exactly what her role is in Congress, Representative Luna, but apparently she's been given, I'll call it the portfolio of all the uh the secrets, stuff like UFOs and secret files, and uh I don't know.
So she has some kind of some kind of role with the government secrets.
But as part of that, she was offered and has accepted, I think she already has them, uh, a bunch of files from Russia on the topic of their own investigation of who killed JFK.
Now, how much would you trust Russia's assessment of who killed JFK?
Does that seem like something credible to you, especially in today's day and age?
It's possible.
But but even if they're telling the truth, how much truth do they know?
Would Russia have access to more you know accurate information or simply be willing to say it, whereas maybe the US people would lie about it?
I don't know.
But I I haven't seen the details, but I saw a suggestion that uh the Russians thought LBJ and the CIA conspired to kill Kennedy.
Now that's what I think.
I mean, that sort of matches my opinion.
Um other people will say Israel is behind it because we say Israel's behind everything.
I don't know about that.
Um, I know the argument.
The argument is that Kennedy was doing things that Israel didn't like, such as trying to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.
Um that would be uh a very big risk to murder our president because they didn't like something.
So I'm generally going to say that I just don't believe a foreign country is gonna take a chance of murdering our president if there's any chance of getting caught.
And there's always a chance of getting caught.
You you can't murder somebody in public and then just assume you won't get caught because you what rapidly killed the shooter itself.
I mean, you there's just no way you could assume you wouldn't get caught.
But you could imagine CIA and LBJ thinking maybe they could cover it up because that would be an inside job.
But if it were an outside job, you know, it wasn't the United States involved.
I don't know if you could cover that up.
But an inside job, yeah, you you could cover up an inside job.
All right, you probably saw the story that uh some group I never heard of called the Young Republican National Federation, some of their uh private or internal text messages got revealed, and uh there were some very uh, let's say provocative and uh inappropriate messages in there that got surfaced.
So there were people joking about gas chambers and saying they like Hitler and referring to black people as watermelon eaters and monkeys and other disgusting things.
The leadership has uh disavowed it totally, the leadership of the young Republican National Federation, and uh demanded that anybody who's involved with those messages immediately resign from the organization.
Let me give you for those of you who are not male.
Let me give you some insight.
All right.
I don't think I have to tell this to anybody who's a male.
Do you have any idea what young males say when nobody when they think nobody's listening?
Do you have any idea?
I've been a young male.
Not anymore.
But do you have any idea what would be normal conversation among I don't know, 19 year olds?
Any idea?
Do you really think this is outside the line that you discovered this little pocket of people who say things that are provocative?
No.
This would be every group of 100 people is going to have 10 trolls in it.
Let's say if you picked 100 young men, doesn't matter what race.
Doesn't matter what politics.
Doesn't matter.
Probably doesn't even matter.
Well, maybe it matters what religion.
That would matter a little bit.
But if it's just a hundred people picked randomly, you're going to get 10 trolls who think it's the funniest thing in the world to say things that offend the rest of the people.
They would be doing it to be offensive.
But the payoff is the offensive part that to see the reaction.
If you don't understand that about young boys or men, that there's going to be 10% trolls, they're going to say whatever's the worst thing you could say, and they're doing it for the reaction for the attention, then you don't really understand this.
Pretty much all of those people will outgrow this kind of behavior.
so for the people who are under 25 i just say wait it's not really a problem you need to fix it's not ideal i don't approve of it That's why it gets fixed.
That when people get to a certain age and they realize nobody approves of this, just nobody, nobody approves of this.
Then, you know, they start to buy into the system a little bit and it goes away.
So I would say it's a non-problem, but it is a shock.
Probably to women to find out that this would be so ordinary.
And by the way, I'm not saying it's ordinary that they're racists.
I'm saying it's ordinary that they would pick whatever was the most provocative, inappropriate thing to say, and 10% of them are going to say that, guaranteed, every time.
Whatever it is you don't want them to say, 10% will say it because they just love doing that.
So I wouldn't take it too seriously.
I think the young Republican leadership treated it right.
They disavowed it right away.
They said you got to get out of here.
It's sort of a noun story.
You probably know that Jimmy Kimmel praised Trump for his Gaza success.
