Coffee with Scott Adams 2025-09-13
It’s time for your favorite thing. Yep, it is. There are some empty chairs up front. Grab a seat, make sure you’ve got a delicious beverage, and get a cat on your lap if you have the option. It’s always better with a cat on your lap.
Simultaneous Sip
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It’s called 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 nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug, a glass, a tankard, chalice, stein, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid—I like coffee—and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It’s called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now. Go.
Tommy Robinson Protests
People, apparently Tommy Robinson has a gazillion people protesting in central London, I think it is. It turns out a lot of those people are carrying American flags and chanting about Charlie Kirk in London. Do you believe that the Brits maybe got a little bit more energy for protesting because of Charlie Kirk’s tragic situation? I’ll bet yes. I’ll bet yes. You might see a global effect to the assassination. This might be the first indication that we cannot calculate how big this is. Now, I don’t want to get ahead of myself because it’s not that big yet, but the potential size of this is hard to estimate. If you look at the crowds—look at the crowd pictures—that’s a lot of people, and they all have flags. Some of them are American.
After the show, as is our tradition for Saturday, Owen Gregorian will be hosting a Spaces event. That’s the audio-only event on X. So go to X after the show and just search for Owen Gregorian and you’ll find the link.
Cat Oxytocin
I wonder if there’s any science that didn’t have to happen because they could have just asked me. Oh, here’s some. According to The Conversation—that’s a publication—cats give you oxytocin. That’s a brain chemistry that makes you feel good and makes you feel loved. So, it’s true. We don’t get it just from being close to other humans; we also get oxytocin from animals. I think they had already tested dogs, and that gave you oxytocin, but cats do too.
I will tell you that was the primary reason I got my two cats. I got them for oxytocin. Literally, I said to myself, I’m at a certain age and a certain health situation where the odds of me even touching other people are going way down. I’m lucky if I can get a handshake once a week. It’s just natural when you’re not in a place where you could get into a relationship and you’re not in one. There’s really a shortage of oxytocin, and I think that can make you crazy. I believe that if you have no oxytocin—and that might be some of the problem with these shooters as well—if they don’t have access to touch, they don’t get calmed down. They don’t find any sense of peace just being in their own body and in their own life, and they’re looking for something big to give them a dopamine or some kind of thrill. So, get yourself a cat and your dopamine—well, I don’t know about dopamine, but oxytocin will be way better.
Hey, I wonder if I can find the cat. I think I’ll do the rest of the show with a cat on my cheek. Mmm, oxytocin. Mmm, I’m getting all your oxytocin. Stealing it. I’m taking it. Yeah, give it up, Gary. I’ll need another hit later, so come on back later.
They didn’t really need to study that. They could have just asked me. “Scott, do you think your cat will give you oxytocin?” And I would have said, “Hell yeah.” You don’t have to study that.
Reversing Aging in Monkeys
Scientists have, they claim, reversed aging in monkeys. They found a way to reverse aging, and I’m going to tell you exactly how. It was a certain kind of monkey called a macaque. That’s the name of the monkey: macaque. So, I was interested in making macaque younger. If you want to talk about macaque, this would be the place to do it. They’re monkeys, damn it. You guys are disgusting. You could make anything sound dirty. They’re monkeys, people, they’re monkeys. Clean up your mind.
You’re probably wondering how in the world they reversed aging, but I’m going to explain it to you. Now pay attention. I have a gift for summarizing and simplifying. So, I’m going to take this complicated thing and try to give it to you in the simplest terms. If you don’t understand this, the problem is on your end, because I’m going to explain this so clearly.
Mechanistically, the SRC-derived exosomes reduce the cellular senescence markers. I’m talking about the P21C IP1 and the YH2AX, obviously. Inflammation from your IL-IB, your TNFA, your IL-6, and your oxidative stress. You following me? While enhancing heterochromatin stability and immune function. This suppresses the CGAS-STING inflammatory pathways and promotes systemic rejuvenation. Everybody got that? See, it was kind of easy. You just have to relax and listen, and it all makes sense.
Live Translation Technology
You already know that Apple introduced a new feature in their Airbuds, those little earpieces that will translate. But I didn’t realize how good it is. Apparently, it’s live translation without a delay. I mean, there’s got to be some delay, but it’s almost no delay. But also, it’s so good that both people can be talking over each other and it will still translate the other person. That is impressive because in the real world, people talk over each other and there’s lots of other noise. Still works.
