Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:00]
A
Tesla is just having quite a run. It's up over 4% this morning. Good. That's what I'd like to like to see. Come on in. Grab a seat. It is good to see you. We're going to feel a little bit better today. Is everybody up for that? Feeling better today. All right, let me get your comments running here, and then we've got some stuff to do. Boom, boom, boom, boom. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization, It's Colin Coffee with Scott Adams. You've never had a better time, but if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, well, if you want to do that, all you need is a copper mug or a glass of tiger Celsius. Canteen, sugar flask, vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine. End of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called. That's right, the simultaneous tip. Go. Ah, Unparalleled pleasure. What's the best kind? Literally? Well, I will, of course, be talking about Charlie Kirk and the big. The big update, if you haven't heard, is that they. They have a per in custody that they're pretty sure is the right burp. This time we'll talk about all that, but first, a few other things just to wait for people to stream in. How many of you saw the cringiest interview in the world of interviews between Tucker Carlson and Sam Altman, head of OpenAI, in which Tucker essentially accused Sam Altman of murdering one of his employees? He didn't say it directly, but he kind of said it directly. And Sam kept saying, are you accusing me of murder? Do you seriously believe that I murdered him? Now? I do not believe that Sam Altman ordered a hit on his employee. I do believe there's a reasonably good chance that someone who just had a financial interest in OpenAI or ChatGPT somebody may have taken it into their own hands because the whistleblower employee who. Who died would have cost a lot of people a lot of money. You know, we're talking about billions that individuals would lose if they were investors early, I imagine. But I doubt that Sam Altman, you know, just one day decided to become a murderer. All right, but the real question is whether it was suicide or murder. And Sam says suicide. And he says if you looked the final report, you'd think that, too. So I don't know I'm open minded on that one. But it would be weird if it was suicide because you know there's blood in multiple rooms and you know there's a lot of counter indications, so we don't know. In other OpenAI news, Microsoft is buying a competitor, so they're going to buy services from Anthropic to drive their Office365 apps. Now if you've ever worked in a big organization, how do you interpret the following? Microsoft invests a God awful amount of money in open AI so that they would have access to AI and you know, all the things they can do. But while they, while they're the investor slash controller of the biggest, most important AI, they're buying services from another one. What's that all about? Does that mean they don't think OpenAI would have worked? Do they think that for free because they already had OpenAI? Well, maybe there would be a charge for it across organizations, but doesn't that suggest a really big problem under the hood? Am I wrong about that? If you found out that the biggest company that owns the biggest AI bought AI services from the competitor to their own company, wouldn't you say there's something very broken under the hood? Don't know what. Don't know what. But that ain't right. Something going on there. I should tell you, I do have a small investment in Microsoft stock, but. Wow. So as I said, there's a suspect in custody for the Charlie Kirk murder. So today is not a perfect day, but yesterday was very bad and the day before was very bad. We not only had the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk, but then on top of it, the very next day we're immersed in September 11th memorializing. So we got the double whammy, we got the attack on the country, the attack on Charlie, and some, some would say attack on Republicans by extension. But today we have, you know, we're, we're past the September 11th memorial. We probably have the perpetrator in custody and we're seeing a lot of Democrats losing their jobs over the way they're, they're talking about on social media, usually losing their jobs over acting happy that someone was murdered. So this does not, of course, you know, compensate for the loss of the human being, but it's something, I mean, if you were the family, you'd be at least a little bit, I don't want to say happy, but you know, you, you'd feel some comfort from knowing that the perpetrator had been caught. So it's a little bit better now here's something I'm not up to date on because I was preparing. Preparing for this when news was breaking. Can anybody tell me, were the 4chan people. Right? Because the 4chan people had done their own analysis, tried to find the perp based on the photographs and some other stuff, and they had matched some specific person. A trans. Trans person. And they allege. Let's see if I can read your. So it's not the same person. Right. Okay, good. All right, thank you, Kevin and Pono and the others. So I'm being told in the comments that 4chan did not get the right answer. So that opens the following question. They 4chan thought it was a trans shooter, which my first impression was, there's not a little bit on the nose. You know, it's a little too perfect, because it's exactly what you would have guessed. When I heard that Charlie Kirk got shot, my first assumption was, oh, radicalized trans shooter. Didn't you think that. I mean, if you just watch the news enough, you. You sort of just automatically leap to that? It's not fair. I mean, it's not fair to trans people. They're not shooters, generally speaking. But it's the first thing I thought of. And so I was trying to keep my mouth shut about it until we knew a little bit more. But as far as we know, the person in custody, because we have a name, and now we've got pictures of him and stuff, the person in custody is not trans. Right. As far as we know. The only picture I saw of him, there was no trans indication. So what I heard is that the family priest, I think it was, or minister, religious person, recognized the person and called the person's father, who, it turns out, has worked in law enforcement for decades. So the father, being a patriot, first negotiated with his son, we're told, to turn himself in, and I guess that happened. Now, negotiate is probably, you know, a weak word. He probably didn't give him a choice. You know, I'm sure he told him, you either turn yourself in or I turn you in, but you're getting turned in. That's my guess of how it went. Now, an interesting side factor is that just before it was announced that they caught the guy, Bill Amman had announced that he would give a million dollars for whoever could help them find the guy. Now, what happens if the guy's father claims. Tries to claim the million dollars because he legitimately is the one who turned him in? You know, the. The priest, I think it was a priest or minister didn't turn him in. He he did what was smarter, which was calling the father. That was the better move. But probably doesn't qualify for the million dollars because authorities were not, you know, not brought into