He said, quote, I know it sounds crazy to say, but good work on that one, President Trump.
Now, I would say that was the easiest thing that anybody could ever do.
So Kimmel probably would enjoy having some easy non-controversial way to get back some of his conservative audience.
I mean, that's that's a big reach.
I don't think he'll get them back.
But it's easy to say, you know, once CNN and you know, even the critics of the president have sided with him on Gaza.
It's kind of easy at that point, say, all right, all right, you did that one thing good.
So that was smart and appropriate.
But it makes a more of a contrast with why the ladies of the view can't seem to do this.
When you see how easy it is, and how smart it is, really, it's just smart.
Uh, then you say that the view can't do the thing that's easy and smart, just can't do it.
So anyway, so the most what would be the most uh predictable thing that would happen after this Gaza deal seems to have been uh made.
The most predictable thing would be uh violations of the ceasefire.
Is there anyone who thought the ceasefire would not be violated?
Of course they will.
It's always violated because they're there are members of both sides who probably didn't want peace.
There probably some Israelis and probably some Gazans were like, you know, I wouldn't mind a little bit more war.
We could maybe get more of what we want out of this deal.
So of course there will be ceasefire violations, but as long as the main combatants have been separated, it should be limited.
And something we could work through.
I don't think it'll be the end of the process.
Anyway, and then the reports that Hamas has already carried out a bunch of public executions.
We don't know how much.
It might be, it might have happened once, uh, eight people.
Um, but there's reports of at least 33 people who've been uh executed.
Sort of revenge, I guess.
They just take about, but that too was a hundred percent predictable, right?
It's a hundred percent predictable that Hamas would execute whoever they didn't like during the war.
But at some point they run out of people to execute, uh, or at some point they lose their weapons.
So Trump says Hamas will be forced to disarm, or quote, we will disarm them.
I asked on X, who's we?
Because I think there are 200 U.S. troops over there.
They're not gonna do it, right?
I I hope we're not sending U.S. troops on the ground.
But he said we probably means that peace council, whoever whichever countries decide to be part of the security arrangement.
But he says uh the disarmament should take place in a reasonable period of time.
Well, you know, Trump is good at disarming.
Uh, if you saw him shaking hands with Manuel Macron, he practically ripped his whole arm off.
Yeah, he's very disarming.
And then uh and Trump clarifies, he says, if they don't disarm, we will disarm them and it will happen quickly and perhaps violently.
Uh, but then he looks sort of looks at the camera.
Trump did this at his event at uh one of those press events yesterday.
He says, but they will disarm.
Do you understand me?
Now my understanding is that that had not been maybe completely agreed when they said yes to the hostage deal.
I believe that Hamas was still sort of, you know, sort of holding on to maybe the option that maybe they could keep some weapons, whereas uh the Israelis and the US were saying, nope, that's not an option.
You're not keeping any weapons.
So that was a I think that was a non-agreed on point.
Can Trump once again change reality as opposed to negotiating, change reality so that Hamas would actually disarm?
I don't know.
He's acting, he he's acting like he talked to Hamas and they told him that they would disarm.
So he's he's taking their no as a yes again, right?
I mean, it may be a little uh murkier this time, but I'm pretty sure they said they didn't say yes, but he's saying that they said yes to him.
Now we can't we can't prove that because we weren't in the room, but did they say yes to him?
If they said yes to him, um, that would carry some weight.
But I also love the fact that if they didn't say yes to him, he might still say that they did, because that's that would be another example of him changing reality as opposed to negotiating.
So suppose Trump convinced the other members of Hamas that when he talked to the leadership, they had agreed to disarm.
What if that had never happened?
Would it still be smart for Trump to say, yeah, I talked to them?
They said they're gonna disarm.
Yes, it would.
Because it would make the other people who also don't have good communication with their leadership, think, oh, well, well, maybe maybe that's what we've agreed to.
So I like how I like how clever it is, whether it happened or not.
And remember, people are just now getting used to the fact that Trump gets things done without being technically accurate about everything he says.
He's not technically accurate about everything he says, but he sure knows how to get results.
And this might be one of those examples.
So we don't know the truth of it.
It's possible that Hamas just felt cornered in the meeting and lied to him just to get to get past the meeting.