Imagine, if you will, this becomes more of a normal thing. Can you imagine traveling to places that you would have never traveled before but being able to understand everybody? The problem is, if you meet some villager in a remote place, they’re not going to have the translator. So you would understand them, but they would have no idea what you’re saying. Maybe you could use another app for that.
As I’ve said before, I have a hypothesis that the reason the US, Russia, and China are sort of these frenemy rivals—maybe more rivals than frenemy—I feel like it might be because of language. I’m not positive; I wouldn’t bet my life on it. But doesn’t it seem to you that whenever we’re dealing with a country that speaks perfect English—even if it’s not normally an English-speaking country—whenever the leader is gifted in English, we get along with them? Is that true? It feels like that’s mostly true. So, I just have this feeling that if the leaders can talk in the same language comfortably, everything works out differently. You wouldn’t imagine that because you think, “No, it’s not the way they talk, Scott. They have translators. It’s really these big issues.” To which I say, I challenge that assumption. I don’t think that’s how brains are organized. I think people, when they can talk to people comfortably, they just say, “Well, I’m not going to nuke my friend Don. I don’t want to nuke my friend.” But if the only contact you have is through an interpreter, I feel like that’s like a little wall that allows you to say, “All right, I’m over here, my enemy is over there on the other side of that invisible wall.” Language is pretty important. This might change everything.
Canadian AI Report
Ars Technica is reporting that there was an education report being put together by the Canadian government. It took them 18 months to put together a report on the ethical uses of AI. It’s important that the report was about the ethical uses of AI. Now, the humorous irony: apparently, the report included a number of fake sources because the AI lied to them, and they believed it. They wrote down all the fake sources. It took them 18 months to create a report with fake sources that AI probably wrote. They probably had AI write a report about the dangers of AI if you use it unethically. Good job, guys.
Unemployability and X Accounts
I saw a post by an X user, Justine Moore, who I believe is a high-end investor. She said the best X accounts are run by people who are at some level unemployable. You have to be posting takes that disqualify you from a decent chunk of jobs in your industry in order to have a good X account. Well, I would agree with that. If I can just speak personally, I’m really sure that if I had a regular day job with a regular boss, I wouldn’t say 75% of the things I say online. There is no way I would say the things honestly that I say now. And still, even though I didn’t have a boss per se, I got canceled worldwide for one of my opinions. Or at least the way I stated it. It wasn’t even because of the opinion—nobody disagreed with my opinion—but I got canceled anyway.
George Soros RICO Case
President Trump has indicated that he’s looking into going after George Soros, figuring out how his money is flowing through and possibly getting to violent protests and other bad distortions in our country. He thinks there might be a RICO case because Soros would be part of a larger organized group of people doing things that potentially could be illegal. Don’t know exactly what would be in that category of illegal, but Trump does. And he does include the younger Soros, so he’s not just saying George; he’s saying Alexander as well.
My question is, why only one billionaire? It seems obvious to me that there are about something like half a dozen billionaires who are running the show because money drives everything. Why would you only look into one of them? It feels like whatever they’re doing, they’re all doing it. It seems like they’re playing the same game. So, I would say you want to maybe expand that a little bit. Find out where the money is coming from because it all looks dirty and unethical to me.
Political Coordination
Apparently, some Republicans—dozens of them—are trying to get congressional leaders to investigate what they call a sustained breakdown of law and order by anti-American ideology across the country. Just News is reporting on this. Chip Roy is organizing this, I think. They signed an open letter calling for the House leaders to form some committee to look into it because of the numerous attacks.
But they also say—this is related to the story about RICO and Soros—they want to follow the money and uncover the force behind the NGOs, donors, media, public officials, and all entities driving what they call a coordinated attack. Now, the real question will be the degree of coordination. Because George Carlin used to explain that you don’t need a meeting with notes where everybody says out loud, “Oh, I agree with you,” if everybody knows what to do. The Democrat world is one of these; everybody knows what to do. You don’t have to have a meeting. Do you think the hosts of MSNBC have to be instructed to call Trump a fascist? No. They just look at what other people do, and they say, “All right, that’s what we’re doing, I guess. Maybe we’ll be worse than the others or better, but basically, we’re all doing what the others are doing.” So, you only need to sort of create the narrative, and then everybody else just snaps to grid and automatically conforms. You don’t really need to coordinate.
