Coffee with Scott Adams 2025-09-25

I would check your stocks, but it doesn’t look like good news in the stock market. So we’ll just ignore that and instead have the best livestream you’ve ever seen. Yeah.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It’s called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you’ve never had a better time. But if you’d like to take a chance on 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 or a glass, a tankard, a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, or a flask, or a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid—I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It’s called—that’s right—the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.

Siptastic. Incredible.

Movie Review: Fantastic Four

Well, I have a movie review for you. The movie Fantastic Four is now on streaming, so I watched maybe half of it or a third of it last night. The reason I didn’t watch the whole movie is: don’t bother. It’s so bad.

Apparently, Hollywood has come up with a new technique for casting, at least for superhero movies. Instead of attractive, charismatic actors, they put in homely actors you don’t even want to look at for a second. I don’t know where they came up with these. One of them is famous, but he’s better if he’s wearing a full costume so you can’t see his face, I hate to say it. But yeah, the Fantastic Four is poor effects, terrible casting, and absolutely unwatchable. It looked like they made it in a basement or something. It looked terrible.

Owning a Cat

Well, I’d like to give you a little warning about owning a cat. I’ve already told my subscribers on Locals this, but one of the things about having a licensed character is you get to keep some of the cool things, like this little squishy thing. You can squeeze it and stuff. So I’ve got most of the main characters in squishies, but I only have one set. I don’t have two of these; I just have one of them. And so, if anything happened to one of these, well, I wouldn’t be very happy about that.

Then I had a cat. This is what’s left of the Alice character. I found her head in my shoe, which I believe was not a random act. I believe it was a planned terrorist act. That’s right, my cat is a terrorist. And if that’s not a warning, I don’t know what is. You know what this warning says? “Don’t bring a woman into this house to compete with us. We are the stars of the house.” Message received. All right.

Gun Violence Study

Well, there’s a new study that didn’t need to be done in which they found that rising gun violence in movies might be increasing youth firearm homicides. This is according to PsyPost; Eric Dolan is writing about this. Now, how many of you would have already known that the more firearms that there are in movies and games, the more likely young people are going to use firearms for bad purposes?

Is there anybody who didn’t know that that’s obvious? Now, I’m not in favor of censoring that stuff, but where do you think people get the idea to use a gun? If they’d never heard of a gun—like literally never heard of one—do you think that they would go buy one? No. You have to at least know they exist. You have to know kind of what it looks like to use one, and then you have to have that idea just pounded into your head day after day after day until you get mad at something or somebody, and what’s the first thing you think of? “Oh, gun.”

So it’s not one-to-one; if you watch a movie about guns, you’re not going to go shoot something. It’s not that. But if you have enough people and you just fill them with gun content, yes, absolutely, 100%, no doubt about it. Speaking as a hypnotist, the repetition alone will cause some percentage of people to shoot somebody that they would not have shot otherwise. So that’s a real thing. And by the way, it’s not that different from what I’ll talk about in a bit, which is the political rhetoric causing people to do things that they wouldn’t have done without the rhetoric. It doesn’t mean you have to give up free speech; it doesn’t mean you have to give up your guns. It does mean you should be aware of the price of these freedoms. It’s not all good.

AI Productivity

Well, here’s something I sort of have been hinting at for a long time. Apparently, according to an article in Futurism, Frank Landymore is writing that AI has not been boosting the productivity or the profitability of companies. So they did a study and looked at what companies are using AI for, and found that 95% of companies that gambled on integrating AI into their process saw no meaningful growth in revenue.

Well, you would think that what they’re trying to do is reduce their expenses. I wouldn’t think it would necessarily be expected to grow revenue. Maybe return on investment, but not revenue. There aren’t too many ways to use AI that would increase revenue that I’m aware of. They still can’t sell as well as a human, etc. Well, that’s one that you could have just asked me.

Apparently, a lot of them are looking to hire back people that they got rid of. So that’s pretty much what I warned you would happen. And even the people using AI for writing code, there’s some indication it might be slowing them down instead of making them better. But I think that’s a mixed bag. I think in some cases it definitely speeds things up.

Squirrel Attacks

Well, in California, according to the Daily Mail, there’s been a wave of squirrel attacks. So squirrels are attacking humans, jumping right up on their faces and trying to tear them to death. At least two people have been sent to the emergency room from squirrel attacks. They’re happening near me in San Rafael. That’s not super near, but driving distance. So the squirrels are becoming dangerous.

My only comment about the squirrels turning dangerous is: I didn’t even know squirrels could be Democrats. I’ll let that sit there for a moment while you savor it. But my advice is—you know what I’m going to say, you already know what I’m going to say—there’s a dad joke coming: Guard your nuts. All right, well, somebody had to say it. If I hadn’t said it, you would have said it, right? It’s not like you weren’t ready. I’m going to say something about “watch your nuts.” Watch. Nobody will think of this. Ha! I got there first.

MAHA Wins

Well, Secretary Kennedy is happy that MAHA has another win. Apparently, the Utz brands—UTZ, I guess that’s a big food brand—they’re going to fully transition away from synthetic dyes by the end of 2027. So MAHA gets another win, and Kennedy is urging other companies to follow suit. So far, I’m liking what I’m seeing because you’re seeing a lot of voluntary action, and that’s the best. I mean, if you can get them to do things voluntarily.

Former French President Sentenced

All right, in other news, the former French president just got sentenced to five years in prison for—I guess back in 2007 or something, it was a while ago—he allegedly, and now he’s convicted of, accepting money for his campaign from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The New York Times is writing about this.

