Scott Adams (0:01)

Come on in. Grab a seat. There's always an available seat up front. Anthony, is wonderful to see you again. Let me make sure I can see all your comments here, and then we've got some fun for you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time. But if you'd like to take a chance on taking this experience up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tankard. Chelsea canteen jugger flask, vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. Dopamine. End of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens now. Oh, yeah, that was really good. That was good. Oh, boy. Well, I wonder if there's any scientific study about the benefits of magic mushrooms. Oh, yeah. Here's one. According to IFL Science, psilocybin shows potential in slowing human cell aging. So not only will the magic mushrooms cure your depression, your anxiety, fix all of your problems, but it might make you live longer. Is there anything mushrooms can't do? No. No, there's not. Apparently, they can do everything. Well, this might seem like a nerdy little news thing, but it might be a big deal. PJ Media is reporting that four independent pollsters have decided to join forces and some kind of an association of just the four of them. There'll be the National Association. Well, they might add some people, who knows? There'll be the national association of Independent Pollsters. Now, you might say to me, why is that interesting that four pollsters and of the many, many pollsters have decided to create their own little organization. Why would they do that? Well, here. Here are the pollsters. Big Data Poll, Insider Advantage, Trafalgar Group, and Rasmussen. Now, if you're a real nerd and you really watch your politics, you know where this is heading. But for the rest of you, let me tell you what this means. These four are the ones who are calling out the other pollsters for being frauds. Rasmussen, of course, has been doing it for a long time. But these are all top 10 pollsters who tend to be accurate and not gaming the system. So I believe their claim will be that these are four you can depend on, and all the rest are likely to be gaming the system, especially for the political stuff. So I feel like this is a big move because if one pollster says, oh, those other ones seem fraudulent. How much are you going to pay attention to it? But if there's an organization of pollsters they have organized specifically because they're the ones who are not frauds, and they're calling out the rest of them in the industry for being frauds. That's got a little bit of weight behind it. So that could get interesting next time there's a political poll. Well, Grok4Maybe is released, or maybe they're just still talking about it. I cannot tell by looking at my own Grok that I pay for what I have and what I don't. I think I have four. But there's a. There's a heavy four. There's one that's $300 a month. I. I don't have that one. So Elon Musk says we're in the beginning of an immense intelligence big bang right now, and we're at the most interesting time to be alive anytime in history. Now, you want to know how I know? We're living in a simulation. All right, Just imagine this. Imagine the Depends where you want to go. Let's say 300,000 years of human development. What are the odds that you happen to be here at exactly the most interesting time? What are the odds of that? It's really small, right? So it seems to me that whenever something that's unusual happens in my lifetime, I say to myself, what are the odds that I was born in this time zone? You know, not time zone, but, you know, in time period. I feel like. I feel like maybe, you know, this is proof or a simulation. Well, Grok is also going to be put into Teslas very soon, maybe next week. And Elon has gone so far as to say that he'd be shocked if Grok hasn't discovered new physics by next year. Apparently, Grok 4 is now the leading AI. It benchmarks better than all the other AIs for now. And Elon says that with respect to academic questions, Grok4 is better than PhD level in every subject. And it may be discovering new things that no AI has discovered before. And it might discover new physics. I mean, just think about that. So according to Elon, the current version, the one they're releasing, I guess the expensive version, should be able to figure out things that do not exist already on the Internet. Now, that would be a big deal because the large language models, largely they look at what has gone before, you know, the, the body of knowledge that humans already have, and then it learns from what humans already know. But it doesn't figure out new stuff. The large language models don't do that. If GROK can do that, and I think it's still an open question, if GROK can figure out new truths that do not exist already in human knowledge, that would be really scary and exciting and a really big deal. So the odds of GROK or AI fixing cancer seems pretty good, but mushrooms will do that too. I forgot to tell you that the mushrooms that might be operating on your telomeres and allowing you to live longer, they're going to study mushrooms, the magic mushrooms, to see if they also are a treatment for cancer. So what do you think will work first? Do you think the mushrooms or GROK will cure cancer first? I don't know. Could be a dead heat. Meanwhile, Apple stock is apparently down this year for the year, even as the other big tech firms are doing great. And of course people are saying that the problem is that if Apple doesn't figure out AI and there's no evidence that they're even close, that they will be left behind and that you can't be the big, you know, leading tech company if you don't even really have an AI platform. So maybe some say that Apple will try to buy diversity or perplexity. I don't know about that because it'd be about $30 billion. But I'm going to re up my prediction. I feel like the risk to the smartphone companies is that somebody with an AI platform is going to make a phone that doesn't use apps, at least not directly. The biggest problem with the iPhone, the thing I hate, is that I have to find an app first and then I do my thing. And sometimes you got to update the app and sometimes you got to sign into the app and oh my God. Imagine if you would a phone with AI as its operating system, if you will, but not really having an operating system and it's just a blank phone. And if, if you left your phone on the kitchen table and I picked it up by accident, it would look at my face and it would turn into my phone, but only as long as I'm using it. As soon as I put it down again, it would become generic and then the owner could pick it up and it would be their phone. So that's the first thing. It could identify you with more certainty than a non AI entity could. The other thing I want to say is I want to start working before I pick an app. So, for example, if I want to text somebody I know I want a blank screen every time, nothing but a blank screen and then just start typing a message. And then the AI says oh, he is making a short message on this topic where he was just talking to Bob. So, so then it will indicate as I work that it plans to open up a text, send a text message to Bob. Now if that's not what I intended or if there maybe is more than one thing that I might be, you know, potentially hinting I want it would give me a couple of choices, but I would do the selecting of the app at the end or not at all because AI would know. Suppose I wanted to work on a spreadsheet. So I've got some existing spreadsheets that I update now. And then if the only thing I did is start writing the new data for the new spreadsheet, the new spreadsheet should just appear. And then it asked me if I wanted that data to be on this column in this place. So you see how awesome that would be. But the