I feel another source of oxytocin coming. Hey, look who it is. It’s Roman the cat coming to join his brother.
Persuasion and Intelligence
The alleged shooter of Charlie Kirk—his name is Tyler Robinson—is 22. When he was in high school, he had a 4.0 average and even had a scholarship to college, but I guess he didn’t last long in college, so he’s living at home. Probably you’re wondering how could somebody with a 4.0 average be so stupid and so hypnotized to do what he did.
I can tell you one thing that’s really useful to go through life with: intelligence does not protect you from influence. It just doesn’t. You’re sure that it should, right? You’re positive that it should. You’re sure that the smarter you are, the more invulnerable you will be to influence. But just look around. There are people who are literally geniuses who are on completely opposite sides of things. How is that possible? If intelligence got you to the right answer more often, wouldn’t all the intelligent people be on the same side? But they’re not. I mean, even if you look at the geniuses that were part of the PayPal original team—Elon Musk, David Sacks, Reid Hoffman—you’ve got Reid Hoffman on the far left funding things, and you’ve got Elon and Sacks on the right. They’re all geniuses, but they’re not immune from being influenced by something in the environment like that.
There’s just no protection whatsoever. That’s my official word as a trained hypnotist, because hypnotists learn that the smarter you are, the easier it is to hypnotize you. Let me say that again. Hypnotists learn in school—we’re actually taught that—that the smarter and more confident the subject is, the easier it is to hypnotize them. Don’t know why. I could speculate, but I wouldn’t even speculate. But it’s a known phenomenon. It’s well enough known that it’s actually taught in school.
Political Violence and Rhetoric
As far as we know—but I think it’s still a little fog of war—the perpetrator, the shooter, was a far-left kind of guy. You might be seeing online some rumors that I think are unsubstantiated that he was actually further right than Charlie Kirk. I believe that’s all unsubstantiated stuff, but there’s enough to it that I would say you better wait and find out more about this guy. Because it’s not impossible. Almost anything that you’re sure you know about this story might be wrong. We’re at that point in the story where really there could be basic, fundamental things that we find out are just not true. As far as we can tell, he was a far-left guy, but maybe not. We’ll see. One of his friends from high school says he was definitely far-left. To me, that’s pretty convincing. I feel like if his good high school friend said, “Oh yeah, he’s way left,” that’s probably dependable. That seems like a reasonably strong statement. It’s unlikely that he went from high school far-left to a few years later far-right. That doesn’t seem likely.
As you know, we’re in sort of a contest to blame whatever you think is the other side. Of course, conservatives are blaming the left for all the dangerous talk that looks like it may have encouraged people to get violent. And of course, the left is arguing that Trump’s rhetoric is the root cause. Unbelievable. We always joke about the Democrats projecting—like if they murder you, they will accuse you of murder as they’re stabbing you. Right? How many times have we seen that example? As they’re stabbing you: “Stop murdering me! Stop it! You’re murdering me! Stop it!”
I’m just in a different movie, so all I see is them murdering us. But they’re apparently—I don’t know if they believe their own movie. What do you think? Do you think the hosts of MSNBC believe that Trump is really the root cause here and that they’re not? Do you believe they believe that? It’s possible because of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance won’t allow you to form an opinion of yourself that’s too negative if you have a healthy ego, if you’re not mentally ill. So, if you’re perfectly normal, your brain is working the way it should, it will malfunction when you’re presented with a situation where you have obviously done something stupid or evil. You don’t think you’re stupid and you don’t think you’re evil—that’s what triggers cognitive dissonance. When there’s a disconnect between what you’re doing or experiencing and what you believe to be true. And then your brain spontaneously comes up with this story that usually sounds ridiculous to observers.
Words and Thinking
So, here’s the test: did the MSNBC hosts—are they experiencing a situation in which there’s strong indication that they are the bad guys? What do you think? Have they created—are they in a situation where it’s becoming somewhat obvious that they’re the bad guys and that they might be stupid and they might be evil? Would you agree that that’s sort of becoming obvious? Now, what would smart people with normal brains—you don’t need any mental illness, just a normal brain—what would they do in that situation? Well, they would hallucinate that the real problem is something else so that they’re off the hook.