So, how surprised are you that a leader of a major country—one of our allies—was, I hate to say, a crook? But what would you call it if somebody takes money from a Libyan dictator to run for president? I don’t know. It’s “crook-ish,” but I don’t know exactly what the word for that would be. But there it goes.

Now, my question would be this: How many ex-leaders of major countries—and I’m talking about NATO countries, not small little countries—how many of them do you think you could find an actual crime at least as bad as this one, which is accepting campaign funds from a dictator? Don’t you feel like it’s nearly all of them? I feel like the only thing that’s different about Sarkozy is that maybe he got caught. Don’t you think they’ve all done a little, little something-something? Is it just me? I feel like, if you tried, you could put every one of them in jail. So I don’t know what the real story is there; maybe it had more to do with somebody wanting him in jail than what it was he did.

NYC Mayoral Race

Well, Scott Bessent, head of the Treasury, says that if Zoran Mamdani gets elected mayor in New York City—and as you know, he’s a “Commie Mamdani”—Scott Bessent says that if New York City asks for a bailout because they have money problems, if they ask for a bailout from the federal government, they will not get it. And they will be told to drop dead.

So that’s another reason to not vote for the Communist, because there would be no reason throwing good money after bad. So the Feds would say, “Well, you voted for him, you work it out.” It feels like a reasonable position. We’ll see if they change their mind.

Turning Point USA in Oklahoma

Well, as you know, nearly all schools are left-leaning, and Oklahoma just came up with a sort of a stop-gap way to address the fact that the teachers’ unions and the schools are pretty much thoroughly left-leaning. What they’re going to do is establish Turning Point USA chapters in all state high schools, according to The Epoch Times. Joseph Lord is writing about this.

So, what do you think of that idea? Oklahoma is going to force—I mean, they don’t have to force it too hard because people want to do it—Turning Point in every single state high school. I like that. I like that better than trying to erase the left-leaning influence. Just put another influence in there.

And they refer to “Tylenol Americans” instead of “autistic” when they do something dumb. Eric Erikson is saying that high school boys are calling each other “Tylenol Americans” instead of “autistic.” They’re cruel, they’re cruel. It’s funny though. Anyway, so Oklahoma—good experiment. We don’t know if it’ll work, but definitely worth a shot.

College Syllabi Study

Let’s see. The College Fix is writing about a large study of syllabi in colleges. You know the syllabi? That would be plural of syllabus. Yeah, the syllabi. So they looked at the syllabi, which is the list of what they’re going to teach in the classes, and they found out that the college professors predominantly present left-wing perspectives on all the controversial stuff. So if it’s anything from the Palestinian situation, abortion, etc., racial bias—all those things—you get only the left-wing view. So do you think colleges need their own Turning Point USA? Yes, they do. Yes, they do.

Ivermectin and Cancer

Well, the First Lady of Florida, Casey DeSantis, she’s getting involved in looking into cancer studies. She’s looking into generic drugs or drugs that already exist and is going to find out if any of them have a purpose or a use in cancer. She mentioned Ivermectin as the one that’s sort of at the top of the interest list.

Now, you know what I’m going to say, right? Well, as luck would have it, I have cancer, so I know a little bit more about this topic than those who don’t have cancer, probably, unless you’re a doctor. Well, what do you think I’m going to say about Ivermectin being a cure for cancer? You’ve heard me before. All right, I’m a little surprised that this is still a question and that well-meaning, intelligent, educated people are still believing that there’s a real good chance that Ivermectin cures cancer.

Here is what you would need, and I’ve said this before: this is what you would need to convince me that there’s something to it. Now, obviously, a randomized controlled gold-standard study would be great. But short of that, I would settle for anybody who had an incurable cancer who cured it with Ivermectin. Now I know what you’re going to say, “But, but, but Scott, I heard about that guy.” No, you didn’t. No, you didn’t. You did not hear about a guy who got cured of cancer with Ivermectin. You believe he did, and there’s a real person named with a real name and has a real life, and if you asked him, he’d say, “Oh yeah, this Ivermectin cured my cancer.”

But what you would need to convince me—and ideally, it’s what it would take to convince you as well—is you would need the patient with a story, you’d need the oncologist—not any other doctor, not some random doctor, but the actual oncologist who treated him—you would have to see their medical records, and you would have to see in the medical records that they used no other treatment. Nothing else. And then you can say, “Well, this was incurable, the doctor can confirm that this is the only thing that they did. You can look at the record, you see that they used to have terrible cancer, and look at this updated medical record, it’s all clear now.”

Well, you’re never going to see that. Do you know why? If it were true that Ivermectin worked, obviously the oncologists would know about it by now. Not everyone, but clearly there would be an oncologist who had a patient who said, “Oh my God, we may have discovered something amazing. So let’s at least share it with the world and see, maybe somebody else is noticing this too.” But there’s not one. Not one. Not one oncologist with a patient with—and this is very important, you can’t leave this out—with the medical record before and after. How hard would that be?

Now, I think a year and a half ago, I told you I was working on a very big project. Didn’t work out. The big project was: I tried Ivermectin, and if it had cured my cancer or even reduced it a little bit, I would have told everybody. I would have forced my oncologist to go public and say, “Look, you’re coming with me.” “Well, I don’t do that kind of thing.” “Yes, you do. Yeah, you’re coming with me. You’re going to be on this livestream, you’re going to tell the world, you’re going to show them my medical record, and you’re going to confirm with me that this cured my cancer that was incurable.”