problem is that Apple has commercialized this whole app model which has been, you know, great for revenue, I guess. But I don't want apps. I don't want any apps. I want just stuff to work and I want to just start working as soon as I open the phone. Now you might say to yourself that that would be a terrible idea, but it depends on implementation. Well, in other news, dji, that's the big drone maker in China. They have made a drone that can lift about 176 pounds and transport it for 16 miles. That's the weight of a human that can carry for 16 miles. What? And it's not that big. The drone itself looks like, I don't know, maybe a six foot wingspan or something like that. But if you can carry £176 for 16 miles, you've got yourself a pretty good assassination machine right there because you we know now that the Russians have the ability to have a drone that just loiters and just hangs around and looks for its targets without it's unjammable. So imagine it being unjammable, can travel 16 miles, can find the target on its own after you've specified some stuff, I guess, and then it could drop 176 pounds of explosives in that area. So that would be pretty bad. But on the positive side, maybe they'll use it for rescuing people in remote locations or maybe it will be delivering your lunch, I don't know. I tell this story all the time, but I haven't told it in a while. So it's worth re upping. Years ago when drones were a little bit newer and less powerful. I attended a startup pitch event at Berkeley. Berkeley, the college. And I was one of the judges of the pitches. And one of the companies pitching had developed a new kind of blade for, for Jones that they claimed would vastly improve its cargo carrying ability from what it was at the time, which wasn't very much. And I remember asking the, the startup crew, now remember, this is Berkeley, so it's the most lefty leaning group of people you've ever seen in your life. And I said, well, with this new ability to carry more cargo, I would think the military would be very interested in your product. Well, you should have seen their faces when this left leaning group of entrepreneurs in Berkeley just realized that they had designed death weapons from above, but they weren't aware of what they had done. Lithuania got attacked by a Russian suicide drone. I'm seeing somebody report that in the comments, but I wouldn't take that as a fact yet. That sounds unusual. All right. Apparently T Mobile had a thriving DEI program or set of programs, but going to get rid of all their DEI according to Newsmax, because they need FCC approval for some mergers and deals they want to do. So once again, it, it wasn't enough that DEI is illegal. That wasn't enough to make them stop doing it. It's just until they needed a approval from the government, they were just going to keep doing the illegal thing, I guess. But now they, they've agreed to wipe it clean and get rid of all that DEI illegal stuff so that they can get their deals done. So T Mobile, you're a little bit slow, but maybe you got to the right place. And I was listening to Alex Jones. He had a guest on Kyle Seraphin. He's a FBI whistleblower who's been around for a while on the podcasting and interview circuit. So he's not a brand new FBI whistleblower. He's a whistleblower from the not too distant past and he believes that the, the announcement that Comey and Brennan will be investigated for criminal activity is a distraction from the Epstein case. Do you believe that? Do you believe that it's not a coincidence that you heard about Brennan and Comey right at the time that the government wants to distract you from the Epstein situation? I don't know. Maybe. I always think the government has a million things that they could use as a distraction. So in a sense, maybe, I mean, it works as a distraction, but that doesn't mean that they planned it that way. Or did they? It's possible. And then Kyle was pointing out. Kyle Seraphin on Alex Jones show, he was pointing out that Fox News was reporting that Comey and Brennan would be looked at for perjury for things that they said to, I guess, under oath to Congress that turned out not to be true, except that there's a statute of limitations, says Kyle Seraphin of five years. So it wouldn't really make sense to investigate them for something they couldn't be charged for anyway. So maybe there's more to it. We don't know. But then I saw, separately, I saw a CIA whistleblower. I love the whistleblowers. John Kiriako. You've probably seen him on social media. He's there quite a bit. And he. He had a lot of contact with John Brennan because they were in the CIA at the same time. And he describes John Brennan as a ruthless, quote, very bad guy. He said, quote, john was just torture, torture, torture. We got to torture these guys talking about, you know, terrorists and stuff. We got to do this, we got to do that. We need to start killing more people. We need to get out there and start shooting. John Brennan is a very bad guy. From day one, he was a bad guy. Well, and I guess Brennan was notorious for expanding drone strikes and brutal interrogation tactics. Well, John Brennan appeared on msnbc, the network that we think is most associated with being a tool of the CIA. And I've seen him. I've seen John Brennan in a lot of interviews, but I've never seen him look this worried. He acted like he was scared to death, like. Like they have him. And he lashed out in exactly the way you'd expect. He compared the US To Nazi Germany, you know, under Trump. And he said, if the president of the United States is willing to weaponize intelligence and justice, we really are in deep, deep trouble. Now, do you recognize that approach? Have we ever mentioned that the Democrats always project. Literally, the reason that he's being. He's in the public eye is because he's being accused of the very thing he says that Trump is doing, which is weaponizing the CIA and the FBI and Department of Justice. So he might have a point that weaponizing those things would be a bad idea, but it doesn't mean that's what's happening. Now, it seems to me that they're pretty credible accusations that would suggest he was behind an insurrection and that Obama knew about it and was part of it and that they were trying to overthrow or change the government of the United States without using the legal process. Now, do you think he's guilty. Well, I'm no expert, but I can tell you I thought he was guilty from the first time I saw him. And he and Clapper doing their interviews, they just looked guilty as hell. I've never seen two people who acted more guilty from the start than those two guys. But, you know, I'm not magic. I can't read minds. I just know that my impression of them from the start was, whoa. Not only are you lying, it seemed to me, but it looks like you're the masterminds behind the whole thing. And apparently they're being accused of being the masterminds behind the whole thing. Why did it take us years to get to this point? Well, apparently the way our government works and the justice system is that it takes five years before somebody admits that something was wrong and action is taken. And by then, you're just tired of the story, and it just doesn't have the impact it would if they had started from the beginning. So that's happening so well, I guess we'll find out if. If our system is completely rigged, because doesn't it seem to you that no matter what kind of evidence they have against Brennan, that he's not going to go to jail? Don't you have that feeling that it really wouldn't make any difference how good the case was, how illegal it was? The statute of limitation hasn't run out yet for some stuff, I suppose. But do any of you believe that the justice system would lock him up? It seems unbelievably you. Do you believe he might get