And so they snap to grid on Trump. It’s like, “Why do you have a bunion on your toe?” “Trump! Trump!” “Why does it look like it’s going to rain today?” “Trump! Trump! Trump!” So, you’ve got this little Trump reflex that they’ve developed because everything’s Trump’s fault. But the tell—the way you can tell it’s cognitive dissonance as opposed to just a different opinion—is that the people who are not experiencing the cognitive dissonance look at it and they say, “Are you drunk? I mean, are you on mushrooms or something? Because your opinion is so disconnected from any kind of reality that surely you could tell that you’re completely on the wrong page.” But they act like they can’t, and that’s cognitive dissonance. They’re probably not acting; they’re probably actually having an experience in which their brain has calculated somehow that they’re innocent.
So, here’s the test: when they say that the reason that guy killed Charlie Kirk is because of Trump’s rhetoric, does that sound like, “Well, maybe that could be true”? Is that how you think of it? And even if his rhetoric is what caused people to get worked up, what rhetoric is that? Is it where he said, “I’m going to protect you people in the United States by sealing the border”? Is that the part? How about the part where he said, “I’m going to reduce crime for all you poor people, especially poor black people living in DC and now Memphis”? Is that the part? What was the dangerous rhetoric?
So anyway, cognitive dissonance. And then of course, we’re all trying to keep score. The people on the right are positive that the political violence is almost but not completely limited to the left, right? How many of you believe that to be true, that the political violence is largely, not 100%, but largely on the left? Well, I’m not even sure yet because these stories are all a little—the various stories all have a little wrinkle to them. For example, the guy who tried to kill Governor Shapiro in Pennsylvania—he tried to burn his house down and probably wanted to kill his family—that was somebody who was mad about him being pro-Israel or anti-Israel? Being maybe too pro-Israel? Was that it? But it was something about Israel. So it wasn’t even about left or right, because the left and the right are kind of mixed on Israel. It wasn’t even that. So how do you score that one? Is that the left or the right when it really was a specific issue?
What about the guy who dressed as a police officer and killed or shot two different families that were both in politics? There was a husband and a wife. But that was over—I think that was over a specific issue, wasn’t it? Was it over abortion or something? But I’m not sure. Do you count the ones where somebody is mad at a specific issue like Israel or like Ukraine or like abortion? Is that the same as saying it’s a leftist? Or is that just somebody who’s got this real issue with this one issue? I don’t know. But it feels like the violence is coming from the left. I don’t know if the people on the right feel like it’s coming from the right. They might. They have different news, so maybe they think that. I don’t know. But we don’t really have a—if anybody’s done it yet I’d like to see it—but a really good accounting of how much of this is from the left versus the right.
It seems to me—and let me ask you this question—who’s the first person in the political talking head world, who’s the first person you ever heard say if the Democrats keep talking about Hitler and fascists that it’s going to turn violent? Who’s the first person who told you that’s going to happen? Might have been me. It might have been me, and that would be informed by my background in hypnosis. If the words start to converge in a certain way, the words cause action. Words are thoughts, and thoughts become action. So, and then Greg Gutfeld was saying it on The Five and on his show, Gutfeld!, and he has the bigger platform, so I think he’s the one who made it a common thought. But now it’s the only thing we’re arguing about. It’s the number one issue in the country—that rhetoric is causing violence.
Do you remember when I told you that when Trump, back in 2015, I predicted that Trump would change more than politics, that he would change our very view of reality? This is one of those times. Once you understand that words are the basis of your brain—we think in words—that if you change the words, you change the thinking. That’s why people are always arguing, “Use my definition of the word. I say it’s a genocide.” If they can get you to accept their word, then it changes your thinking. So, words change thinking. The way you think of it is that you think and then you come up with the words to describe what you think. Not the case. We’re a lot like AI and large language models—the words come first. If your brain has a certain set of words in it that it accesses more easily or first, that’s where your thinking is going to end up. It’ll end up where your words are. So that’s a hypnotist take. So yes, this rhetoric is absolutely lethal.