it at that point. But what if the father says, hey, I turned him in. Where's my million dollars? Because I'm going to need a million dollars to help my son on his defense, to pay for the lawyers. So it's entirely possible that Bill Ackman is going to pay for the defense of the murderer of Charlie Kirk. I don't think he'll do it. If I had to guess, I would think he would not pay the million dollars or the father wouldn't ask for it. Maybe, but it's within the realm of possibility, which is crazy. I mean, that's just crazy. All right, what else do we know? So we don't know the motive yet, But I remember Trump said he thought that he did know the motive, but he wasn't positive or not willing to say it yet. Do you think we know the motive, or is it just obvious? He's just anti Trumper, anti Charlie Kirker, and he's a little crazy. Does anybody want to take bets whether the shooter is on antidepressants? Anybody want to take bets? Because there's probably an 80% chance that he's on antidepressants, wouldn't you say? Probably 80% chance doesn't mean for sure, but I'll bet statistically it's at least 80% chance. So that's something we're going to have to pay attention to if it turns out. If it turns out, yeah. We don't know yet. So everything is still fog of war. So anything I tell you, you probably better check it on the news, because I'm just using reports that were rapidly coming in before I came went live. So let's talk about some more stuff related to that. I saw a useful post by Stefan Molyneux explaining why we feel the way we feel. And it sounded right to me. He says, your body thinks you were at war and your village is being invaded. Because normally violence is something we hear about, but we rarely see that clear of a video that happens to be somebody who's beloved, at least to a big part of the country. So stuff. And so we're reacting to it as. As if we're currently in a village under attack. And that does sound right to me. Yeah, it sounds. It sounds like the. The video and the continuous reinforcement because it's in the news. It's the biggest story we're. We're talking about it continuously, which makes you think of the video of the actual death, you know, makes you think of all that stuff. So, yeah, we're. We're basically putting our souls in a middle of the war situation, and your body and your brain are reacting to it. So if you have a chance, today would be a really good day to try to clear your mind, you know, not forgetting about Charlie Kirk. That's not what we're talking about. But just clear your mind. Make sure you get outside today. Try to get a little exercise, try to eat right. If you can get some sleep tonight because you probably need to take care of yourself. This is a big blow to the body, America, and you can feel it. Anyway, so we saw some video of the killer, but that's sort of irrelevant now because they think they have him. So yesterday I was hearing that the person that 4chan thought was the bad guy, but we now know was not allegedly. The story was that on SoundCloud, which is an online place, you can store music that on SoundCloud that. That person that they thought was guilty had a song called Charlie Kirk is dead at 31. Now, when I heard that the first time, I said there's a pattern that. That recognize. That I recognize there. Do you know what the pattern is? Let's see if you recognize the pattern too. If you were trying to determine if it's true or BS the claim is that SoundCloud had a song before the murder. This is a key part. I forgot to tell you that before the murder, he already had a song on his music list called Charlie Kirk is dead at 31. Now, do you believe that that's really on SoundCloud and that somebody really had that? All right, here's the pattern. And I don't know. I don't know what's true yet. So I'm still speculating a little bit. But if that's not the perpetrator, do you think that that song is real too? I don't know. It's exactly the kind of rumor that you hear that you hear and that's later debunked. As soon as I heard that he had, you know, that. That thing before the murder, I go, that's. I've seen this pattern before. The pattern is that this is one of the easier things for some troll to make up just out of nothing. So it has that troll made it up kind of quality to it. Whenever you see the. The dates are weird or impossible. Like how could they know or anything. Those are almost always false. Could it be that the song exists, it's just not the shooter. Maybe. I mean, it's not impossible, but it fits the pattern of things that are usually fake. You know, not every time, maybe, but usually this weird date related thing, how could it happen then? It almost always turns out it didn't happen. That's usually the explanation. All right, as you know, TMZ got a little heat because they were live streaming when the news came in that Charlie had passed. And there was the sound at exactly that time of his staff cheering in a nearby room. And people naturally jumped to the assumption that the reason they were cheering is that they're bad people and they were cheering the death of a human being. That's what it felt like. Well, Harvey Levin, the boss, went online to explain that they were not laughing or cheering, I guess cheering, that they were not cheering at Charlie Kirk's death. They were cheering because they were watching a car chase and something happened in the car chase that made them cheer. To which I say, do people cheer for car chases? No matter what happens? Have you ever heard of that? Have you ever. Have you ever thought to yourself, yeah, because you watched a car chase that went the way you wanted it to. I've. I've never heard of that. But here's a. Here's my take. I think I've told you this before. I. I owe or owed TMZ a professional kindness when I say I owed him. It's sort of the law of reciprocity, because TMZ once did me a favor, which is there was some controversy that somebody thought I said something. This was years ago. And the only news related entity that called me to check to see if the rumor was true, it wasn't true. It was literally not true was tmz. They were the only ones who checked by asking me, you know, do you want to say something about this? And I said, yeah, it's just none of it's true. Here's what really is true. And then once I told them what was true, they said, oh, okay. And they didn't cover the story, but a lot of other news entities did cover the story, which was not true. It was fake news. So they treated me right when nobody else was. And I always said to myself, all right, someday maybe I'm going to repay this. I owe you one. And so yesterday I posted that I owed him one. And I'm going to take Harvey's word for it now. I think there's a deeper level to it because we have to assume that Harvey knew the truth. But that would assume that his employees told him the truth? Do you believe that the employees at risk of being fired were going to say, oh, yeah, Harvey, man. Darn, we shouldn't have done that. But, yeah, yeah, we were cheering the death of a human being. Do you expect that his employees would have told him the truth if that was the truth? I don't know. If it was, do you think they would have told them the truth? I don't. I don't. But I don't think that Harvey is a liar. I. I think maybe he was just passing along what they told him. And