It's possible they lied to him.
But I I'm kind of entertained by the possibility that nobody ever said that and that he could still sell it.
Because again, he could still sell it.
So we'll see.
And it would be for the good.
I think everybody would be better off if he did sell it.
I guess Bill Clinton has been claiming that when he was in office, he had made an offer to the Palestinians.
There was a once-in-a-lifetime peace opportunity.
But let's just say that not everybody agrees that that really happened.
Aaron Mate is claiming that Clinton's been saying that for a while, but there's a book by Robert Malley, who served as US peace negotiator on Clinton.
And he says, no, that didn't happen.
There was nothing like that that happened.
There was never a deal on the table that the Palestinians could have accepted.
But let's talk about this two-state solution, which I feel is my responsibility to solve.
So your basic situation here is another impossibility.
How could it be possible that Israel gets their one-state solution?
You know, it's a mixed bag in Israel.
Some people would like two, some would like one.
But the government, certainly Nanyahu, is not in favor of two.
The Palestinians are also of you know mixed opinion, but uh a lot of them would like a two-state solution.
Some of them would like a one-state solution, but not the one state that they have, if you know what I mean.
So you've got these sort of impossible to reconcile positions.
It can't be a two and it can't be a one.
So there are two things that are possible.
Two states are one state, and the one thing we know for sure is that two states won't work, because there'll always be enough religious people in each state to think the other one shouldn't exist, and there'll be continuous conflict.
So it's not like two ordinary states.
It's more like a religious situation where if they were just if there were two non-religious countries, yes, two-state solution.
Uh I would I would be pushing for that hard.
It's like, yeah, you just, you know, you just want to live and have a good economy.
There's no religion involved here.
Oh, yeah, you could probably figure out how to live next to each other.
But as soon as you add the God told us this is our land, and they both have it, they both have it.
That's not reconcilable.
You can't reconcile that with one or two.
There's always going to be half of the people who want to go to war to change that situation.
So do you know what you need?
Can you guess what I'm gonna say next?
You need a reframe.
If there are only two possibilities, and you know for sure neither of them will work, you gotta reframe.
So is there a reframe?
I I'm gonna suggest this.
We think of things in terms of the way things have always been done, and that becomes your prison.
Uh Greg Guffel talks about the prison of two ideas.
When you get locked into, well, there are only two things.
Only two things.
It's either a one or a two, one state or two-state.
But what if you released on that?
And you said there's something that's not a one-state and it's not a two-state.
What if it was a I'll just make up some words, uh, a special um special conscious conscience zone.
I'm using conscience um as a substitute for religion.
Because you don't want to pick the right religion.
That's not a thing.
But isn't the thing that makes that part of the world different is how people feel internally, right?
Right?
What makes that place different is how all the people involved feel internally.
Now there's an external part where people are getting you know killed and there's wars and there's boundaries and all that.
But we you know we have sort of an understanding of that, and it's not getting us to any kind of a good place.
But if you change the focus from the kinetic physical boundary kind of thing, to the internal state of the people involved, that's a reframe.
So I would say that this might be the one place on earth that you don't want something like a standard country.
So it wouldn't be one country, but it also wouldn't be two.
It would be all by itself and not even a country.
It would be a land of conscience where you if you wanted to be there, you'd you know meet a certain set of uh requirements, you know, because you have to have some kind of order, but that it would be run as a uh sort of an open whatever your conscience tells you to believe, this is the place to do it.
And this is not the place where we fight with each other, and uh you find some way to get God on both sides.
For example, could you bring together the leading people from both religions?
And could you find any moderates who say, you know what?
If God were in the room with us, what would he want?
Would he want us to be fighting?
Or would he want us to live our conscience and you know express our best or best feelings about the world and and the afterworld and all that?
So this is not a complete idea.
Uh, I'm just sort of leaning in the direction of something that might have some possibility.
But if you've ruled out one country and you've ruled out two countries, you could have to find something that's not one of those two things.
And I think it's possible.
Now, who could who could pull that off?
Who could change reality?
Reality.
We're not talking about negotiating, we're talking about changing reality.
Who could change reality enough to make some kind of peace happen without a traditional state situation?
Trump.
There's only one person in the world who could do that.