Media Criticism
MSNBC is going all in on “it’s Trump’s fault.” And then you’ve got Jasmine Crockett, Democrat Jasmine Crockett. She falsely claimed—I guess she was on The Breakfast Club maybe yesterday—and she says that both attempted Trump assassins were registered Republicans and had not voted Democrat. Now, that is completely made up. That’s not true. How in the world did she imagine that the attempted assassins were Republicans? So, I believe she got fact-checked on that. I think Charlamagne may have fact-checked her on that.
Then she doubled down on calling Trump a “wannabe Hitler.” She said it yesterday while Charlie Kirk is in a box. He’s not even in the ground yet, and she decided that was all right—I’ll say that again. And she argues that calling Trump a Nazi/Hitler kind of guy is no worse than when Trump said, “I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.” Everybody who heard him say that knew that he was making a hyperbole kind of statement. Not a single person said, “Hey, I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we shoot people on Fifth Avenue because our leader thinks he can do it, so why don’t we do it? Let’s go shoot some people on Fifth Avenue.” No. Not a single person in the whole world thought that that was a call to violence. And listening to Jasmine Crockett, the stupidest person in the Democrat Party—I do think she might be the dumbest person in the entire party.
Solution for Crime
But at least Charlamagne tha God, who is the host of The Breakfast Club, he admitted on the show where Jasmine was that he has engaged in rhetoric that could be determined as inciting violence against Trump. He said, “I think we all incite, whether we think we do or not, and what I mean by that is I’ve definitely called that regime fascist.” And he said if you hear somebody call him Hitler, if there’s somebody that thinks, “Oh, Hitler,” and then they look at a lot of actions that are going on, they’re like, “Well, let’s prevent this before four million people get killed.” So I can understand how it all incites violence. Good for you. I have to say, I have continuous mixed feelings about Charlamagne tha God. Certainly agree with some of his takes, and I appreciate that he’s taking the both obvious and the honest take that there is something about our language that probably causes some action we don’t want. And that a lot of people are involved and he’s admitting that he is too. So, I don’t know if he’ll stop doing it. He came close to almost sort of forgiving that kind of stuff because everybody does it. He didn’t say that, but it sort of bumped into that thought.
I’ve also noticed that the people who are most angry about Charlie Kirk have a belief that he was a completely different person. Completely different person. I’ve heard somebody raging about how he was racist against blacks. Now, I don’t know every single thing that Charlie Kirk ever said, but I would still be willing to bet a large amount of money that he has never, not even once, said something that anybody could construe as racist against blacks. I’ll bet nothing. I’ll bet not once. I’ll bet he never even brushed against it. It’s completely opposite his Christian identity, and he would be way too smart to do it accidentally. He was too good. So no, where in the world does that even come from? Where does that come from? I mean, do people just make shit up and other people say, “Well, I’ve never heard him talk, but my friend Bob says he’s this terrible person”? So, this is again the two movies on one screen that I always talk about. How in the world would they have that opinion about him? I’m completely baffled.
Well, Chris Cuomo was criticizing Elon Musk and he said, “I know there’s power in playing the victim, but Elon Musk is the one saying that the left is the party of murder.” So that’s what Elon said the other day: “the left is the party of murder.” And he acts like that is pushing extremism. To which I say, is he really saying that Elon Musk should stop complaining about the left trying to kill him? Do you know how much security that guy needs? Can you imagine the number of death threats that Elon Musk has gotten, all from the left? So when he says that the left is the party of murder, you know, there’s some hyperbole in that, obviously. But to imagine that Elon Musk is the problem—he’s literally the victim of all kinds of death threats and entirely from the left, I would guess. If it’s not 100%, it’s probably 99%.
So, I think Chris Cuomo missed the mark on that complaint because the problem is not the person complaining about getting murdered. That’s not the problem. Oh my god, yeah, Charlie Kirk got murdered, but the real problem is the people complaining about it. What? The real problem is the complaining about the murder? I think the real problem is the murder. It’s reminding me of a Norm Macdonald joke—you’ve probably all heard it by now—when he talks about Bill Cosby. He goes, “You know, some people say the worst part about the Bill Cosby situation is the hypocrisy.” And then he pauses for effect and goes, “I don’t think it’s the hypocrisy. I think the worst problem is the rape.” And it feels like that. Like, no, the worst problem is not the complaining. It’s the murder. It’s the murder.