you. He's a little. You sort of motivated to want to believe it, right? Because he doesn't want to fire his longtime staff and put himself out of business and be disgraced forever. So I feel like if you're going to blame Harvey, maybe it's for, say, a little bit of intentional gullibility, you know, being a little bit too willing to believe something that doesn't look true to any of us. So at the same time that I give him, I won't say I give him a pass, but I'm going to take Harvey as telling the truth. He's wrong, probably, but probably he's telling you the truth that his staff told him, which doesn't make it the truth, but it would mean that the staff would be the responsible ones. Now, I have mixed feelings about this, and I'll talk more about other people getting fired and the bad reactions and stuff like that. They're really bad. But I feel like all of you are just kidding yourselves if you think there's no situation in which you would cheer for the death of another human. Really, really nobody. There's not a single person in the world that you would cheer if you heard they died. If you heard that Hitler died in his bunker, wouldn't make you happy if. If you heard that. Well, I don't want to name names, because then I'll be part of the bad guys. But you don't think there's somebody that you believe is so bad for the world that you would literally be and act happy if that person had a. Let's say, an unexpected end? And probably, I would say a solid half or two thirds of you would not be that kind of person. You would not be. But it's a big world. So I would imagine that almost anybody dying would get about a third of the public to act like they're happy if they were on the other. The other side from that person. Now, here's my experience. One of the reasons I didn't want to announce that I had terminal cancer, which at the moment seems to be in some kind of weird temporary remission. But one of the reasons I didn't want to announce it when I'd known it for months is that I knew that bad people would be happy about it. I knew that bad people would be happy that I announced I had terminal cancer. What do you think happened? Do you think anybody act happy about it? Yes, they did. Yes, it was fairly common and it happened, and it continues to this day that in the comments on X people will mention something that clearly shows they're happy about the prospect of me dying a painful death. Are you surprised by that? I feel like we should stop pretending we're all shocked and surprised. If you're shocked and surprised that people act happy about the death of the people that they disagree with, what planet have you been living on? Are you just pretending to be shocked? Let's talk more about that. Again, I'm not defending anybody if it sounds like that. I'm just saying we live in a world in which, yeah, a huge number of people are going to celebrate the death of somebody who's on the other side. You know, when bin Laden got taken out. No, I'm not comparing Charlie Kirk to Bin Laden. That's not how analogies work. Analogies work because there's one thing about them that might be useful or illuminating. It's not because all the things are the same. That's not what an analogy is. All right, so Representative Elon Omar said that George, that Charlie Kirk, quote, downplayed the death of George Floyd. He opposed Juneteenth and he once said guns save lives. After, after a school shooting. He said guns save lives. So Elon Omar wants us to know that, hey, you know, maybe he kind of had it coming. So she's reprehensible. What about Stephen King, notable social media user and Trump hater Stephen King said about Charlie Kirk? Now this is not true. So this is Stephen King spreading a really terrible lie. He said, quote, in an ex post, he advocated stone and gaze to death. Just saying. Now I don't have to do any research to know that Charlie, that Charlie Kirk did not, did not recommend stoning anybody that would be literally the opposite of who he is or was. And whoops, sorry, cat just fell off the desk in my lap. So Ted Cruz jumped all over Stephen King on X. He says, you are a horrible, evil, twisted liar. To which I say, Stephen King is a horrible, twisted, evil liar. I thought, have you read his work? If you've read his work. That's not a stretch. I mean, I don't think you could write what he writes unless you were a, quote, horrible, evil, twisted liar. I mean, that stuff comes from somewhere. But Ted Cruz points out that Charlie King did not say that. And he says your party, which you shamelessly shilled for, sent 100 billion to the ayatollah who does routinely murder homosexuals. Why are you so dishonest and filled with hate? I do have a real question about that. Does it sound to you like Stephen King is smart enough to write the books he's allegedly writing? Does it seem that to you? Or do you wonder if he had a horrible accident? When he was walking down the street one day, there was some vehicle hit him and he was terribly injured. Do you wonder if maybe he got a concussion or something? Because I'm trying to square the fact that. That he's one of the most successful authors in the history of the United States. That's true. Everybody would agree with that. With the fact that he's also a huge fucking moron. How could both of those be true? I mean, you could. You could imagine that you could disagree with him, but that's different from being a huge fucking moron. He's just a huge fucking moron. So, yeah, okay, you're on it. You're ahead of me. The rumor in the publishing world is that he hasn't written a book in a long time, that they're all ghostwritten. Now, I don't have confirmation of that, but try to explain it any other way. Can you? I can't. To me, the most, the only explanation that fits the observed facts is they say he's not capable of writing the books that have his name on it. That, and there's an ordinary explanation, because people at his point of life, if they write fiction, it doesn't work for nonfiction so well. But if you're a fiction writer and you've put down a bunch of books legitimately, at some point you slow down and then your publisher says, you know, if we could have two of your books a year instead of one, wouldn't that be great? All we need is to have somebody pretend to be you and write a book. So I'm guessing that's what happened, but I don't know. So there are numerous stories of teachers and people associated with schools of various types who are getting canceled, meaning fired for saying horrible things about essentially being happy or saying it was justified that Charlie Kirk got assassinated. What do you think about that? That people are losing their jobs all over the place. Well, let me tell you the thing that is most shocking about that. The most shocking thing is that the people who spoke out that way believed they wouldn't get fired. I think they were all surprised, which means they've been living entirely within a bubble in which they thought other people would agree with that. Are you kidding me? They thought they were in the bubble of reality where, let's say that Hitler was an American and he died. Would you feel bad about saying, thank God Hitler died? No, you wouldn't, because you would assume that almost every single person would agree with you. So it would be easy to say that these people are