locked up and Comey, what do you think? I think. No. I believe that at that level, they're just always protected and that, you know, somebody's get blackmailed or bribed or something. Yeah. To me, it seems impossible that Brennan will go to jail no matter what he did and no matter what the evidence is. I just don't think we live in a country that can bring that kind of justice to this kind of situation. We'll see. That's. That's my prediction. My prediction is that you might see evidence that looks really, really damning followed by several years are going by and he spends some money on lawyers, but he's still free. We'll find out. Well, Joe Biden's personal doctor from when he was in office agreed to. To go talk to the committee, Comer's committee, but he didn't answer questions. Instead, he took the fifth. Why would the personal doctor have to take the fifth? Because it wasn't like he was being asked, you know, Hipaa questions that were private, you know, private medical things. It looked like he was quite aware that if he answered honestly, there would be some. Some liability there for somebody, either his boss, you know, either Biden, or him or the family. So let's add the. Let's add the Biden's doctor to the list of things that are probably exactly what they look like. It's probably exactly what you think, that he was in on it. He knew that Biden was degraded. He decided for whatever reason that he wasn't going to make a deal, big deal of it, and he just went with it. But how much of that is because people like John Brennan told the public that Trump was Hitler, and so that the only thing that mattered was that Trump didn't get back in office. Probably everybody was infected by the same problem, which may have started from Brennan. Well, speaking of justice, do you remember Douglas Mackey? So he was the fellow who went by the online name Ricky Vaughn. And he was convicted in 2023 because he sent on a meme that said that the voting was for Democrats. The voting was the day after the election. Now, it was a joke, and it was a meme, but he was convicted. Convicted for breaking a law which would be trying to interfere with an election. It was a meme, a joke. But here's the good news. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals just threw out his conviction. Just threw it out. And the reason they gave for throwing out the conviction, there was no evidence that he did it for any reason other than it was funny. There was no evidence that it was a crime, because you would have to intend it. You would have to intend that it misleads people. And there was no evidence, apparently during the trial that he got convicted for. There was no evidence that he ever intended it as anything but a meme or a joke. So he's a free man. Good for him. And it reminds us of just how dangerous it was to just be a Trump supporter during that period, because people were just being targeted for destruction, wouldn't you say? How many of you think that my cancellation is because of what I said versus I was just, you know, targeted as being a Trump supporter and they used whatever, whatever they could use. Well, I don't know. But I will tell you that zero Republicans canceled me. None. Zero. Zero black Republicans. Zero. Not. Not a single Republican said, I won't talk to you or I won't book you on a podcast or I won't buy your stuff. None. Do you. Do you think that Republicans somehow are such bad people that they can't tell what horrible things I thought or said. No, actually, they looked at what I actually thought and said and didn't see a problem because nobody disagreed with what I said. Nobody left or right. They just use it as an excuse to cancel me. So Douglas Mackey and a lot of us who got all kinds of, you know, public attacks, sometimes physically, sometimes people got, you know, what do you call it when you call swat, swat? Swatted. If you look at the abuse that Republicans were Trump haters or Trump supporters took during the last 10 years, we. We had careers destroyed, reputations destroyed. The January 6th, people put in jail. If you wore a MAGA hat outside, you got beaten up. And the January 6th thing was the ultimate that they just, you know, massively started jailing the most ardent supporters of the president without ever asking them why they were there to protest in the first place. Was it because they knew that Trump lost and they wanted him to be president anyway? No, probably not. One person had that thought. Did we ever see in the news what they were thinking? Which would be easy to determine. You could just bring a few of them into a room and say, what were you thinking? And they would say, well, it looked to us like the election was irregular, and we wanted it not to be certified until somebody in charge looked at it and determined that it was a good election. Nobody's ever reported that. They've never reported the truth about that story. And then, of course, there was the whole white supremacy thing and dei, so that people like me could be targeted for being what, Just white and being alive. So I'm. And now the ICE officers are being attacked, you know, violently. So it's really easy. I feel like I fell into a trap that. Because these things happen, you know, one at a time, and sometimes it doesn't affect me personally. And, you know, then a few weeks go by and there's a different situation, and you don't like any of them, but you don't realize that collectively, they create a story that. I don't know how historians are going to deal with it in the future, because the truth is that half of the country got weaponized against the other half, and it was a dark, dark time. And we're not necessarily out of it because we're having this little golden era because Trump's in office. I don't know what happens when he leaves. I don't know what happens unless there's another strong Republican there. Do we just go back to this reign of terror where just waking up and being a Republican makes it dangerous? To be an American. Is that what's going to happen? I don't know, but apparently I saw Joshua Steinman made an observation that the deportations may have made the traffic in LA really manageable. Now, I guess it's just a fact that there are mass deportations in effect in la, and also the traffic is the lightest it's been in anybody's recent memory. Are those related? Or is it just because this is the peak vacation period of the year? Is it just maybe people are on vacation? I don't know. Might be a little of both. I saw there was a viral clip from Sean Ryan's podcast. He was talking to journalist Nick Bryant, who believes that the reason the Epstein case is being covered up is because it would destroy their entire operational system of the government if they revealed it. Because the operational system of the government is that it's run by blackmail. How many of you buy into that narrative that the reason that we can't know about the Epstein truth is that we would learn that the entire government is a blackmail operation and maybe always has been and maybe all of them are. You know, if you remember the stories from J. Edgar Hoover, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no historian, but don't we know for sure the J. Edgar Hoover was controlling the government with blackmail? We know that as a fact. Right. What exactly changed since J. Edgar Hoover's time? Anything? Did any laws make that go away? Is there a new system in place to prevent people from getting blackmailed? I don't believe so. So if it worked for J. Edgar Hoover, why would you ever imagine that people stopped doing it is probably the most effective thing that anything that happens in our government. But I'm not willing to say that's the only reason that you're not seeing the Epstein stuff. I believe that one of the things that Trump said which rings