Well, nothing like that happened. But I did get on testosterone blockers which had a huge, just a gigantic impact on reducing my symptoms, etc. It’s not a cure. But my guess is that the people who have claims that the Ivermectin worked, they’re either lying or they might have been on something else such as testosterone blockers and they’re just not talking about it. So there’s something going on, but I will give you 100% odds that you can’t just take nothing but Ivermectin and cure your cancer. I will give a 100% certainty of that. You would definitely know about it by now because every oncologist would want to go public with that if they’d even seen it once, right?

Now, you will see some doctors say, “Yes, it cured all kinds of people, all of my patients, so many of my patients cured of it.” They’re all making money by selling you that advice. Find somebody who was going to make the same amount of money whether you got cured or not. That would be my oncologist; he’s just a Kaiser oncologist, so he gets paid the same. If you can find somebody who gets paid the same no matter whether it works or not and they say it works, well, I would listen to that. But don’t listen to somebody who’s made a career out of it. That just is not credible by its nature.

All right, let me tell you what will happen as soon as I get back on X. There will be somebody who says, “Scott, you fucking idiot, I know of the one guy who cured.” No, listen to me: if all you know is the name of one guy, you don’t have anything. “But Scott, I know this doctor who says he or she is cured.” No, doesn’t count. Just the doctor doesn’t count, worth nothing. “But Scott, I saw the medical record.” No, you didn’t. No, you didn’t. You need the patient, you need the doctor who treated him—the oncologist, not some random doctor—and you need the medical records before and after. Anything short of that is bullshit. All right, that’s my final word on that.

Political Rhetoric

Trump is talking about Kamala Harris and has referred to her as, quote, “dumb as a rock.” And he’s complaining because Kamala keeps saying on her book tour that she lost the election but it was the closest presidential election in a lifetime or something. This is not even close to true. It’s just totally made up out of nothing. And does she really think that we didn’t pay attention to the presidential election? Was there anything that got more publicity than the presidential election? Who in the world thinks it was close, as in closer than anything that’s ever been? Well, it was not. But it does make you wonder if she believes it.

So Trump said it wasn’t close, she’s dumb as a rock, and California’s election was rigged. So there’s that. Now, I would compare the rhetoric from the right to the rhetoric from the left. So here’s some hard rhetoric from the right: if you heard that Trump called Kamala “dumb as a rock,” would you buy a gun and climb on a roof and try to hurt her? Because after all, she’s dumb as a rock. No, no, you would not. Because you don’t shoot people because somebody said their brain isn’t good. That doesn’t happen.

But what would happen if he said, “Oh, it’s a dictator trying to steal your democracy, he’s a Nazi, and he’s trying to be another Hitler”? Well, you might. If you believed that were literally true, there’s nothing you wouldn’t do. But no, “dumb as a rock,” that does not motivate people to violence.

UN Tech Failures

So Trump is calling for an immediate investigation about the UN events. So there were three systems that failed that all impacted Trump directly. So the elevator failed the moment that he and Melania got on it, so that they had to walk up the steps—kind of inelegant, and certainly bothered him. But the UN said, “Oh, we looked into it and it was just a weird, coincidental mistake.” Maybe.

But then the teleprompter didn’t work for the first 15 minutes. And does that happen? I mean, that happens sometimes, right? But luckily Trump is one of the most, maybe the most, gifted public speaker we’ve ever seen in America. And so he didn’t need the teleprompter; he could just do his thing until it worked and then he got back on it.

Then also, I didn’t realize this, but the sound system in the room didn’t work. So the only way you could have heard him is if you had the interpreter headphones in, I think. It wasn’t projecting just to the room in general. So those are three things which, if you told me that all three of them happened by coincidence and to the same leader, I would say to you: no. No. One of those things, maybe. One, maybe. Three? The three things that are most directly related to him being able to do his thing? No. No, that’s—I could be wrong, right? We live in a world where strange things do happen. But if you’re going to ask me to believe that was completely a coincidence? No.

I’ve seen at least one person say it was a message being sent to Trump. A message. I wouldn’t even go that far. More likely just somebody who thought they could mess with him. I doubt it was a message-message from anybody important.

Gavin Newsom’s Rhetoric

Well, Gavin Newsom continues his dangerous rhetoric. He ordered what he called a “Code Red” and ordered his base to, quote, “push back against the Gestapo.” So if you tell your base that you have a Code Red, does that sound like an exaggeration? It doesn’t. It sounds like you’re really warning them of an actual physical immediate danger. That’s how I hear it. Do you hear that differently?

Why would a leader say there’s a Code Red about something that important? I mean, if it were something unimportant like, “Oh, there are too many traffic tickets, it’s a Code Red,” well, you wouldn’t take that seriously. But if you’re talking about the government of the country and you say it’s a Code Red because the Gestapo is taking over, that sounds like you mean it.

Now, most people are going to know it’s not exactly literal. But if you’ve got tens of millions of people hearing the same message, some, unfortunately too many, will think that that is literally what’s happening because that’s what they heard. “I heard that’s happening.”

So in the backdrop of Newsom with this super dangerous rhetoric, an ICE facility got shot up just hours after he said that. Jesse Watters is talking about it on Fox News. And also, Tom Homan apparently—I didn’t know this, but Jesse Watters said it—he’s been forced out of his home because the threats are too high. And Newsom wants the ICE agents to be unmasked.