saying it in public for the world to see, as if that's what a normal person would think. How. How hypnotized would you have to be? So, in my mind, anyway, and I think I've said it online at least once, I think of these people as the hypnotized Hitlerians. Hypnotized Hitlerians. You could drop the hypnotized if you need to, but the Hitlerians are people who live in this little world where they think Hitler actually came to power in the United States because so many bad people on the left have been saying that. People who should know better. So I actually have some weird empathy for these teachers getting fired for saying horrendous things about Charlie Kirk because they actually think they're in a different reality than they are. How do you think you're in a different reality? Is it because you individually had some mental problem? Probably not. It's probably on really a predictable outcome of the rhetoric that we're seeing from the left. It's the most predictable outcome that people would believe it as literal, all the Hitler stuff. Oh, it's literally as bad as Hitler. We better do something about it. So I would say the people getting canceled are, in their own way, although, you know, our system is that you have to hold them responsible. I'm not saying they're not responsible. They are responsible, but they are also victims because they've been hypnotized to believe something hideous. And going through life, imagine them going through life thinking that they live in a world that had been taken over by some Hitler character. I don't even know what that would feel like, but it would certainly distort your opinions and actions. Well, there's a little fake news. Yesterday we can correct Ben Shapiro, who says he is not canceling his planned college events. And he did a really good job of cursing. You know, I've been making fun of Democrats for doing this artificial cursing, you know, they're just trying to work a curse word in there because they've been told that that's how you act tough. Oh, if I curse more, people really love me now, and they just do a terrible job of cursing. Well, Ben Shapiro, who. I've never heard curse. Have you. Have you ever heard Ben Shapiro curse in a public way? I don't know that. It's never happened, but I've never heard it. I don't think it's common. But he dropped one on a little video, which he was explaining that he's not canceling his college events. He said, we'll never stop debating and discussing. We'll never stop standing up for what America is and she should be, and we will never let Charlie's voice die. And then he said to those who would stop us, I have two words. Fuck you. Really well done as a connoisseur of cursing. If you use it sparingly and you use it surprisingly and you use it like you've been there before, like you've used the word before, you can sell it. I mean, it's what Trump does. Trump sells it perfectly because he uses it just enough. And then when he drops it and, you know, Trump uses a F bomb, you. You feel like he's used that word before, like it feels organic. And Ben pulled that off. So that's a good use of cursing. Michael Shellenberg is saying that we're going to need some kind of responsibility here. We're not going to be happy unless those responsible are held accountable. And when he says those responsible, he doesn't mean just the shooter. He means whatever caused the atmosphere to be so Hitlerian, as I like to say. He said, look, I think it's not likely to happen, but the people that did this dehumanization need to take responsibility for it. Well, are the Democrats taking responsibility for ramping up the rhetoric that the Nazis must be stopped? No, the opposite. They're saying that it's Trump's fault for raising the temperature of the rhetoric and that, well, you know, you just got to expect that Trump gets everybody worked up. What do you expect? Okay, but I'm. I'm firmly on the Mike Cernovich side of things now. And by the way, if you're looking for what do we do? And, you know, who's leading us and who's telling us how to act and how do we get to a better place, I would follow Cernovich. So he seems to be the only person I'm seeing who's saying all right, here are some real things we can do and these will make a difference. And the real things he wants to do involves some kind of a RICO like investigation of the money flow from the evil billionaires to, you know, the messaging, basically. I think that would be the way to say it. So it does seem like the Democrat organization is a criminal organization. Now, I don't think that it's necessarily organized for that purpose. I think each person is just doing what's good for that one person. But for reasons I don't understand, you see rampant crime everywhere. From the local politics to all the hoaxes that they run to all the fake news. I mean, it's just non stop criminal behavior. Now there are, of course, there are also Republicans who break the law, but there's more likely they're accused of breaking the law without doing it, or there's some lawfare involved. The difference is striking to me. Am I just imagining that, that there's so much illegality and sketchy stuff and some of it's not tactically illegal. Maybe, you know, flowing money, dark money, laundering it through the NGOs until it comes back into politics and, and then goes back into the NGOs and then back into politics. But basically it's coming out of our pockets, the taxpayers, in some cases, in other cases the billionaires are behind it. But I would agree that the billionaire Democrat funding people are the source of the evil because if you take the money away, the rest just collapses. And they are the money. And by now they know exactly what they're doing. Right. They could see it. If you were one of the big Democrat backers and you were calling Trump Hitler, you know what you did. There's no way in the world that this is unrelated to the rhetoric. The Democrats will lie to you about that because they apparently are huge lying criminal organization that needs to be ricoed. So here's. I told you that I was going to dedicate my energy toward dismantling the Democrat Party. To be clear, I want the Democrat Party to be reconstituted as a repertoire, you know, a reputable organization that can compete with Republicans because I think we're all better off if there's, you know, legitimate competition right now. It's not legitimate competition right now. It's one side getting stuff done and the other side just criminals, liars, criminals, frauds, hoaxers. It's not even close to anything like competition. It's just there's evil on one side. You know, it's. And again, it's not like the Republicans do everything Right. And there's no criminals there, but there's, as far as I could tell, there's just a world of difference. I just don't see even accusations against Republicans that are anywhere in this domain at all. Have you heard of the Republicans funding a bunch of NGOs? They do. I mean, I think it happens, but it's not much of a story, so it must be a small amount.
- [37:49]
B
Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should. One, it's $15 a month. Two, seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contracts. Four, I use it. Five, my mom uses it. Are you, are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment $45 for a three month plan.