true is that it might be a lot of names associated with Epstein, and Trump would be one of those names that are not implicated in any crimes. But as soon as you made that public, then every single person he talked to who returned a phone call would look like a, you know, horrible sex criminal. So you would destroy maybe, I don't know, maybe a hundred people's lives would be completely destroyed who didn't deserve it because they would have no criminal activities in their. On their resume. But they had some contact with Epstein maybe before they knew what he was up to. So would that be a good enough reason to not release the files? I hate to say it, but it would be because that would very much be a case. Well, you don't throw away 100 people's lives and their families and everything else. You don't throw away 100 people's lives because the public has a right to see some files. I wouldn't go that far. Suppose that the Trump administration is very serious about protecting the country and protecting the Republican view of how things should be, and they realize that if they release the Epstein files, it could destroy the entire government, maybe bring down every government, not just the current one, but maybe all the ones in the past. If we found out what was really going on, what would be the right play for. For Trump? Now, this is just speculation, hypothetical. But suppose that revealing the full story about Epstein would crash the United States as a. As a government. Like, we would just lose everything. Is that possible? It's totally possible. It's totally possible that if we found out we were a black male operation and always were, it's totally possible it would crash the whole country. What about if. If Trump was trying to protect some other country, let's say France or the UK or Israel or some other ally, would it be a good enough reason to not tell the. The citizens of the U.S. what the truth is? If it would destroy an ally, I mean, just. Just absolutely devastate another country, would that be a good enough reason to keep it a secret? Here's my take. If you trust Trump, you have to also trust him to lie to you when it's in your best interest. I know it's uncomfortable, but how many of you know that there's something called the CIA? Have you heard of it? If you know that there's a CIA and you have not been railing to completely eliminate them from our system, then you've already bought into the idea that your government can lie to you. So don't act like you're all. You're all above it. We're not above it. I. I wake up knowing that my country has a CIA and that their job is to not tell the truth. I mean, it's built into the job. And I don't expect them to tell me the truth, but I do. I do expect them to keep me safe. So, you know, they're not going to be perfect and there'll be some corruption that gets into every system. But if you trust Trump to handle the country's interests first, then you should also trust him to know when to lie to you, and that when that's in your best interest or the best interest of the country as a whole. So that's Where I'm at, to me, it's obvious that Bongino and Bondi and Cash, Patel and Trump are all lying. I just accept that as a fact because they could not wink at us any harder, could they? Wink, wink, we didn't find anything. Wink, wink, wink. To me, they're doing the best they can, which is letting you know without letting you know that they're lying to you. And you would have to trust that all four of those people, because we presume they all have some version of the truth, I don't think they're. I don't think they're in the dark. I think they know the truth. And would you trust that all four of them with nobody defecting? Because that's important. None of them turned whistleblower, none of them resigned, none of them said, well, I disagree with this decision. They all got right on the same page, which suggests that they probably think that the country is better off if they just don't let us know the full truth. Now, it could also be that there is no full truth defined because all the records have been scrubbed long ago, so there was nothing to find. So it could be that they simply have their own suspicions about the data being deleted and the files disappearing and stuff. They may have their own suspicions, but it's also possible they don't have any proof of any crimes that we don't know about. So if they didn't have any proof because it all been removed from the files, what are they going to do? What would you do? Because it's not your job to spread rumors or hunches, you would unfortunately do what they did. You'd say, well, I looked at all the files and I didn't see anything to show you anyway. So my current take is that I'm going to trust that the four of them are more patriots than weasels, because I don't think any of them lack bravery. Would you agree with me on that? Would you. Would you say that the four of them, Trump, Bondi, Patel and Bongino, they don't lack bravery, so they're not afraid. They're probably protecting us. Now, is that the most generous take you could ever imagine? Probably. But have, have those four people earned. Earned a little extra trust, and the answer is yes. Yes, I have. Now, does that mean I'm right? I don't know. But, you know, you have to take a. You have to take a position because you have to live in this world. And you're gonna have to accept some interpretation as more likely than the other. I I feel like the most likely interpretation is that they know it would be bad for the country to be fully disclosing what they know. It doesn't mean that they're bad people. It could mean the opposite, that they're protecting us. But I don't know, maybe someday we'll find that out. As Alex Jones says and others have said, maybe. The other, the other possibility is that Trump found it really useful to have all that blackmail for himself. So let's say you wanted to do a deal with some other country that's an ally. Wouldn't it be useful if that ally was fully knowledgeable that you knew everything in the Epstein file and if you wanted to, you could release it, you could leak it, or you could announce it. Wouldn't that make you very flexible when dealing with the United States? Yes, it would. So one possibility is that once Trump found out what the actual blackmail was all about, and we have no evidence that he did this, by the way. I'm just. This is more of a what if. Wouldn't it make sense for him to use it instead of ruining the asset? Because imagine how valuable that asset would be. What if it felt like the difference between getting the Abraham Accords done and not. I'm not saying, you know, Israel's the target or anything like that. I'm just saying there are things that are way bigger. Way bigger than what Epstein new or videoed or, or blackmailed about. What if keeping that blackmail alive is what allows Trump to get a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, which I don't think is going to happen anytime soon. But what if it did? Wouldn't you be better off if he didn't tell you and just use that leverage and got got a peace deal for the world that kept us out of World War III and the nuclear holocaust? I don't know. I, I wouldn't feel bad about it. So we'll probably never know what the truth is. But let's see. So the. Apparently there are several healthcare organizations. I saw this in a post by the Vigilant Fox, who's a real good follow on X. If you're not following the Vigilant Fox, you might be missing a lot of stories, but. So RFK Jr had said that the people who kids and pregnant women should not be getting the COVID vaccination. Now you probably said to yourself, well, I'm pretty sure the science strongly indicates that it doesn't make sense for pregnant women and children, young children to get the shot, but you might be wrong. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, because they all got together and they're filing a federal lawsuit against Kennedy for banning the COVID vaccine from kids and pregnant women. Now, do you think that they have the data to back up that lawsuit? Because the reason for banning it was the data. Is there two sets of data? One that says it's a great idea and one that says it's not. How in the world is this even a decision? Is there really just two completely different worlds of data? And one says that, oh, yeah, give these to those pregnant women for sure. And the other says, whatever you do, don't give it to pregnant women. What? How is it even possible? Well, the thing that you would have to wonder about is, are these four associations heavily funded by big Pharma, I wonder. And is it really just big Pharma trying to increase their revenue? And they're doing it indirectly through these, you know, organizations that look. They look to us like they're legit, right? If I told you that the American Academy of Pediatrics decided that it was something was safe for children, wouldn't you automatically think, well, they don't sound like criminals to me. It's the American Academy of Pediatrics. So if I were a big pharma, I would use my clout with big organizations that I fund, or I fund, maybe speaking fees for people in the organizations, that sort of thing, and I would use them to go after RFK Jr. So that it didn't look like it was me. I don't know if that's what's happening, but that's how I would see the world. Christy Noem, head of Homeland Security, said that after the Maui fires and while Biden was in charge of fema, I don't know if I believe this, but one in six survivors of the Maui fires had to trade sexual favors for basic supplies to survive. Do you believe that? One in six? Now, I assume that we're not counting men in that. So if you eliminate men, you know, there might have been some gay men or whatever who are offering sex for food, but it feels like it'd be more like 1 in 3 if 1 in 6 survivors. Let's say half of them are women, half of them are men. Wouldn't that suggest. Since mostly the women would be offering the sex for supplies? I don't know. I'm not buying it. One in three, does that sound right to you? You know, it's. It's a horrible world, but one in Three. And we're just hearing about it. I don't know. Oh, the article says one in six women. I'm seeing in the comments, what I see is one in six survivors. So that's the quote I got from the news. One in six survivors. So I don't know. I'm gonna say I don't believe that one. If it happened even one person, it's horrible. So, you know, let me. Let me make sure that I'm not minimizing the potential of how bad that was, but seems a little exaggerated. Marjorie Taylor Greene is wondering about Ghislaine Maxwell's little black book that has over 2,000 names in it, we believe, and that would include the rich and the powerful. And I guess that her little black book was sealed by the court as part of her legal defense there. But this would be a perfect example of if there are 2,000 names in her book and she was known to be a, you know, big networker, how many of the 2,000 names committed any kind of a crime? How would you like to be somebody that she met at a party and you traded phone numbers and you didn't know anything about any bad behavior, and next thing you know, you're being outed in the news for being in her little black book? That would be pretty bad. So I guess I would disagree with Marjorie Taylor Greene that the Ghislaine Maxwell's little black book should be made public, because people would just draw conclusions and all it would be would be a name and a phone number or an email address, and we would go, not say, well, look who's in that book. Look what people did. We're just seeing the flight information to the island. I assume that there were people who went to the island and committed no crimes whatsoever. I assume so. But don't we treat it like they all did? Like everybody who was on these, you know, flight thing? Anybody was ever on this plane, anybody who ever whispered in his ear at a party like Trump did. Don't we use that to say, well, you know, there you go, they must have been involved in that bad behavior? So, yeah, that would be a little dicey to release those names. Here's something interesting. So Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat, he would be the minority leader, I guess he says he trusts Democrats to run the next election legally and appropriately in the Democrat managed states, but he believes that the Republican managed states, the states where the Republicans were handling the election in those states, he doesn't trust them. So do you realize what a big deal that is? We've been the whole January 6th thing depends entirely on the question of whether our elections are unriggable. Because if they're unriggable, then the involved in, you know, storming the Capitol that day should have known that the election was pristine because they're unriggable. And therefore it would look a lot like an insurrection because, hey, there's nothing to complain about the election. It's unriggable. And the Democrats on the news, who are all fucking assholes, have been telling us with a straight face that there is no way that the election was anything but factually good in 2020. And now the same are telling us that they think the Republicans can rig an election in their states. Really? So you think the Republicans can do that, but that the Democrats can't or wouldn't. That is a complete surrender on the question of whether we know for sure our elections are riggable or unriggable. If the, if everybody from Rosie o' Donnell to, you know, I think Hillary Clinton said it at one point and now Hakeem Jeffries is saying it. They're saying out loud that they, that they believe the elections could be rigged by Republicans, and it sort of implies they could do it without getting caught. Now, they don't say that. They don't say the part about they could do it without getting caught. But why would Republicans or Democrats or anybody attempt to rig something if they didn't have a really good way to get away with it? It's not going to be like, if you knew enough about the system to have a way to rig it, wouldn't you know enough about the system to know whether they could easily catch you or not? You know, wouldn't you say, well, here's all the ways they could catch us. So if we can't get around this, we won't do it. So, of course, the Democrats have now admitted that it was possible that the election was rigged and we don't know it. Well, Tom Cotton is introduced to bill to make it easier to mine rare earth minerals in the US which, as you know, for, for whatever reason that I don't understand, mining for rare earth minerals is way more ecologically damaging and dangerous than a lot of different things. So Tom Cotton's bill would make it easier for a number of these environmental laws to be looked at individually, and if it makes sense to be, let's say, to do a workaround to those. Now, why did it take so long for this? Is there something I don't know about this story? I feel like we should have, you know, had this bill a long time ago. It's not even passed, is just introduced. So again, yeah, I, I can't, I can't give Congress full, you know, full credit for doing what makes sense because they haven't voted on it yet. Who knows if they will. And why did it take so long? Haven't we been talking about China and their rare earth mineral monopoly for now? Years. It's been years, right? And just now they're coming around. Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we make it easier to do it in the U.S. yes. Yeah, why don't you do that? All right. Trump had the leaders of five African nations over at the White House and he declared. Trump did, that's time to benefit Africa by trading with them as opposed to just sending them money. So the USAID thing is winding down and some say that that was, you know, keeping people alive in other countries. And others say it was just a CIA cut out and any, anything that looked like charity was really just a trick to get control over the area. But Trump is saying no about now. You might be better off if we just trade with you, so let's do that instead. So that's a new way. So I saw that Trump took a bunch of questions, questions at, at that meeting yesterday, but I'm very impressed at how tight his answers are to some kinds of questions. So I'm just going to read you a few of his answers. He was asked about Harvard and going after Harvard, the government going after them for being anti Semitic and stuff. So here's what Trump said. He said, quote, harvard's been very bad, totally anti Semitic, and yeah, they'll absolutely reach a deal saying that they'll come up with some kind of deal with the government. Now isn't that a tight answer? Harvard's been very bad, totally anti Semitic. Yeah, they'll absolutely reach a deal. Nothing else to say. I love how tight that is. And then Peter Doocy asks about the fact that corporate, Cory Booker and Alex Padilla want the border police and ICE officers to have IDs so you can tell who they are and to not cover their faces. And so Trump says, quote, they wouldn't be saying that if they didn't hate our country. And they obviously do. What now? I don't believe that you can know what people are thinking and that you could know that they hate the country. But, but the fact, that's his only answer to that. And it's so tight, they wouldn't be saying that if they didn't hate our country. And they obviously do. Next question. It does. It does seem that they act as if they hate the country because if you're trying to stop the people who are stopping the flood of immigrants coming across the border, it doesn't really look like you're on the same side as the country. It feels like you're against your own country. And why would you be against your own country? Well, Trump suggests that they hate the country. Do you think that's true? Do you think that Cory Booker and Alex Padilla hate the country? Well, you know, if there were some way to find out for sure, I'd probably bet against it. But it's such a good response. Yeah, they wouldn't do it unless they hate the country. Obviously they do. Peter Doocy asked Trump if he wanted to see James Comey and John Brennan behind bars. Now imagine all the ways that Trump could answer that wrong. Would you like to see Brennan and Comey behind bars? Brennan and Comey are people who tried to put Trump out of office, if not behind bars. And what's he say? I think they're very dishonest people. I think they're crooked as hell and maybe they have to pay a price for that. But he acted like he didn't know the details. So pretty tight. Good answer. Remember, you don't have to, you don't have to agree with his answer. I'm just impressed at how tight they are. No word salad there. Trump has threatened 200% tariffs, according to the New York Post on pharmaceuticals if they're being made in other countries. But he might wait a year and a half before imposing that to give them time to try to reshore it in the United states. But a 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals come in. Now, obviously the purpose of that is to encourage them to move to the US to manufacture that stuff. I don't know if they can do that in a year and a half. And I don't know how this will not raise prices. It doesn't seem likely to me that this will have no impact on prices. So you might see your, some of your pharmaceutical drugs go up in price. Speaking of which, have I told you how expensive my, my testosterone blockers are? Oh, my God. With healthcare, this is with health care. So this is not the full price. I paid fourteen hundred dollars for a month of supply. Fourteen hundred dollars. Now that's with healthcare. Apparently the real price might have been, I think it was like $10,000 for just, for something that you would need every month for years. What, how how would somebody who didn't have a lot of money even afford that? I guess there are alternatives that don't cost that much but have side effects. So you would have to pick the one that had side effects and not good side effects either, because you wouldn't be able to afford the good stuff. Now I sort of blundered into it. I didn't know, I didn't know it was the good stuff until I got it. But, wow, does it work? Well, I mean, that's my experience. But can you imagine that? 1400 dollars a month for a person with a normal income and a normal job, just like, put that right on top of everything else. Unbelievable. Anyway, according to a news nation, Trump is considering some harsher sanctions on Russia or the Congresses or somebody else. But I asked Grok, what kind of sanctions are left? Like, what are they even thinking about? And Grok, this is not the smart new Grok, but the old. The old Grok said it would be maybe potentially secondary sanctions for any financial institute that's dealing with Russia or maybe a 500% tariff on any country buying Russian oil or natural gas or uranium. But how are we going to do that? We're just going to slap a 500% tariff on China and India? That's not going to happen. Holy cow. Wow. I'm seeing somebody else's drug expenser. Wow. So to me, it doesn't look like, oh, and then the other thing would be to seize Russia's 300 billion. I guess we have frozen Russian assets and then use them for arms purchases in Ukraine. Well, I don't believe that any of these harsher sanctions are practical. I don't believe we're going to put a 500% tariff on everything that comes from China and India because they buy gas from Russia. Does that sound like something we could actually do and get away with? I don't think so. And penalizing the banks, maybe. But wouldn't we have done that already if there were no problem with doing that? So I'm kind of thinking that maybe there are any harsher sanctions. There's a story in Newsmax that Russia is turning Ukrainian teenagers into unwitting suicide bombers. So the one, the way they do that would be they'd say, I'll give you $1,000 if you go do some, let's say some. What would they call it? To vandalize a police station in Ukraine. So imagine you're, you're a teenager in Ukraine and some Russian contact offers you a thousand dollars to go vandalize a Ukrainian Police station. Well, it would be pretty hard to turn down a thousand dollars if you're a teenager, and all you had to do is do some graffiti or something on a police station, and then they give you a backpack and say, all right, here are your supplies for vandalizing. And then when you get to the police station, you realize that the backpack they gave you was explosives, and they just detonated. So they basically just turned these teenagers into suicide bombers. But they don't know they're suicide bombers. They think they're just doing some other thing for money. And. But apparently some of them, maybe they're just flipping and they don't mind, you know, they're not being killed themselves, but they're doing some work for Russia. I'll tell you, these are the. The. It's hard to root for Ukraine if their own teenagers are attacking them, at least in small numbers. Well, the ex CEO of X. Oh, that's funny. The ex CEO of X. Who's the. Let's call her the ex CEO, Linda Yakarino, about X. And Elon Musk said a little bit less something like, thank you for all the contributions. So I don't think they left on the best of terms. Just a guess. And we don't know exactly what the. We don't know exactly what the problem was or why she left, but we do know that the timing was after Grok got accused of being anti Semitic. So it