So some young man, 29 years old, Joshua John, he shot several bullets into a Dallas ICE facility which had the unfortunate effect of killing one detainee—one non-citizen—and critically wounding two others that were in a transport van. And then I guess John killed himself. And the shell casings apparently are engraved with the message “Anti-ICE.”

Now, Geraldo Rivera, I think fairly, I think it’s fair that he said that he’s entirely unconvinced that it was an ICE—that it was somebody who was against ICE because who they killed were only the people ICE picked up. And maybe there was some way for the shooter to know that he was shooting the people he presumably would want to protect.

So there’s something about the story that doesn’t make sense unless the shooter was shooting randomly or didn’t know exactly where he was shooting or was literally insane in more than just a shooter way to be insane. So there is a little bit of fog of war here. But the conservatives who say, “Uh, Anti-ICE on the bullet, we’re kind of done here.” There’s no additional investigation needed; he wrote it on the bullets. Now that’s a pretty good argument.

But it also doesn’t explain why he shot who he shot. Even from a distance from a roof, wouldn’t you know that the van would be full of the people you’re trying to protect instead of the people you’re trying to kill? Wouldn’t anybody know that? That the van is not going to be full of employees, is it, at an ICE facility? So I do think that there’s cause for a little bit, a little bit of wait and see. But just a little bit. So I’m going to give Geraldo—Geraldo is an advocate for non-legal citizens in a number of domains—and I’ll give him a little bit of grace on that point. I don’t think it’s going to come down that way. I think it’ll be exactly what it looks like and the guy just shot the wrong place. That seems to be believable. But I’ll wait. I do assume that it’s exactly what it looks like. But it might not be. Could be fooled.

JD Vance on Rhetoric

Well, JD Vance had some strong words to say about Gavin Newsom and other people with this strong rhetoric. And he said, “You can go straight to hell and you have no place in the political conversation in the United States.” So he said more. He said, “Because here’s what happens when Democrats like Gavin Newsom say these people are, quote, ‘part of an authoritarian government.’ When they lie about who they’re arresting, what they’re doing is encouraging crazy people to go and commit violence. You don’t have to agree with our policies, but if your political rhetoric encourages violence against our law enforcement, you can go straight to hell.”

Now, it seems like everybody’s doing this—“I have to use some curse words to look like a strong leader.” I feel like it’s already overdone. Are you having that feeling? That it’s overdone? I mean, I think JD used it in an appropriate way, and “go straight to hell” is not the worst thing that anybody said. It’s not the things that Newsom is saying at the moment. So I mean, it’s a little bit controlled and it is on point and it does show the depth of his feeling about it. So I would say it’s well chosen.

But I’m just seeing so much of it now that it feels like leaders are running out of ideas. It’s like: you don’t really need to do that, do you? Now, I don’t mind it. I mean, I’m not against cursing. It’s just if you do too much of it and it becomes gratuitous, it loses its power. However, I don’t think JD lost power on this one. So this is more reminding me that there’s too much of it. I don’t think he overused it in this particular case.

But JD also said, and I think this is important, he said, “I think in particular my Democrat colleagues need to ask some very hard questions about why it is that folks from their side of the political aisle seem to be engaged in these politically motivated attacks. And I think it’s important for them to look in the mirror and say, ‘Can we actually take some steps?’ Blah blah blah.” But he also says, “Can we actually take some steps to police some of the violent rhetoric on our own side?”

Now, that’s what I want to see. That’s exactly what I want to see. I want to see some acknowledgment that it’s not a perfectly clean situation on either side, but maybe one is a little worse than the other. But if you say it’s only happening on one side, it only takes one example to prove you wrong, and surely there will be one example. So I like JD saying, “We have to police ourselves.” The right has to police itself. Don’t use this violent rhetoric if you want a chance of getting the left to do the same. And I think that’s true. This is not one of those cases where you want to go, “Oh, they went hard and they used rhetoric to kill some of our people, so we should go hard and use rhetoric that might cause somebody to kill some of their people.” No. No. That’s too far. And in the long run, it’s not going to help you. It’s going to be worse for the country in a big way—like in a really big way. So JD, I think, hit all of the notes kind of perfectly. Kind of perfectly. I’m impressed.

Josh Shapiro and the ABC Documentary

All right, I’m going to get back to that in a minute. But this story is really interesting because I’m going to tie together a few things here. So look how this has changed the topic, but watch how I cleverly tie it all together.

ABC News has a new documentary. And the important part of this story is that it’s ABC News. Now, you know ABC News we believe is sort of a left-leaning news entity, and you would not expect them to do anything that was clearly and unambiguously bad for a leading Democrat, right? You wouldn’t expect that.

But the ABC News documentary is about a Pennsylvania woman, Ellen Greenberg, who was stabbed 20 times—this was some years ago in 2011—and it was ruled a suicide by the then-Attorney General Josh Shapiro. So Josh Shapiro is often mentioned as the strongest or one of the strongest candidates for maybe future president. Huh. So why in the world would ABC News dredge up a story from 2011 to try to destroy Josh Shapiro? Because it looks like that’s the only purpose. Why would the left destroy one of their leading names from the left?

Well, here is my belief, all right? This is speculation. But I believe that the real criminal elements in the Democrat party—I mean the super criminals, I’m talking about the Clintons, super criminals, as far as I can tell—they are reinstituting their what do you call it, the Clinton Global Initiative, which we all believe was a money-laundering operation.