- [38:13]
A
$15 per month, month equivalent required. New customer offer, first three months only, then full price plan, options available, taxes and fees extra. Cmno.com so here's what you can do. So, and Cernovich is showing leadership on that. So pay attention to that. Nothing happens until first you have an idea of it, a concept of it. And what he is doing is planting in the public's mind the idea that a RICO case against the billionaires funding all the evil that's coming out of the Democrat side is a legitimate, useful, practical thing that could really be done in the real world because it's really hard to get the government or anything to do something that nobody's ever talked about or thought about or wrote about. There's no book about it, that sort of thing. So that's what Cernovich is doing for us. He's promoting the idea, which is step one. Step one is you have to have the idea in your head that it's a possibility. Right. So he's doing that for you. And I'm going to back him on that as much as possible. So I'm trying to boost that signal. I too agree that you should consider a major RICO case to dismantle the Democrat machine, at least the funding part of it that seems to be completely corrupt. And if you can get this into a national debate, which is not, but it could be by the time it gets on say TV news and maybe, maybe there's some point where Trump, who's no doubt watching the action, there might be some point where he goes, okay, now you've, you've laid the, the groundwork and now I can say it. Do you remember that I did that technique with using the military against the cartels. And several years ago when I said we should use the military against the cartels, I was thinking Mexico at the time that people said, scott, oh, you crazy bastard, it's unthinkable. It's unthinkable. We're definitely not going to use the military against the cartels. And I kept saying it until it became a thing, and then Trump said it, and people dismissed him immediately the first time he said it, but it was in their heads. So by the next time it comes around, because let's say there are lots more deaths from overdoses or whatever. So it's always coming back around the next time you hear it, you've already heard it, you think, oh, I guess it's an option. I mean, I'm not in favor of it, but it's part of the conversation now. It's an option. So that would be the second step, where people go from, well, I heard it once to well, I guess it's just. It's on the table. It's one of the options. Maybe I don't like it, but it's on the table. And then the phase after that is it's more than on the table. Right. So there it has to go through a few transitions from wildly impractical. There's no way that's going to happen. It would rip apart the country. If you tried all that stuff, you're going to get used to it. You're going to get used to it and then it's going to happen. All right. So on the positive side, because it's not all negative, the Green Bay packers and the NFL had a moment of silence for at the Carolina. Oh, and but the Carolina Panthers comms employee got fired for bad comments about Charlie Kirk. And then you heard about the was it the Yankees who did a moment of silence for him? So the sports world, aside from that one fired comms employee, and I appreciate the firing, they look like they're oriented in the right direction. So I'm going to give them credit overall. And then Patrick Mahomes, I saw breaking news that the Chiefs quarterback said that he would promise to pay for both of Charlie Kirk's children's education and living expenses. Now, I assume that's not forever, but that's a hell of an offer. That's a hell of an offer. So, yeah, the sporting world, I'm going to give an A for correct behavior. Good job, Sporting World and Mahomes in particular. But I will say I think this is worth saying that it's human nature that we've all kind of made this story about ourselves. So there's a lot of, let's say, signaling and displaying and showing that you're the one who has the most moral opinion and how it affected you and how you were his best friend. So I'm going to do it, too. So don't call me a hypocrite, because I'm calling myself a hypocrite. I already got there first. It's almost impossible to not make it about yourself, but it feels creepy to me even when I do it, because I'm going to do it even harder than I've done it even today. I'm going to make it about myself a little bit. But you wonder if that's, you know, where your brain should be. It doesn't seem right. But on the other hand, we can't avoid it. So sort of an unavoidable ick. So Tim Pool is telling us on X that he was swatted 15 times in one year. He had a bomb, squatted his studio twice. He had to evacuate for three hours, once during his show. And there was a man in a dress who attacked one of his employees at his old location. They have armed guards now. And he said, this is how it's been because of the left. Now, arguably that's Tim Pool making it about himself. But I would also argue you need to know that, you know. So of course I want to know that. And of course it, you know, it's. This is really useful context. So I'm not, I'm not making fun of Tim Pool. This is really useful context. But I wonder how many other conservative podcasters are having this problem. I have not had that problem. Now, I don't want to. I shouldn't bring it up because then I'll have the problem. But makes me wonder, is it only because I have a smaller audience, so the left sort of doesn't notice me or doesn't think it matters or something? I don't know. Or is it because I spend less time talking about trans issues? Because I think, I think that's what really brings in the haters more than anything else. All right, I saw Piers Morgan say on X, he goes, I'm so shocked by the huge quantity of social media posts and clips of woke fanatics gleefully celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder. So brazen, blah, blah. Let me ask you, are you shocked? How could you be shocked? Of all the things that could surprise you, you were suddenly noticing, Pierce, that there are people on social media who are the worst people in the world. Well, we're just figuring this out this week. How in the world could you be shocked? Can we stop pretending that you thought human beings wouldn't act this way? Of course human beings act this way. And as I said earlier, probably there's somebody who could die that most of us would celebrate. We're not above it. So while I don't like it when they do, I mean, it's just hideous. You know, try not to be shocked. I mean, really, who was shocked by that? I saw a post by Fisher King. I often quote Fisher King. See, he's a really good follow if you want to follow him. Fisher is spelled with a C in the middle. F, I, S, C, H, E, R, K, I, N, G. Fisher King. One word has lots of good thoughts. And he said, destroying the lives and careers of people celebrating this political murder is essential. The people doing this have participated in cancel culture but never felt it. They need to feel it. They need to know what it's like to have the mob ruin your life. And I thought to myself, yeah, I wonder what that feels like, to have a mob cancel you and ruin your life. What would that feel like? Oh, wait, I know what that feels like. Yeah, I do know what that feels like. And yes, it probably