could be, although we'd only be guessing, that she just didn't like that kind of heat and didn't think she needed it in her life. Maybe it could be that she's got some other opportunity that she hasn't mentioned. Maybe it could be it was just too hard to work with Elon Musk because as much as we love him, I don't know that I would want him to be my boss because he'd be pretty tough. So we don't know why, but she's on her way. And the U.S. secret Service suspended six of the agents who were working at that Butler event where Trump got shot in the ear. So after the long investigation, they decided that there were six people who should have done something different than what they did. 6. That's kind of hard to believe, isn't it? That for one event, there would be six individuals who all didn't do their job at the same time. And it was enough that they would get, at least for a while. They got suspended from 10 to 42 days. I don't know about that. I think that was from CBS News. According to cnbc. Germany has agreed to import more liquefied natural gas from from America. And now the US is officially Germany's largest supplier of lng. So I assume that that had been Russia in the past. And so I see about one story every day where some country agreed to buy more of our stuff, often energy, because that's the easiest thing everybody needs on so that goes to Trump's benefits. Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees extra. See mint mobile.com I saw a interesting article by Oren McIntyre who was at the Blaze, and he said the right is facing a serious problem about how to handle its intellectuals. And I thought the right has intellectuals. Who are these intellectuals and what is this problem? Well, I, I think I'll just read you his opinion and then I'll give you mine, Right? So he says. Warren McIntyre says the right is facing a serious problem about how to handle its intellectuals. The left has the university where it can assign smart people good paying, high status jobs where they can explore and cultivate ideas. But the right has no similar institutions. So right wing intellectuals end up in think tanks or content production. This creates the public intellectual who comes onto the scene with a burst of insight. But content production is a grind. Even if you're saying intelligent things, eventually the need to say something about everything leaves you little time to think deeply about anything. Academics are also not really equipped to be public figures. They are not built to do battle with the hostile public on a regular basis. So what I'm reading into this is that if you get on the the grind of having to say something about everything, that you just don't have the ability to, you know, do what you might be able to do in a university, which is take some time to really think through something more deeply. But I have a completely different view. My view is that you should not look at the smart people on either side as individuals. Rather you should see them as a system or one intelligence. What I see on the left is that their system of how to deal with smart people on the left is that they are minimized and that the left surfaces the worst takes from the dumbest people. Now you've seen it, right? The, the people on the left are not being driven by their smartest people. I mean, very clearly they are literally, they, they have some kind of upside down system where the loudest, most prominent voices are, are actually their dumbest people, the jasmine crockets, etc. Right? And you see it consistently. If somebody's really dumb and they're a Democrat, you're going to hear from them a lot. Okay, but it seems to me that the smartest people on the right operate like one brain. You know, your own brain wrestles with things and disagrees with itself all the time. Right? You have that experience. If it's just you thinking about a new topic in the news, you probably go back and forth in your own mind, well, could be this, could be that, what if it's this? What if it's that? The political right, and I'm not going to use the word intellectuals, I'm going to say the smartest people. All right? So I'm going to include like your Charlie Kirk's, your Steve Bannon's, your Tucker Carlson's. Nobody would say that they're intellectuals per se. They're just some of the many smart people on the right. But what happens when the right disagrees, which has happened a few times recently, the conversation is all public and we all look at each other and, you know, I might be looking at what Charlie Kirk says. I might be looking at Jack Posabek, what he says. I might be looking at a couple of other podcasters. Maybe I'm looking at what Megan Kelly says, and then I'm forming my opinion, which is informed by all of their opinions. And I might make some mistakes, I might make some corrections. But overall, doesn't it seem to you that the right has a system in which you get to see a pretty good debate over what's real and what's not, and they don't all agree, but that you get to a point where the smartest people seem to have surfaced and there might be more than one. So there might be smart people that say we should do A and smart people say we should do B. I think that happened with the big beautiful bill that you saw, not a smart opinion and a dumb opinion. I think you saw two smart opinions. One smart opinion is we have to deal with the deficit. That's just got to be top priority. And another smart opinion has said we will but not on this bill, because we have these other priorities. But trust us, we're going to get to it. We understand that that's top priority. Now, to me, that's a system that is really, really good. And part of it is driven by the fact that we know that Trump listens. I don't know how he does it. Presumably it's people talking in his ear that did the listening. But Trump is paying attention to all these people I mentioned, plus, you know, dozens more. And because he pays attention, it kind of makes your game a little bit better, you know, you know that somebody important might be listening to you, so you kind of make sure you think it through as well as you can. So I would argue that it's not so much the grind of producing, because I do this every day, I mean, seven days a week, and I don't feel it a grind at all. In fact, you know, the more I interact with content, the more I see the connections. So I would argue that the right has developed a system somewhat accidentally, I don't think it was conscious, in which the smartest people act like one brain that often has more than one opinion. But the smartest opinions eventually bubble to the top, and consistently so. And on the left, the least capable thinkers, for whatever reason, bubble up to the top. It's a big, big difference. So that's my take. But I appreciate Oren McIntyre's raising. Well, actually, here's a perfect, perfect example. So, yeah, we might have a different opinion of this intellectual stuff, but we both get to say our thing and then you get to decide which one bubbles to the top. All right, so Axios is saying that the top mega influencers are warning that this, this Epstein stuff is going to cause a loss of trust in Trump. Well, we already talked about that. But do you believe that, do you believe that the top MAGA influencers are going to lose trust? Maybe a little bit temporarily, but I'll bet they'll get over it because the alternative is to trust Democrats. Not much of an alternative. So I think, I think a disagreement looks completely different on the right. It doesn't look like it's a game ender. We just go forward with a little disagreement about what we just saw. That's doesn't, it doesn't drive the MAGA apart. It doesn't, it's not some long term beginning of the end. It's just we recognize that there are other smart people who have a different