And in order for that to work again, they would need not just a Democrat in office, but they would need one that they could say, “Hey other countries, this president who’s in office, it’s not us—it’s not the Clintons—but it’s somebody who is so tight with us that we can get them to do some favors if you give us a huge amount of money that we can launder into our own pockets.” Right?

So if the Clinton Global Initiative is starting up again, or trying to, that must mean that they’ve picked somebody they know they can work with if that person becomes president. And here is my speculation: they don’t think they can work with Josh Shapiro. They do think they can make a lot of money with Gavin Newsom.

So what I’m going to be looking for is to see if the most criminal people—the ones you just know are criminals—are all backing Newsom. Because if they do, that would suggest they know that he can be their Biden, or their Obama, or whatever they need him to be. So I don’t think it’s a coincidence that ABC News is strangling one of their own. The only reason to do that is if one of their own could beat Newsom in a primary. And Josh Shapiro could beat Newsom in a primary. He does have the ability.

So that’s what I think. So I think that the power people in the Democrat party have already picked Newsom. It probably won’t matter what the public thinks because they will tell the public what to think. That’s how it works. They’ll just tell them he’s the guy. He’s the only one that can beat them.

And in the meantime, Hillary Clinton says—I think it was yesterday—“We have to stop demonizing each other.” And then she demonized the Republicans. It’s almost looks like a joke. I mean, it looks like Saturday Night Live or something where she says, “We have to stop demonizing them,” and without taking a breath, she didn’t even pause before she demonized them. Incredible.

The Source of Political Violence

All right, let me give you my strongest opinion on all this rhetoric stuff. And as JD Vance said, I also believe that there are people on the right who say things that go too far and might—hasn’t happened yet—might potentially cause somebody to act in a violent way, and we don’t want that. So I’m against that.

However, there does seem to be a difference in the rhetoric on the two sides. As I said, calling somebody “dumb as a rock” doesn’t make you want to do anything violent. Saying somebody’s “Gestapo” and they’re taking power and they’re going to take your democracy definitely makes you think of violence.

So I’m going to say that the Democrat leaders are 100% to blame for recent violence against Republicans. Now, let me be clear: the way our legal system works is that the people who pulled the trigger are the only ones who can be blamed. But that’s because that’s the only practical way to run a legal system. You couldn’t say, “Well, yeah, he murdered somebody, but in fourth grade he had some bad influence, so it’s really that fourth-grade influence.” That doesn’t work. The only way you can organize a society is that the person who does the act gets punished. But whoever talked them into it or influenced them or brainwashed them—unless it’s really direct and really immediate—doesn’t count. They get a pass.

Well, as a trained hypnotist who studies persuasion a lot, let me tell you with 100% certainty: it is the Democrat leaders that are causing the violence. There’s not even the slightest chance that it’s any other way. Because do you know what causes action? Ideas. At least complex actions. Simple actions, like a reflex, there’s not much thinking involved. But a complex action like “I’m going to do a plan, I’m going to be in a place, I’ll have these assets, I’ll do this thing”—if it’s a complex plan, that only can happen because you have an idea.

Let’s say the idea is that Hitler is taking over the country. It doesn’t have to be a correct idea; it just has to be a full idea in order to get a complex action. Now, there’s no exception to that. Can we agree on that? That for a human being to do a complex action, they have to have an idea in their head that matches the complex action. Would you agree? There’s no question about that.

Now, what causes an idea to be in a head? How many people would have thought, “Hey, I think I’ll climb on a roof and start shooting people” if their entire influence in life had been sitting in a darkened room by themselves? If they had no input from anything, do you think they would say, “Huh, of all the things I could be doing, I feel like I’ll get a gun and climb on a roof and start shooting people”? No. No, there is no way that that complex idea gets in your head without being put there. It has to be put there. You don’t go looking for it; it has to be put there. That’s the way it all works.

That’s the way it works on both sides, it’s not just a Democrat thing. All of our complex ideas about politics on the right and the left were put there. You don’t have an original idea in your head, nor do I. All of our ideas were put there. And so, if somebody climbs on a roof and starts shooting, it is a reasonable question: What put that there? Now, they might also be crazy, but even crazy people have a wide range of things they could have been doing that day. Why’d they pick that one thing? It’s because somebody put it there.

And the way you put an idea in people’s heads is what? How do you put an idea in somebody’s head? Well, sometimes you can show an image—a meme—but mostly, in politics, it’s words. And those words are: Nazi, Hitler, Gestapo, stealing your democracy, autocrat, oligarch. “Oligarch” doesn’t get you killed. I will give Bernie credit, if I may. Bernie Sanders has sort of always been a mixed bag. He’ll do ten things I hate and then one thing where I’ll go, “Oh, okay, that’s actually quite reasonable.” One of the things that Bernie Sanders does is he doesn’t do this Hitler bullshit. Does he? I don’t believe he does. Now, it also makes his rhetoric kind of empty. “They’re an oligarch.” Do you climb on a roof to shoot somebody who’s an oligarch? Not really. “Oligarch” would be in the category of “dumb as a rock.” They both are just insults—typical—but you don’t go kill somebody for being dumb as a rock. You don’t kill somebody for being an oligarch. You just don’t. But that other stuff? Oh yeah. You start making a plan if you hear those other words.

So: words create ideas, ideas create action. There’s no other way it happens. Pictures can augment the words, but even the pictures wouldn’t do the trick without the words. So the words are the key part there. So I’m going to say it again: the Democrat leaders are not slightly, maybe, a little bit guilty. They are 100%—there is no other thing. There is no other thing at work. It is only that. 100% guilty for causing the violence. And you could guarantee that there’d be more. There’s not—if they continue talking the way they’re talking, we haven’t seen the end of it. It’s guaranteed to be more.