Trump.
Now, will he do it?
I doubt it.
It doesn't seem like that would be exactly in his domain.
But you could imagine it could be done.
You can imagine it.
So just for a moment, imagine maybe there's a way to solve that.
Then it won't be a one or two state solution.
Well, I'm continuing to be uh entertained at how Democrats are addicted to things that aren't real.
So they were, of course, pushing the trans bubble, the whole trans thing.
That wasn't real.
I mean, trans people are real, but not the size of it.
There was a fine people hoax and all the other hoaxes that they believed in.
There's a they still believe the January 6th was an insurrection, because that's how you conquer a country by wandering around without weapons.
That's how you do it.
That's what they think.
They believe there's no problem at the border, they think that Trump is gonna run for a third term and steal your democracy.
They think that crime in the cities is actually getting better as opposed to what's really happening, which is they're tweaking the statistics.
Uh, they think the climate crisis is real, they think uh Republicans are the ones who close the government, even though the Republicans have all voted to open it.
Uh they they believe that we do know, or that it's even possible to know that the 2020 election was clean.
Now, it would be one thing if you're arguing whether whether it was rigged or not, but they don't even argue that.
They argue that it couldn't have been rigged, because we'd know it.
That's just crazy.
Uh remember when they said uh when Trump said he wanted to find votes and he got impeached for that, didn't he?
But find is just a regular word, but they imagined it meant go steal some votes or go lie.
They thought that there was a huge white supremacist threat in the US.
Well, so far those white supremacists seem kind of quiet.
And it makes sense that the Democrats would become a completely imaginary believing group.
The group is real, but what they believe in is almost entirely imaginary.
And it makes sense because the uh the Trump people, they laid claim to common sense.
And once it became a catchphrase of the right, you can't really use it on the left.
So the the fact that uh everything that Trump does falls under common sense.
Uh what's left?
The opposite of common sense is is imaginary stuff, or stuff that's just stupid.
So some of it's just stupid, but most of it's based on imaginary stuff.
Now, what would you now if if what I'm saying is true, what would you predict from that?
So if it's true that the Democrats have gone into completely imaginary world of things, well, you would expect that whatever they're doing right now, like whatever their biggest effort is, would be a fight against something imaginary.
But wait, it gets better.
It wouldn't just be a fight against something imaginary.
They would use imaginary tools to fight the imaginary thing.
Do you think you could ever get to the double imaginary?
Yeah, it's this weekend.
They could have a no kings rally, which is my understanding, a bunch of paid protesters, probably elderly white people, who will wander around and not cause any trouble, and they believe that the wandering around on the weekend will help save them from Trump stealing their democracy.
So, first of all, nobody's stealing their democracy.
Second of all, there is no logical common sense way that people wandering around this weekend on a nice autumn day is going to change anything in the real world.
So you've got an imaginary problem, which they have matched with an imaginary solution, and they're all going to be marching around, marching around this weekend, and the Republicans are just going to be watching and saying what the hell is all this?
What's your imaginary problem?
And how do you imagine that this imaginary solution will have any connection to what you believe the problem is?
What is Trump going to step down because a few thousand people marched in the city?
What do they even think is going to happen?
Well, let me explain why this happens.
Now, on the Democrat side, and it might be true on the Republican side more than I wish it were true, but on the Democrat side, it's all just money.
These protesters are part of a paid business model.
Somebody who has a business that organizes protests, and as long as they can get the Democrats to pay them to organize another protest, you'll have a protest.
It doesn't mean that it will work or that anybody thinks it's a good idea, it just means they got paid.
So if you follow the money, it makes perfect sense that they have an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem.
Because all that really mattered was did they get paid?
And the answer is yes.
So now you understand everything.
I saw some comments on X from Steven Pinker, who's a Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, Harvard professor.
If you don't know who Steven Pinker is, the short version is very smart.
Smarter than me.
Smarter than most of us, right?
So you need to know that he's smarter than ordinary people, because otherwise this won't make sense.
So he's smarter than ordinary people, but he was talking in some event recently about how Trump is violating uh norms.
He violates norms, the way he talks about things, the way the way he acts, he violates norms, and that that could be bad.