Bill Maher and Trump
Then here’s another example: the account @MediaLies spotted this. So, the Tennessee House Representative Justin Pearson was on MSNBC just recently. And here are some of the things he said after Charlie Kirk’s murder. So, wouldn’t you think people would tone it down after he gets murdered? Well, some of the things he said was that Trump’s an authoritarian dictator, the cities he’s sending the National Guard into will be “occupied by the military,” he’s a white supremacist, he called federal assistance for law enforcement “terrorism,” “we have to fight back against it,” “these are not benign acts,” and “black people are being used as pawns.” Now, does that sound like somebody who’s trying to get a solution to any problems? No. That is not somebody who’s trying to solve a problem. I don’t know what that is, but it’s not a problem solver. And when asked about what the problem is, Representative Pearson said that instead of more policing, what they need is things to battle poverty—resources basically to battle poverty—because if you battled poverty and you improved the schools, you would have less violence.
Well, he’s a stupid idiot because if you don’t solve crime, you don’t get any of that other stuff. There’s no such thing as far as I know—I’ve never heard of any high-crime area that solved their crime by helping the poor. Have you? I’ve never heard of that. As far as I know, that’s a completely impossible thing. However, I have heard of cities such as New York City under Giuliani where they beat back the crime and then the economy prospered and presumably people did better in general. So, there are examples where battling crime first can get you to a place where you have at least the opportunity to work on whatever you think are the other problems. But if you don’t do crime first, you’re not going to have a base of business, you’re not going to have a tax base, you won’t have money to improve your schools from the tax base. This guy’s an idiot. This is not a difference of opinion. This is a fucking idiot. And he’s elected. He’s in charge.
And on MSNBC, Peter Baker said that the people who are calling the left “radical and lunatic” are the ones ratcheting up the political rhetoric. Yeah. Do you think any Republicans are going to get a gun and murder somebody because they’ve heard the words “radical and lunatic”? Do you think that’s likely? Where do these people come from? They have the worst takes.
Well, Bill Maher was on Friday night, his normal show, and he had some things to say. He did helpfully tell his audience, and they got really quiet, that Trump is not Hitler, you assholes. He was very forceful about it. Trump is not Hitler, so you’re not really helping yourself if that’s where you’re going with your narrative. And then he said—and I’m paraphrasing that a little bit, but he said directly—Trump is not Hitler. So thank you for that, that helps a lot. And he said that the people who mocked Charlie Kirk’s death or tried to justify it, he says, “I think you’re gross, I have no use for you.” So, that was the right take. I agree with that. So, I think he’s on the right side of this—he’s a free speech guy, so that makes sense. But I wonder—I didn’t hear him acknowledge like Charlamagne tha God did that he might have been part of the problem. Did Bill Maher ever accuse Trump of being a fascist or trying to steal democracy? Because I think he might have. I think he might have. But I’d rather be happy that he said Trump is not Hitler, and I’m happy that he’s not happy with the people who celebrated. So that’s something. But I feel like he needs to kind of come clean that he may have used some of the words. I mean, he’s not to blame. I’m not going to say he’s to blame. But collectively, don’t they think they all knew the risk? You’ve heard the phrase “stochastic terrorism”—the idea that you just use words to condemn somebody to the point where somebody says, “Man, I’m going to have to take care of this,” and they get violent. So, it feels like the Democrats knew on some level that they were putting Republicans in mortal danger, but they were okay with it because they wouldn’t personally be blamed. “Oh, I’m just one person who said a few words. If there were hundreds and hundreds of people on TV saying a few words, well, you can’t put me in jail for that.” So, get the eff away from those prisoners—from the criminals, I say.
National Guard in Memphis
Missouri passed a Trump-approved redistricting plan, which would give them one more Republican House seat probably, AP is reporting. So that’s a pick up of one, and remember, the House is really close, so one seat could be the difference between a majority and not having a majority for the Republicans.
Well, we know now that John Bolton’s personal email account—he was using a non-secure personal email for some stuff he’s being accused of—was hacked by a foreign entity. New York Post is reporting. Now, I don’t know what foreign entity it was, that’s not being reported. But how do you feel knowing that he was using his personal email for some things that may have been classified, at least as an allegation, and that foreign entities had hacked it? Well, that’s bad. That’s bad.