So I would ask, as JD Vance has noted, that Republicans start watching their own camp. All right? You’ve got a responsibility to make sure your side is saying “dumb as a rock” and not “Nazi.” Now, we all use it, I’ve done it myself, but I’ve always been conscious that nobody would act on it. You know, sometimes just using it rhetorically or whatever, but never—I’m never trying to sell it like it’s actually Hitler. Never. But the Democrats are selling it like it’s actually Hitler. That gives them 100% guilt—not legally, because remember, our system only punishes the person who does the act. So they can always say, “Well, person has free will, I was just making a point, it’s not me.” No, it is you. You motherfucker. Gavin Newsom, you are a piece of shit.

Now, does that make you want to climb on a building and do something bad? No, no. “He’s a piece of shit” doesn’t inspire violence, so it’s a well-chosen phrase. But boy, he is garbage. I mean, that man is absolute piece of shit because he knows he’s doing it. He is by far smart enough to know that he’s the primary driver of things right now, and to imagine that he’s okay with it—oh my God. Oh my God. He is a truly broken man. Now, if I had said “He’s truly evil and he wants you to die,” then you would think, “Hmm, maybe violence is the right answer.” But if I say “He’s broken,” it gives you a different feel, right? You’re like, “Oh, okay. I need to fix this. I need to make sure he doesn’t get elected, but I don’t need to do any crazy violence stuff. He’s just broken.” So: that man is broken.

James Comey Indictment Rumors

So here’s what I think. Generally speaking, in this political realm, whenever the Democrats do something to Republicans—say lawfare—the Republicans say, “Yeah, we don’t like lawfare, but they did it to us and the only way to stop it in the future is we do it to them.” That does not apply to violence. You all know that, right? If the Republicans decided, or any individual Republicans decided on violence, that’s not helping. That doesn’t move us forward. So: don’t do it. You will not be treated as a hero by Republicans if you do violence. You will be treated as scum and you’ll have to live with that.

But more importantly, I believe the Democrat Party is in full collapse mode, and you don’t have to do anything violent even if you were tempted. You just don’t have to, because things are moving very much in the right direction if you’re on the right. So I think you could wait this one out.

All right. Apparently James Comey, the rumor is he’ll be indicted for lying to Congress. So he lied about five years ago, allegedly—allegedly he lied to Congress. We’re pretty sure that he did. And I guess they have until the end of September, which is any moment now, to get in before the statute of limitations runs out.

So, are you in favor of going after Trump’s enemies? Does it feel like Trump has an enemy list, or that Kash Patel has an enemy list? Allegedly he had a list of people in his book or something. Well, I don’t know if Comey is the biggest criminal in this bunch, but this is one of those cases where they did jail Republicans for behavior that’s in this category. You got to do it. You have to do it. Now, of course, I only want this to happen if it’s a real crime, really made a difference, and the court system operates the way it should and they come to that conclusion. I don’t want them railroaded; I don’t want to purely lawfare him. But there does need to be some lawfare balance, and he’s going to have some trouble coming.

JD Vance, when he’s talking about the potential for legal action against all these various Democrats, he said, quote, “A lot of people broke the law in the last administration. They’ve got to face real justice, not just words, not just getting hauled before a committee on Capitol Hill. If people broke the law, they have to actually be prosecuted.” He says, “I think the only thing the far left really responds to is power. If they get off scot-free, they’re never investigated. They’re going to be prosecuted when they violate the law,” blah blah blah.

Now, here’s what I think. I think the left has demonstrated that they’ll use every tool at their disposal no matter what the right does. So I don’t think it makes any difference. I think if the right punished them back the same way and put a bunch of them in jail, it wouldn’t make any difference. They’re still going to use every tool that they can use, especially if it once worked—or almost worked—such as lawfaring Trump. Almost worked. In some ways, it worked, but not the way they wanted it to.

So I would disagree with JD that what the right does to the left makes a difference to what the left will do. The left will use every tool that they have. They’re not going to say, “Oh, you know what? It worked the last time we tried it, but we’ve noticed that the Republicans did not give it back to us as much as we gave it to them, so I guess we won’t do it again.” No. No, they’re going to use every tool every time. So I’m in favor of the Republicans giving as good as they get, but not because it changes behavior of the other team. It’s because you gotta use the toolbox. If they give you a tool by justifying it as something that can happen in politics, once they’ve justified it as something that can happen in politics, then I think the Republicans are just taking players off the board. And they have every right to do that. It would not be immoral or unethical to use their tool against them just to remove players. So Comey is a player—not much of a player now, but a little bit. And I think he’s just a warm-up act. I think Comey might be the easy one because they can just say, “All right, here’s a video of him lying, here’s the proof that he lied, here’s the law that applies—boom.” So it could be that the Trump administration wants to make sure that they get an easy win and then they can ramp up to get to Brennan and Clapper and maybe even Obama. We’ll see.

Antifa Domestic Terrorist Arrest

Well, apparently there’s the first-ever Antifa domestic terrorist arrest. It’s never happened before. The Post Millennial is writing about this, that several Antifa members were arrested in Eugene, Oregon. I guess they were terrorizing employees at some ICE facility, so they got arrested as domestic terrorists. Well, we’ll see if that works out. I’m sure there’ll be all kinds of legal challenges to that, but we’ll see. I thought somebody said that there’s no such thing as a domestic terrorism law. I heard that the other day on social media, but is that true? Do you get any extra penalty for being a domestic terrorist versus just bothering people where you shouldn’t be? I don’t know. I don’t know about that. I’ll have to find out about it.