Um such as he gave an example of talking about maybe annexing Greenland or Canada, and that you know, normally you wouldn't say stuff like that.
Uh, and he thinks that uh it's a negative development that Trump violates norms.
To which I said, why do you automatically think it's bad to violate a norm?
Isn't every successful entrepreneur a norm violator?
Can't can you think of anybody who didn't violate a norm?
Did did Steve Jobs violate any norms?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Did Trump violate any norms to get a deal in Gaza?
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's exactly what he did.
He violated all the norms.
Did he violate norms to get elected president?
And at least half of the country is very, very happy that he did.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And are we getting used to him when he violates norms?
Yes.
That the the act that he put on in the Middle East, he violated so many norms.
You know, the way the way he treated the other leaders.
You know, you could make your own list, but he's not really a slave to norms.
Would you want him to be?
Now, the reason I started out by saying that Pinker is smarter than me and smarter than you.
I mean, if he took an IQ test, he'd beat me.
He'd beat most of you too.
Um, the point is that intelligence doesn't help as much as you think.
Because he's clearly uh, you know, I can't read his mind.
So let me be a little bit humble there.
I can't read his mind, and if I could, maybe I wouldn't understand it, because like I said, he's smarter than me.
So here's what it looks like.
What it looks like is that people have started with the answer, Trump bad, and now they're trying to rationalize it, which looks like cognitive dissonance, which looks like Trump derangement syndrome.
When you see somebody this smart say something that, in my opinion, I won't say it's dumb.
It just seems disconnected from reality to imagine that violating a norm would automatically be bad.
Now, I think somebody told me that you know, somewhere he softened it a little bit, so if I'm being too harsh, I apologize in advance.
But uh what I saw was this was part of what the Democrats are retreating to.
They're trying to retreat to something they can support because everything you can measure is starting to go pro-Trump, right?
If you can measure the crime, Trump reduced it.
If you can measure the number of people coming across the border, Trump reduced it.
If you can measure how much he's collecting in tariffs, he's collecting a lot of money in tariffs.
So you see, everywhere everywhere that you can measure it, Trump either has a good argument or he's just flat out winning.
So they have to retreat to things you can't measure, which is oh, the character.
Oh, I know.
What about his norms?
What about his norms?
He's violating norms and character.
And we think he's gonna steal your democracy.
Do you see the pattern?
They have to completely retreat to unverifiable, non-measurable things.
Otherwise, they've got nothing.
Now, there are some things where you can argue whether the numbers are right and you know, that they can do that a little bit, but mostly, you know, overall, if you can measure it, Trump is killing it, right?
And if you can't measure it, well, that's where they have to go live, because it's the only way to protect their TDS, is that they're the they're really the smart ones.
That that's what they think.
They're really the smart ones.
And they can tell just by reading his mind that there's a bunch of bad stuff in there that's gonna come out any minute.
Well, I don't know if you saw the video of uh Gavin Newsom when he was asked on some podcasts, I guess, uh, about his involvement with APAC.
Now, I usually don't show videos on my podcast because it's sort of uh distraction.
But you have to watch this.
I'm gonna, instead of showing a video, I'm gonna give you my impression of Gavin Newsom asking about if he uh took money from APAC.
And it goes like this.
Um you're like you're like the first to bring up APAC in years, which is which is interesting.
That's interesting.
It's interesting.
It's it's interesting.
I haven't thought about APAC.
Well, it's been years now.
That's it, but it's interesting.
It's interesting that you would bring that up.
And after he'd said it was interesting, and he hadn't really thought about it, after he said it like three times, I started thinking, what's wrong with you?
Like you're acting weird.
It's interesting.
Why are you acting so weird?
And then after he said it three times, he couldn't stop saying it.
He said it maybe 10 times in a row.
Now, there are some things that you can say three times in a row for emphasis, and everybody gets that.
If you say it 10 times in a row without adding anything in between, there's something going on.
There's something wrong.
What's that?
Yeah.
So here's how not to act if somebody asks you if you're being influenced by APAC.
Oh I haven't thought about it.
I don't even think about it.
Well, it's just not even it's interesting.
Well, you know, that's interesting.
Oh, that's interesting.
Don't do that.
That's my advice.
Just don't do that.