is productive to return the favor. So even though I completely understand that they're hypnotized and they're victims in their own way, too, you still have to do it. That's just the way things work. You can't let evil just go unchecked. Even if the reason somebody's evil is it wasn't their fault, you still have to check it. So, yeah, they need to feel the pain, and it needs to be mutually assured, destructive. I saw Robbie Starbuck say that. I've heard a bunch of people say this, actually, that Charlie Kirk was likely to someday be president. How many of you believe that Charlie Kirk inevitably would have been president someday? Might have been in 30 years when he's 61. But did you think that? I not only thought that, but I was planning to do a segment on the show before he was killed. Like, that week, that very week, I was planning to do a segment where I said, oh, my God, this guy can be president someday, almost guaranteed. Like, I was literally planning to do a show about Charlie Kirk in which I was talking about his future and his potential because he was a very impressive individual. His skill stack was almost second to none. I mean, it was incredible. So, yeah, I believe the Democrats probably. I assume that this is a Democrat Shooter probably took a potential president off the board. Do you know how big that is? I mean, just think about the size of that. It's. It's sort of like going back in time to, you know, I want to say kill Hitler because it's the opposite of that. But that's, that's a hell of a play to take out their, you know, one of the strongest players have ever been on the board. That's a hell of a play. Let's see. So Chris Cuomo was going after Elon Musk. He did a little video in which he said, essentially he said he wouldn't be surprised if Elon Musk's rhetoric got him murdered as well. Now, obviously he's not in favor of him being murdered, but it's not a good idea to put that idea in people's heads. Unfortunately. It's probably already there. And Cuomo said, Chris said, when the richest man who controls the most powerful platform writes that, quote, the left is the party of murder. That's what Elon Musk posted the other day. The left is the party of murder. He says when that happens, I'm not going to excuse it because, because he's autistic. So I don't know why you have to bring that in there. And he says autistic people are not all morally bankrupt. Okay. I feel like he's down, he's on the wrong path with this criticism. And he goes, he has, in my opinion. So this is Chris Cuomo talking about Elon Musk. He says he has, in my opinion, exhausted his usefulness. Wow. Exhausted his usefulness. Are you kidding? Are we already living on Mars? He's the only person who's literally has a concrete plan in action to save the future of the planet. Because we know at some point the planet will become uninhabitable. There's no way around it. So, yeah, he's exhausted his usefulness. Really? And then Moss responded to that. He goes by implying that I might be murdered by the radical left. Cuomo is exactly proving my point. Yeah, that's exactly right. So the so called autistic guy sure has a better read of the room than the guy who is allegedly not. If you talk about just the concept, yeah, I can see why he'd be murdered. Doesn't that make it way more likely he will be? You're putting the thought in people's heads. So as I said, you know, I gave a big talk about that just earlier in this podcast. The first step for persuasion, any kind of persuasion, the first step is Planting the seed. Planting the seed. Making it something that people are thinking about. Now, I was. I had to debate with myself whether to talk about it because it also makes. Also plants the seed. So the more. The more attention it gets, the more dangerous it is. But Elon himself has replied to it. And, you know, Chris Cuomo's got a big footprint, so I feel like it's already out there. But I agree with Elon that he made the point. He made Elon's point by talking about this topic. All right, the State Department, U.S. state Department has decided to bar foreigners who glorify the Charlie Kirk assassination. What do you think of that? Do you think people should be barred from the country if they had glorified the assassination of an American leader? Yes. Here's the way I would word it. If you act like a Democrat, you're not allowed in the country. Yeah, you didn't see that comment, did you? The State Department literally has a rule that says if you act like a Democrat, you're not allowed in the country. Just think about that. Just think about the fact that the Democrats who are here wouldn't be allowed in the fucking country. Some of them would. Bernie Sanders, by the way, put out a nice little video, you know, asking for a piece. Appreciate it. But he ignored the base problem, the root problem. The root problem is the rhetoric. The action doesn't happen without the thinking and the, you know, the ideation and the talking. So the. The root problem is the way the Democrats talk about it. And the State Department is going after the root problem. If you talk about it, you don't even get to be in the country. So I kind of love the fact that the State Department is barring people who act like Democrats. Am I wrong? Is that too far, too much of a summary or simplification? That's what I see. The only reason that they even thought to have a rule to bar them is because the Democrats are doing so much of it, they're saying, we don't need any more of that. So you don't even get to come in the country, literally barred from coming in the country if they act like Democrats. Now, obviously, like I said, not all Democrats. Never works that way. All right, so Dave Portnoy, you all know him from barstool Sports, he's getting some heat for something he said online that I believe is misinterpreted, because what he said is what every one of us agree with. But you could, you know, if you've got a problem with Dave Portnoy, you can. You can kind of turn it into something it wasn't. So let me talk about that. I'm going to defend Dave Portnoy because we don't need friendly fire. The thing we don't need is to cancel the people that are often largely on our side, or at least are dedicated to free speech and common sense, which he is. He's a free speech, common sense guy. You don't want to cancel him, even if you disagree. But here's what he got in a little trouble with online, and I'm going to defend him. He said, quote, when I say Trump has a huge part in it, meaning the violence, he says, when I say Trump has a huge part in it, I don't necessarily mean he's to blame for it, but he's so divisive. And he went on to say that even his face is divisive. Like, people look at his face and they. They get enraged and people hate him so much. Now, the way people are choosing to interpret this is kind of dumb. They're trying to interpret it as Trump is to blame for it because of his rhetoric, but that's the opposite of that. He's not to blame. He said it directly. He said directly he's not to blame. But is it true that the divisiveness of Trump probably leads to the other side getting violent? Yes, that would be obvious. Who disagrees with that? Now, it's not Trump's fault that he says stuff like, we need to close the border, but we all observe that that makes half the country flip out. That would be divisive. It's