Trump is calling for a 50 to 100% tariff on China by NATO countries. So, he’s not talking about just the US; he’s talking about NATO countries. Apparently, the NATO countries are still buying a lot of oil. I don’t know which ones are buying the most. So NATO is fighting a war—or supporting Ukraine fighting a war against Russia—while funding the war for Russia by buying their oil. Now, I don’t know what options they have. Could it be that there’s just not physically enough oil that you can get there to replace it? Or it’s way too expensive? But even expensive doesn’t seem to be a good enough reason in a war scenario. Anyway, so Trump says that NATO’s commitment to win has been less than 100%. Now, I don’t know if he’s going to get away with this, but he wants to go major sanctions on Russia and major sanctions on China for buying oil from Russia. Do you think that’ll pan out? Do you think, first of all, he’ll get these tariffs, that the European Union will do it? And then secondly, do you think it would work? Do you think it would make any difference? Because anything short of crashing Russia’s economy isn’t going to work, and even that is fraught with danger. So, but it does look like Trump is serious about taking down the Russian economy.
Local Government Corruption
Well, Momdani, the commie who is running for mayor and probably will get elected in New York City, he vowed to arrest Netanyahu if he ever got a chance, if he ever came to the city. Now, the reason he would arrest him is that what is it, the International Criminal Court—which America is not a party to, so we’re not bound by it—but it issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu. I think they’re alleging war crimes against humanity in Gaza. And Momdani says he would push to get him arrested. Now, it doesn’t look like that’s within the power of a mayor. So, I don’t know what he would do to get him arrested—encourage the police to do it? He couldn’t order them to do it. He wouldn’t have the authority. But he’s making that promise.
Now, does that seem like a good idea to you? Well, apparently his pro-Palestinian stance drove 62% of the primary voters to the polls. So Momdani has a very big anti-Israel support base. But I’ll tell you, if you had told me that New York City would be electing a mayor who seems somewhat obviously anti-Israel, I would have said, “Oh, no, that can’t happen. Has anyone told you the size of the Jewish citizens of New York City? I mean, there’s so many of them that there’s no way you can elect some anti-Semitic guy.” Well, I guess I was not aware of how many pro-Palestinians there are in New York City, because it looks like that’s going to happen. Now, I would not have predicted that in a million years.
Anyway, so it’ll be a good test of Israel’s influence. You know how there are many Americans who say Israel really runs the United States when it comes to Israel and Middle East policy—not everything, but when it comes to what we do in the Middle East and wars and stuff like that in the Middle East? People say Israel is controlling our government, and there’s a reasonable argument for that—AIPAC is very successful and blah blah blah. But this will be a good test. If Momdani can get elected in New York City, you’re going to have to wonder just how powerful is the Israeli lobby in the United States. Because I feel as if Israel would want to try as hard as possible to influence events so that that guy didn’t get elected. But what happens if they don’t have any impact? Would you be willing to reassess your belief that Israel is controlling the government of the United States? Because there’s no way they’d be in favor of that—Momdani getting elected. And so keep an eye on that. Anything could happen.
New Energy Storage Method
Well, according to Interesting Engineering, there’s a new—or at least I never heard of it—method for storing energy where they freeze air so cold that it turns liquid, and it’s much smaller and takes up much less room when it becomes liquid. And then they store it overnight, so they cool the air when the electricity is plentiful and cheap, and then when they need to release it, they’ve got some kind of device where when they warm it up a little bit, the super frozen air, which had become liquid, changes from liquid to air again and then it expands greatly, and the expansion drives some turbines and drives a generator. So apparently, South Korea says they’re close to being able to build that; they’ve got a prototype. I guess there are other countries that are pursuing it too.
So, that’s all I had for you today. Remember that Owen Gregorian will be running his Spaces event right after I’m done. I’m going to say a few words privately to the Locals subscribers, and then Owen will be firing up his Spaces event on X if you want to follow up on anything that we said today.
All right, Locals, I’m going to come at you privately in 30 seconds. The rest of you, thanks for joining. I appreciate it. I hope you come back tomorrow and we’ll do it again.