Well, the Supreme Court has rejected Alex Jones' appeal.
You know, he was being sued by the Sandy Hook people for uh, I guess it's up to 1.4 billion dollar judgment that nobody could pay.
Well, he can't pay.
And so at this point, his personal assets and all of his business assets are, I believe, forfeited to the people who won the uh lawsuit.
Now, here's my question.
Alex Jones has um through his hard work over the years, has developed himself into an asset that many, many people find very valuable.
Do we lose that?
I mean, there's a human element too, which is I care about him as a person.
I like Alex Jones.
Uh, he's been nice to me, right?
So everybody who knows him likes him.
So in person, apparently he's very likable.
Um so I want him to do well, and I don't want him to uh if you call this a mistake, and I think that'd be fair, the Sandy Hook, the way he treated the Sandy Hook thing, it does look like a mistake.
But do you want to lose everything he has to offer to the world, which I think is a lot, because that one mistake?
It's not like he's he's going to jail, but how in the world is he allowed to make a living and also contribute?
You know, contribute to taxes, contribute to the world, uh, contribute to the way we see or think.
So that that's an actual question.
How do you go on?
Because it looks like they would take whatever so his business is gone, but let's say he reconstitutes a new business.
That wouldn't be the hardest thing.
But if he starts making money again, isn't that all attached?
Like all the money that comes in just goes right to the lawsuit people.
So how do you is there any path to recover from that?
So the question I'm gonna ask is is there a way, given that he has extensive, you know, extensive uh network of people who would probably help him.
Is there a way that you could structure it so that he would be, let's say, reimbursed for expenses in a way that would You know, allow him to have a decent lifestyle that wouldn't look like income.
Because if it's income, he's gonna he's gotta give it up.
But if it's not income, so for example, could he build a world uh where he appears on podcasts uh and he gets uh an expense account from the podcasters, yeah, maybe some of the big ones.
Um is there any model that he can make that work?
I I'm concerned about him.
Anyway, we'll see.
Um Europe's having a drug shortage, so I guess the pharmacies are running on empty, and that has to do with their own regulations getting in the way, but China must be restricting some things.
So is this gonna come to us?
Because I haven't noticed any drug restrictions in the US, and uh I get a lot of meds at the moment.
Um, but that's scary.
So apparently, Europe there there are people who need these drugs who just can't get them, just not available.
That's really scary.
Wired says that uh satellites, maybe a lot of the satellites that are already in the air, believe it or not, don't have encrypted data.
So apparently, with a very small investment, you can start taking the private data off of the satellites, not all of them, but a huge number of satellites are not encrypted, and you can just get all their stuff.
Did you know that?
Did you know that you could just read the satellite messages if you had what an $800 piece of equipment?
Well, that's bad.
Um ex uh admiral, I guess maybe are you always an admiral?
Um, but the former NATO Supreme Allied commander, guy named uh Admiral James Stavridis.
He was telling News Nation that uh that uh Trump should definitely give the Ukraine Tomahawk missiles so it can go after Putin's oil and gas capabilities.
So what do you think of that?
I think he's with the Carlisle group now.
So do you trust that, or is that just a military industrial complex kind of an opinion and uh less of a military opinion?
But uh he does say that the key is to go after the oil and gas capabilities.
I you know, I've been telling you for a while that it's a robot versus energy war.
So the robot drones and other robots from both sides are going hard at the energy resources of the other, especially because winter is coming.
So uh that's what the war is now.
The war is energy, energy versus robots.
Have you been following the story of the uh Pentagon press policy?
I guess Hag Seth has a new policy that says um if you want to be in the Pentagon and talk to people and get information, you gotta you gotta sign this 10-page agreement that says uh that you won't be soliciting people for tips or insider stuff.
I guess if you get your information not from asking the people in the Pentagon, you can still publish it, but they don't want you pestering them and then reporting on it.
Now to their credit, it appears that both the left-leaning and right-leaning, including Fox News, have said, uh, no way, First Amendment, we do not assign on to this.
So that there's almost complete unanimity on the left and the right, that this is an overreach.
I guess ONA agreed, but they're a small entity.
And so this is an example of why I'm not worried.