not wrong. It's not wrong. It just happens to make half the country mad. So that's what makes him a great leader. The best leaders make big changes. There's no such thing as a leader making a big change, no matter how awesomely great that change is, that isn't divisive. Divisive means you're making big changes. In this case, ones that most of the country likes. So now let's now argue whether Trump is divisive. That's just so obvious. It doesn't mean it's a flaw. It means that people are in their little bubble. If they see a different bubble, they're like, oh, oh, I can't. I can't live on this planet with the people in that other bubble. So the divisiveness comes from the environment. When you inject a powerful leader, Trump's problem is that he's powerful, and so that creates more, you know, more energy. So, yes, he is one of the variables that absolutely should be considered when you're trying to figure out what's going on here. But he's not to blame. He doesn't need to change. I don't think, in my, in my opinion, he's not over the line. But I would say that nearly 100% of Trump supporters would agree with the fact that most great leaders are divisive. Would you? Is there anybody who would disagree with that? Most great leaders are divisive and you wouldn't want it any other way, because there's not really any chance it could go any other way. We don't all want the same thing. So if somebody is a leader and says, all right, I'm going to get you this set of things, it's a guarantee that there are other people who don't want that set of things to happen. Of course it's divisive. It's not a mistake, it's not an error. It's not bad leadership. It's good leadership. That's just what it costs to get stuff done. You get divisiveness. So let's not take Dave Portnoy out with friendly fire. He's mostly on your side, right? He's not going to agree with you on all the topics, but he's one of the good guys, in my opinion. Although I have him blocked on X, I must have been mad at him or something sometime in the past. So I guess here's some non Charlie Kirk stuff. Finish it off here. I guess Memphis is next for the crime fighting from Trump. So he wants to send the National Guard to Memphis. All right. You know, every time. I don't. Well, it's only happened once so far in D.C. but if Trump can make this a thing, that he can say, all right, I picked a city and I drove the crime rate down. I don't know if it stays down. But if he can make that a thing, man, if he can do it just twice, then, then it's, it's a thing. And that's going to be fun. And I think it will work. So we'll see what happens. Ryan Ruth or Routh or whatever, he is the attempted assassin of Trump, the golf course guy. He's, he's defending himself and it's just as amusing as you thought it was because he's b crazy. So I guess he spent seven minutes rambling about Hitler, Putin, Sudan and Netanyahu until finally the judge sent the jury away and said, ah, all right, we're not doing this now. I don't know that Routh or Ruth has the capability to pull back from that. I think that no matter what, he's going to go full crazy. But Judge Aileen Cannons, she's got a. She's got a handful there. So we'll see. Well, the UAE is, had some stern words for Israel about Israel's bombing of Qatar, and not of Qatar, but of the Hamas leadership that was safely in Qatar, but no longer as safely because I think five of them got killed with the bombing. So the UAE is, you know, saying you're bad. And they're saying that it killed any hope for Gaza hostages. So Qatar's prime minister said that, that the bombing killed any hope for the Gaza hostages. Do you think there was any hope for the Gaza hostages? You know, do you think that maybe, maybe we're past hope? I don't know. I guess there's always hope. I wouldn't want you to lose hope. We should do everything we can to get them back. Or they should. But the thing that I shake my head every time I see comments on this. Why would you assume that Israel wants peace? What would suggest that they want peace now if the only way they could get the peace is by letting Hamas survive? Do they want that? They don't want that. They don't want peace on Hamas's terms. And those are the only terms offered. If the only terms that will be offered are we're not surrendering, we want to be in charge when it's all done and we're not going to release the hostages. I think Israel's national best interest, which is different from me saying I support it. All right, if you're new to me, I'm not saying I support this. I'm observing that Israel's national best interest probably isn't peace. It's definitely in the best interest of the hostages. It might increase the odds that they get released. But I feel like Israel's hundred year advantage is just to gain land, gain control over it and reduce the risk from Hamas. I think that's their national interest and probably that will come at the price of maybe some hostages that you could imagine might have been released if they had let Hamas reconstitute and essentially do what they did before. So I don't expect that. Why does anybody think that Israel is pushing for some kind of quick peace plan? To me that would look like a mistake geopolitically, strategy wise. I'm not telling you my preference. This is not my preference. I don't have a preference. I'm just observing that they seem to be Acting in their own best interest. And they're supposed to. That's what the government of every country should be doing. Acting in their own best interest. They're doing a good job of it. But, you know, if you've got. If you've got opinions about the moral or ethical boundaries, that's for you to discuss with whoever you want to discuss it with. But I don't believe that those are factors in international affairs. In international affairs, everybody breaks agreements if it's from. For their country's benefit. So nobody really acts morally or ethically in terms of international affairs. It's. It's not really something that happens. So pretending that our moral or ethical opinions in this country should somehow have some effect in some other country, that's just silly. You know, that as soon as you get into that, you know, moral, ethical domain, it's just blah, blah, blah. Well, I don't follow Brazil politics too much. So what I know is that former President Bolsonaro has now been, I guess he's gone through the court system entirely and he will go to jail. I don't know exactly what he's being accused of or whether it's just lawfare. I believe Trump believes that the charges are more political, you know, lawfare kind of thing. It's probably reminding him of his own situation. So since I don't have any insight into Brazil, I'll just point out that I think Brazil's sort of on thin ice, because I don't think that Trump is going to be happy with them jailing the former president. So we'll see what happens. But I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a little tariff action going on there pretty soon. We'll see. All right, Cat. Apparently, Meta and Tik Tock were successful defeating the European Commission, who wanted to charge them for supervising them. So, you know, Europe has this Digital Services act that would really penalize the big platforms, the digital platforms, for allowing what they would call misinformation and hate speech and stuff on the