Budget Debacle

Well, the budget debacle is beginning again. Republicans want a seven-week extension. Do you know why? Because they’re completely incompetent and unable to work with Democrats. Do you know why they can’t work with the Democrats to get something done on time? Because the Democrats are completely incompetent and can’t work with the Republicans. So Congress is just completely broken on the most important thing they do, which is allocating money. They just can’t do it. And it doesn’t look like there’s anything that will ever change that. I think you could change the personnel, wouldn’t make any difference. There’s nothing you can do. We’re basically running headlong into financial, certainly, disaster, and nobody has even an idea what you would do different.

So we’re going to kick this stupid can down the road. I’m going to hate the members of Congress with a white-hot fire that I’ve never seen before. Meanwhile, the Democrats are pushing for hundreds of billions of dollars of extra spending for health care and some other things. But these are things which Congress intentionally looked at and decided not to do—at least the majority did.

And apparently there’s a new wrinkle. So Russ Vought is saying that there might be massive layoffs if there’s a shutdown of the government. So if there’s a government shutdown, the Trump administration is going to use that as an excuse to fire massive numbers of people that maybe wouldn’t have been fired otherwise. So: do you think that the Democrats will cave because they’ll say, “Oh no, no, we have to save those thousands of Democrat jobs”? They might. I’ve never seen anybody offer to make this play before. The “All right, well, you can delay the budget, but if there’s no budget, I’m going to have to fire all the people who are unfunded.” Well, not all of them; some are necessary. But all you Democrats doing things that Democrats like: not funded. So you’re all fired. And if you ever fund it, great, but there’s nobody working there. So you’d be funding a hole. It feels like a good play. I don’t know how this will turn out yet, I won’t make a prediction, but it feels like a strong play by the Trump people. It’s a brand new variable. That’s what Trump does so well. If there’s a situation that nobody could ever negotiate before, he’ll add a new variable. And it’s the new variable that changes the balance of everything. So it’s a new variable—at least in concept, it’s very well played by adding a new variable that’s a strong one.

College Debates and Race

Well, there’s a—I may have the name wrong here, but it looked like there’s some YouTube channel by Cam Higby and maybe some other people. It looks like they’re trying to duplicate the Charlie Kirk college debates. So they went to TSU and they tried to do the thing where anybody could come up and debate them. And it formed a—and they said there was an “anti-white riot” that erupted because they were so hated for just being white Christians with a MAGA hat that it just caused a riot, basically. An anti-white riot they called it.

But I was amused because I’ve seen Charlie Kirk do the same thing. So they were doing the debate before I guess before the trouble started, and there was a young black man, a student, who was pointing out the discrimination and the inequality for black Americans. And so—I don’t know if it was Cam or maybe he’s just the one who does the videos—so the young white guy who was taking the questions and the debate, he said, “Can you give me an example of, let’s say, a law that would prevent you from doing something but allow me to do something?” “Uh, no. No, I can’t think of any examples.” “All right, well, is there any non-legal thing that I can do that you can’t do in America?” “Uh, well, all—all the things. You know, the—you know, the—the—the things, all the things.”

So amazingly, black Americans don’t know that they have superior rights in this country and have for a long time. They have superior rights. Meaning that if I wanted a job and I got a choice to be black or white just for the purpose of looking for a job, what do you think I would pick? I mean, seriously. I would pick black every time. And so would all of you. That’s why literally nobody—nobody claims to be white if they can also claim to be black. Even Obama downplayed his whiteness—half white—because being black was his advantage and he knew it.

So how do you fix that? Because I don’t think this model fixes it, because they hate the white guys in the red hats, so anything those guys say is not going to stick. But I keep thinking if I could mentor an 18-year-old black kid, the first thing I’d say is, “All right, you know that you have a huge advantage in employment, right? And a huge advantage in getting scholarships? And a huge advantage in complaining? Just: you have an advantage in almost everything. And if you find a place where you don’t have an advantage, let’s say a small business or something that’s discriminating—does that would still exist?—don’t go there. I would say, ‘Oh yeah, yeah, there are companies that might discriminate against you. But not big ones. Not a Fortune 500. They’re not going to discriminate, they’re going to discriminate in your favor every time. So go there.‘”

Just: don’t go where you think there might be some discrimination, I’ll tell you where to go and you’ll get a job every time. How about if you were a young black professional and you wanted to get some mentoring, but you look around and there are no other black faces in senior management? Do you think you’d have trouble getting a white executive of your company to agree to mentor you? No, you would not have trouble getting that. They would say “yes” before you finished the sentence. “Uh, hi Mr. So-and-so, I wonder if you could mentor—” “Yes!” No, you’re going to get a yes before you finish the sentence. You’re going to get a yes for mentoring, a yes for financing, a yes for hiring, a yes for college applications, a yes for medical school, a yes for law school. How do you not know that if you’re an 18-year-old black guy? How do you not know that all the advantages—the racist advantages—are in your direction?

But the college debates are not going to change anybody’s mind about that. You’d need some entirely different process.

Jezebel and Witchcraft

Well, you probably heard that Jezebel, which is a disreputable, lying piece of shit organization—I’m surprised it’s still in business, but it’s a bunch of feminists and horrible people. Not that feminists are horrible people, but they are feminists and horrible people; they happen to be both. And apparently they paid some witches that they found on Etsy to curse Charlie Kirk two days before he was assassinated. And they actually published that. They published it after he was assassinated. And they published it—that they got witches to try to kill him and he got killed.