Um this is why I'm not worried about uh an authoritarian takeover by the right, because the right has what I call a sort of an internal idea of where the line is, um, but the left can't see it.
And the earn the internal line is the constitution.
If you violate the constitution, conservatives are not gonna put up with any extra authoritarian stuff that violates the constitution, and this is that.
So as soon as you uh as soon as you see that the administration has in fact gone too far, and I I feel like, you know, again, Jonathan Turley is on the side of this goes too far.
And I think all the reasonable people are on that same side.
And also the conservative public saying that's too far.
So what imagine if you were a Democrat and you don't have the same, let's say reverence for the Constitution, and you also don't know how any conservative things.
If you did not know the inner thoughts of conservatives, you wouldn't know that there's an automatic, very reliable um guardrail to make sure that a Republican or conservative president doesn't go too far.
We like him to push the door a little bit, right?
We we like him to test things.
We we don't mind if he's testing the edge.
But as soon as he steps over the edge, I think everybody recognizes it at the same time.
And this would be an example.
So if the combined left and right um media succeeds in getting this dropped, or possibly maybe it doesn't matter.
It might be one of those things that you think matters, but doesn't really matter.
But I think they'll deal with it.
And uh you can you can see how a Democrat would be possibly panicked about authoritarianism, because they don't know that the people who will stop that authoritarianism are really dead set on stopping it if it has to be stopped, that they will stop it.
But you know, you don't trust the other team to do what you want.
So I can see how that'd be scary if you didn't know that conservatives aren't going to put up with losing free speech.
Not for the long run.
CNN's reporting, you've heard this before the Supreme Court, I guess now is um getting ready to vote on that voting rights act, which included some special set-aside districts for minorities just to make sure they weren't completely closed down from representation.
That was part of the voting rights act from way back.
But I guess that will be reassessed, and if it's struck down as being racist, which it is by design is racist, um, is it was the kind of racist that was supposed to be the good kind, but you know, time goes by, so maybe we don't think it's the good kind anymore.
Um it would give up to 19 extra seats to Republicans.
So here's my quibble.
Do I like it that Republicans will get 19 extra seats, which might be enough to keep the midterms from flipping?
Okay, I like that.
Like, like that feels like that would be good for the country.
But here's what I don't like.
How many elections are we gonna have determined by rule changes?
By rule changes.
It wasn't the 2020 election mostly because of rule changes around COVID and you know, mail and voting and stuff like that.
And now we're looking at getting rid of maybe voting machines, that would be a rule change, maybe requiring driver's licenses or IDs, that would be a rule change.
Now I I might be in favor of every one of these changes, except for the vote by male one.
Um, I might be in I might be in favor of them.
But do you want to live in a world where the president is determined by the most recent rule change?
Like that's what what kind of system is that we've developed a system that's completely immune to voting.
It's only it's only immune, it's only sensitive to rule changes, and this would be another one.
So even though I'm even though I'm in favor of dropping that uh those racial set-sides, uh, I'm not comfortable with our democratic republic turning into basically a lawyer contest.
I'm not comfortable with that.
Anyway, Argentinian president Javier Millet visited and was smart enough to bring with him a letter nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I feel like all of his buddies are going to do that now.
I wonder how many nominations he'll get.
It could be a lot.
If people see that he likes it, they'll just keep doing it.
But Trump very publicly decided to interfere with Argentina's elections.
And somehow people are just sort of ignoring that.
He said that if Miley didn't get re-elected, that he wouldn't be nearly as kind to Argentina.
Now, isn't that directly interfering with their election?
And then he's with uh Scott Besant, which I think is probably a good idea, just because Bessant is involved and he he understands this world.
If he were not involved, I don't know if I would be in so supportive of it.
But they're going to do some kind of currency support that Argentina needs.
It's been pointed out that Argentina often needs some currency problem because they have all kinds of emergencies.
So I wouldn't assume that this one intervention solves their currency problem.
It might get them past a bad phase, but I don't know if it's the end of their problems.
However, I don't have a problem with Trump interfering with their elections, either through the currency support or through just threatening that he won't be so friendly if somebody else wins.
And the reason is that I think this falls under the Monroe Doctrine, doesn't it?
You know, the Monroe Doctrine says don't mess around with our hemisphere.
We're the big dog.