opinion. That's it. And then we allow that and then we go forward. The college fix which is a publication as an article that says that college grads are now unprepared and more unpopular with hiring managers than ever. Now, doesn't that feel like a story you heard every year of your life for your entire life, that the young people are worse than they've ever been? And I thought to myself, if it's true every single year, that the young people are worse, worse character, they're lazier, they have the wrong priorities, et cetera. If every year I remember when I was the college graduate, I'm positive that we were being blamed for being the worst generation of all time. You hippies get a haircut. You've ruined everything. You've ruined America. So do you believe, even though there are plenty of examples and you may have seen plenty of them yourself, do you believe that the recent batch of job applicants are the worst we've ever seen? Do you believe that? I. I always have this view that the people who matter in commerce and science is maybe 1% and everybody else is just keeping the lights on and that it doesn't matter that much how many bad ones there are because they weren't moving the needle anyway. But if the top 1% is as good as they've always been, and I would argue that they're better than they've ever been, better because we have more people to choose from and now they have AI tools to boost their intelligence, etc. As long as our top 1% is the best it's ever been, everybody else is just making sure that the garbage gets picked up and the lights stay on and that's fine. So I'm not too worried. But maybe I should be. You know how I keep telling you that through all these breakthroughs in battery technology I saw a, a counter to that on what's up with that. Willis Eschenbach is did an article saying that one, one of the recent stories I told you about about a new battery that could charge and, you know, very short time, that there's no practical way to do it. It's just something you can do in the lab. But if you wanted to do that fast charging in the real world, you would have to vastly change the entire charging network in ways that would be impractical to change them. So just be aware that whenever you hear these stories about amazing breakthroughs in battery technology, they might be a little exaggerated and they may might not be so practical to actually roll out in our lifetime. So here's another difference between Democrats and Republicans. I always tell you that Democrats get the incentives wrong. That they don't understand people for some reason. I mean, it's weird. Like who can live in the world their whole, their whole life surrounded by people and then not understand people at least a little bit. So here's an example compared to the Republicans. So Brooke Rollins, the AG Secretary, was noting that the new rules about Medicaid that were part of the big beautiful bill which would cause people to need to work, if they were able bodied, they would have to work to get their health care, to get their Medicaid. Now at the same time, Republicans are doing a mass deportation which is taking workers away from employers at the same time that the Medicaid rule should, if everything goes right, incentive wise, make people who were, you know, sleeping on the couch say, all right, all right, I guess I'll take these. Jobs have now been opened up by the deportations. So that would be an example of two policies that are complementary here. We're getting rid of the people. I don't want to say get rid of because that's, that's sort of demeaning, but rather there's a mass deportation of workers that opens up a bunch of jobs that can be filled by people who want to keep their Medicaid and all they needed was a job. Very compatible systems right? Now let's compare that to the Democrats who want to push climate change and affordability at the same time is the climate change agenda, which would suck up tremendous amount of resources and put them in more expensive forms of energy and would decrease your ability to get the less expensive energy. Is that compatible with we want to make things more affordable. No, it's not compatible. So once again, you see, the Republicans build this beautiful system where they understand the incentives of human beings and then they build a system that matches those incentives. And then you look at the Democrats and it looks random. It just looks random, like it's like they hadn't thought through anything. So look for that pattern. You'll see it. Well, according to the Public Library of Science, there's an article there saying that loneliness predicts poor mental and physical health outcomes. Are you surprised that people who are lonely, it affects their mental health and physical health? Now you know that I usually say, well, maybe that's backwards correlation. Maybe people who have bad mental and physical health have trouble making friends so they would end up being lazier, not lazier, lonelier. So it probably works both ways. But I'm totally willing to believe that loneliness can cause you less good health. And I'm going to offer you a solution to that. Many of you come to watch this show every day and you see that the reason I do it live is because of this loneliness factor. Don't you feel as if I'm sort of your morning friend who visits with you every morning in the, in the comments that are going by live right now? I know you feel that because you tell me that all the time. And I have very consciously. It's, it's not an accident. I've presented myself as your, your daily friend because you are my friends. But you've also made friends with the other people in the comments. And before I do the show that you're watching. You know, my regular live stream for my subscribers on locals, I do about a half an hour of a pre show now. I used to have a little bit of resistance to doing the pre show because people weren't listening to me. I, you know, all I'm doing is preparing for the show and getting my coffee and I go down to my little putting room downstairs and I shoot three putts to see how the day will go. But if I look at the comments, 90% of them are people talking to other people on the comments and they've made friends with each other, so they don't know each other except in the comments, although some of them have actually gotten together. But they feel this community of people who are just there because they're lonely. And it's really not about what content that I give them during the pre show. It's really about just creating this little forum that people who would otherwise be sitting there lonely, they get to interact with the other people. And it took me a long time to figure out why. When I first fire up the pre show, which is also a live stream, it took me a long time to figure out why everybody just said hi to each other. So for the first 10 minutes, it's nothing but good morning, how you doing? Good morning. And not just to me, but they're saying good morning to the other chatters as they see them coming online. It's like, hey, magician. You know, hey, hey, this or that. Magician is one of the, one of the common users. Common as in every day. So here's what I'm going to add to it. Loneliness is definitely dangerous. And I've accidentally created a model where people can feel a little less lonely every day. So if you were not taking it in that vein, well, maybe you could, because I'll be here every day as long as I can. And you might be some people that you want to say good morning to every morning and you might feel a little bit less lonely. All right, that's all I got for you. I'm going to talk again privately to my local subscribers who are beloved, as you know. And the rest of you, I'll see tomorrow. Thanks for joining. Sorry I went so long. All right, locals coming at you privately in 30 seconds.