platforms. Now, there's no way that these companies could stay in business if they had to police all of that. It's just too hard to police. So it's a big deal that they don't have to pay for their own policing, so that's worth something. But they still have to, at this point, they would still have to follow the European Union rules or else pay fines or be blocked from doing business over there. So I feel like Europe has become our frenemy. I mean, they're not our enemy. But they're definitely not our friends right now because this Digital Services act is, that's really, that's pretty direct attack on the interests of the United States. And they don't have any big digital platforms like this, so it's no big deal for Europe. All they're doing is charging American companies. That's not cool. Make your own digital platform Europe. According to new economic Thinking, there was a study that found that males and female economists have different views. Is that surprising to you? That female economists look at things differently than men? Now that's no surprise. But here's the thing. What's the difference between economics and an opinion? If it's true that men and women come to different opinions about economics, it's not because they're looking at different data. It's not because they learned economics wrong. If they know economics and they're all looking at the same data, what would cause women and men to have different opinions of what to do and what's happening? Well, it sort of tells me that there's not much difference between economics and your opinion because if your opinion could be anywhere, no matter what the data is and no matter what the rules of economics are, that kind of tells me that it's all, and that, you know, where you started from is where you're going to end up. You know, no matter, no matter what the data tells you. It's like, well, if I started here, according to Politico, gasoline is going to hit a 20 year low. That's cool. I mean, if only so we stop complaining about gas. I would love to not hear about gas or eggs ever again unless I'm ordering eggs. Well, Germany, I don't even believe this story. Reuters is reporting that Germany wants to double its military. What would you guess? Oh shit. What would you guess is the current size of the German army? What would you guess? The German army. How many people do you think are in it? Well, according to this Reuters, There are only 62,000 troops in all of Germany. They only have 62,000 troops. Is this all because we're afraid if they get to any large military size, they'll try to start World War three. That is really not many, not many troops. So I don't know. They're only talking about army in this case, so maybe they, you know, maybe if you add the other ones, it's not so bad. But I didn't know there was any major country that had that few troops. I just assume everybody, you know, I, I assume the major countries have, you know, half A million to a million. Normally that shocked me, so maybe I'm reading something wrong. I might give me a fact check on that if you. Yeah. All right, so the, the European Commission has allegedly, according to Brussels Signal, that's a publication, has downgraded their, their green deal initiatives. So it's not that they're, you know, saying that climate change doesn't matter, but they're deemphasizing it and more emphasis on independence and competitiveness. So here's what I say. Cats on the roof. You know, cats on the roof. It's based on a joke, but it means that they're signaling that there's some bad news coming. In this case, the bad news would be for them, not for you. And it would suggest that they're not so concerned about climate change anymore. I feel like you're just going to see more and more of this. It's not my imagination that the news media has backed off on climate change. Am I right? Now part of that might be that the data is not working. The climate models did not predict correctly, so they're just backing off. It could be because the politics have changed and the Republicans are in charge, but that wouldn't affect Europe. I feel like there. Yeah, it feels like there's a tipping point coming. Where we'll go from Climate change, of course, is real. I think the next tip will be, well, we don't know if it's real or not. And then it will go to, okay, wasn't, wasn't that real? That's happening. Cats on the roof. There's a US nuclear firm, according to interesting engineering, they got, just got approval to dig a 1 mile hole in the ground and drop a little mini nuclear reactor into it. And let's see. And the first one will be a pilot, but they'll be able to produce nuclear electricity. I'm sorry, though it's a nuclear power plant that they'll put in a one mile deep hole because that solves a bunch of problems if it's in the hole. So what it solves is it's safer and it's got, you know, natural containment and stuff like that. But here's the part that really caught my interest. So they just got approval and they believe that they'll have their first pilot up and running by July 2026. That's only next year. Do you believe that there's a startup in the nuclear space that can dig a 1 mile hole and put a functioning nuclear power plant in it in less than a year? How many, how many of you Think that that can happen? Well, I don't know. But if that's possible, everything's about ready to change, you know, because I think nuclear was always a situation where it was going to be nearly impossible to commercialize something until it's not. And then when he hit, it's not because you've engineered yourself to a better place. And. And then it's going to go wild. So if this is true, do you know how many holes are going to have by 2027? A lot of holes, if it works. So it's a pilot program. But I will be amazed and dazzled if they can get that working in mid-2026. That would be impressive. That would make me feel faith in America and ingenuity again, because I'm losing a little faith in our American ingenuity. But if we can do that and start building nukes, nuclear power plants that. That work in less than a year, I don't know. I think China's got some catching up to do if that. If we can do that. Well, NASA is apparently going to ban Chinese citizens from all of its facilities. And there's networks and even zoom calls. So if you're a Chinese citizen, even if you're here legally and you're working, you know, completely legally, you will not be allowed anywhere near NASA facilities or even to be on a zoom call. Why is that? Well, you know. You know why. And is that a good idea? I don't know. I mean, probably. It's probably a good idea. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you. Is there any topic I left out? Any. Any new breaking news in the last hour? All right. American privilege. Yeah. Yeah, I know Germany was still to demilitarize after World War II, but I thought that might apply to, you know, not necessarily troop levels. But Cook, Democrats are changing the subject. Yeah, the Democrats are trying to talk about health care. They get a problem, those Democrats. All right. All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to talk to my beloved subscribers on locals. The rest of you, thanks for joining. I appreciate it every time you show up. And I will see you tomorrow, same time, same place, locals. Stay tuned. They'll be there in 30 seconds.