Trump is basically just Monroe doctoring all over this thing.
So yes, he's interfering in their elections.
But I think he I would go even further if they elected some you know pro-Chinese communist leader.
I think he would go further than talking.
Yeah, it might get kinetic.
The CIA might be setting up a uh government overthrow function there.
So I feel like it's all I think that the Monroe Doctrine works.
It's good for the U.S. It's it's definitely America first.
Uh so I'm okay with it.
But it definitely is interfering with their elections.
Um Dan Driscoll, he's a U.S. Army secretary.
He described uh Ukraine as quote, the Silicon Valley of warfare, meaning that uh uh at this point the uh the Ukraine military might be one of the might be the strongest military in Europe because of all the practice and all the weaponry, but also their innovative um system uh appears to be just way better than Russia because you know, Russia is you get a paycheck no matter what you do.
Uh the Ukraines have all these incentive systems and uh various ways, probably to get rich as well, um, for building better drones.
So what you should see, as I've warned you, is that you're gonna see the Ukrainian innovation start to make a big difference.
The Russians still have the human power, the missiles, they've they've got a range of you know advantages, but those advantages should be disappearing entirely because the innovation thing just keeps going.
Russia isn't making lots of new soldiers, but Ukraine might be making lots of new innovations.
So one of them is gonna you know improve faster than the other one could improve.
And I guess uh they bombed each other last night.
Their energy facilities are both going after them.
Breitbar London says Russia hammered Ukraine with glide bombs and they struck a hospital and energy facilities.
And meanwhile, Ukraine struck um uh I guess St. P according to Grok, um St. St. Petersburg is already having blackouts.
So Ukraine's being successful there.
And uh Russia's low on diesel and aviation fluel.
Uh trains are late, planes, some planes are grounded because they don't have aviation flu fuel.
And I guess Siberia is gonna have a special problem because they would be the you know most vulnerable.
So I don't know.
That that comes from Grok.
I don't know if we really know what's going on over there at all.
But there's a poll according to Bray Bard John Hyde Hayward.
The 75% of Ukrainians want Zelensky to leave office after the war.
So do you think the war is gonna end?
If the guy in charge of the war knows that 75% of the people want him to leave office after the war, is he gonna end the war?
Probably not.
So that's a problem.
Um I was gonna ask you what percentage of people think you should stay, but I think you already figured out 25%.
Hong Kong's gonna install 60,000 AI-enabled cameras in public.
So did you think there was any chance we wouldn't get to a future where there were cameras everywhere in public that could do facial recognition and connect it to your entire life?
Well, it's definitely happening.
It's happening in Hong Kong.
And uh I'm pretty sure it's just gonna happen everywhere.
Now, sometimes people say, Scott, why are you in favor of losing all the privacy?
I'm not in favor of losing all the privacy.
It's just gonna happen.
There's no world in which we don't lose all of our privacy.
I hate to say it.
I mean, it might take longer, it might take shorter, but you're gonna lose all your privacy, or somebody is, maybe your children.
Uh there's there's there's literally nothing you can do about it.
The technology will just make it too easy.
And then this is kind of cool.
DirecTV has worked on some deal with another company.
Ars Technico is talking about this.
Another company called uh called the thing I didn't write down, glance, glance.
But what it'll do is make the screensaver on your TV, or whatever it is you're watching uh for DirecTV.
Um, it will put you in the ad.
So it I think you have to give it approval.
But you can take a picture of your face, and then from that point on, some of the ads will have you in the commercial with AI.
Now, how cool is that?
That is one of the best advertising ideas I've ever seen.
If you put if you put the consumer's face in the picture, the odds of them buying that product go way up.
Yeah, you know, you don't have to do a study on that one.
I can tell you for sure that you because people care about themselves more than they care about anything else.
So if you put me in the commercial, and then you show me enjoying the product, that's gonna be really influential.
That'd be a great ad.
All right, that's what I got for you today.
Uh thanks for joining everybody.
Um I hope I didn't look too whacked down on painkillers today, but um feeling good.
Um I'm gonna talk to the uh locals people privately if my button works today.
And the rest of you thank you for joining.
It's always a pleasure to see you.
Hope you come back tomorrow, same time, same place.