Apparently Erika Kirk, widow of Charlie Kirk, was quote “genuinely rattled” by it. Now, I’m not a believer in witchcraft, so I would not have been too worried about the witchiness of it, but I’ll tell you what I do believe in: affirmations. And I worry—I don’t have proof of this, so this is a little bit of woo-woo on my part—but doesn’t it seem that the things that happen in life are the things we’re thinking about the most? In my personal life, the way my life has turned out is very much similar to whatever I thought about and wanted the most, to the point where it looks like—how could that even be a coincidence? That the things I thought about the most actually happened. Good and bad. Good and bad.

My cancer I’ve been thinking about since my 20s. This specific cancer. Not just cancer—prostate cancer. I’ve been worried about it and obsessed about it since I was in my 20s. I started researching it in my 20s in anticipation of getting it. Now, is that coincidence? Well, it’s the most popular or common cancer for an adult man, so on one hand it’s just coincidence, but not even a big one. But I do worry that when people focus too much on one outcome, there’s a weird bias toward that thing happening. That I’ve noticed all my life, and it could be just my imagination. Maybe there’s nothing to it. But when I hear that a bunch of witches and some writers at Jezebel all started to think about a bad thing happening to one person at the same time and on the same day, I wonder. You know, I don’t believe in witchcraft, but I do wonder if we live in a simulation where you can cause it to collapse on a certain set of realities based on what you’re thinking about. I wonder.

Anti-Racist Teacher Training

So the Trump administration wants Congress to end what is called “anti-racist” teacher training grants to universities. The College Fix is writing about this as well. Now, you might say to yourself, “Wait a minute, why would you want to end ‘anti-racist’? Wouldn’t that be like agreeing with racists?” No. The “anti-racist” stuff was the racist stuff. The anti-racist stuff is basically saying that white people suck and white men suck more than the rest of white people. So no, yes, the anti-racist stuff is racist, just overtly, obviously, no question about it, way over the top racist. And yeah, I want that halted.

Food Insecurity Reports

According to the New York Post, Trump is stopping—I guess there had been a regular report on food insecurity. But like everything else, it turned out to be fake data. And the “food insecurity” would include anybody who wasn’t sure if they could get food in the future. So it’s not people who are hungry or don’t have food; it’s people who just feel insecure about being able to have it in the future. And I’m not sure that’s telling you what you need to know. So probably was a waste of money. They stopped that.

Drones in Denmark

Over in Denmark, there’s some drones that have been plaguing them over airports and whatnot. Multiple drones the last few days. And the assumption was in the beginning that it was Russia and they were just messing with a NATO country. Do you believe that Russia decided to skip over other countries and plague Denmark in particular? Does that make sense? That they wouldn’t be doing it to, you know, France and Germany and Great Britain, but they decided to pick on Denmark of all places and then to put a bunch of drones in the sky.

Now, some people are saying, “But wait, we don’t know that these are Russian drones.” We don’t. Maybe they’re UFOs. Maybe this is the same problem that the USA had, right? So: but here is my takeaway from this. Are you telling me that Denmark can’t shoot down a drone? Like: any drones? They don’t have any way to shoot down a drone. Seriously? Denmark, a NATO country, can’t shoot down a drone that’s loitering? It’s not like the drone even snuck in and attacked something and blew up before you could get them. They’re just hanging around. Are you telling me that drones—multiple drones—just hanging around for days, and Denmark doesn’t have the ability to shoot one down? And NATO doesn’t have the ability to shoot one down? What’s going on here? So I’m going to say there’s something about the story that’s either seriously missing or maybe what—I’m even trying to imagine what Russia would get out of this if it were them. One thing they might get out of it is proving that there’s no air defense. They have no air defense? You know? I don’t understand why the US didn’t shoot down our drones; the story was that they were actually our own drones. So now I guess I understand why you don’t shoot down your own drones. But Denmark doesn’t seem to think it’s theirs. They can shoot those down. They’re not manned. Why in the world wouldn’t you shoot it down? I don’t know. Something’s missing in that story.

Nuclear Exercises in Europe

Well, according to N-Strike 1231, Trump is launching nuclear exercises in Europe. So they’re doing some long-range bomber flights and stuff. And thinking is this is to just rattle Putin’s cage because we don’t have really much going on there that’s going to threaten him. So at least, you know, acting like we have a dangerous nuclear potential, which we do.

Ukraine and Russia Losses

So Rubio, talking about Ukraine, says that the Russian military losses are what he calls “staggering.” The casualties in a single month exceed total US deaths in Afghanistan or Iraq. Now, I don’t know if that’s a good comparison because we had unusually low casualties in both Afghanistan and Iraq for, you know, the context of a war. The other side had massive casualties, but that wasn’t a normal war because it was so one-sided.

But do you think that Russia has enough military losses that it will change anything? I don’t know. We do know that Trump said unambiguously, with no hesitation, that any Russian military planes that fly over NATO territory, they should shoot them down. Because you can’t have the Russians just, you know, testing all the defenses and going home with no—no response. So I don’t know if that’s going to happen, but there might be a Russian plane that gets shot down. And we’ll see if that makes any difference to anything.

Trump is saying that Ukraine, if they had the right weapons that the US and others could provide, that they would actually be able to win back the territory they’ve lost. Now, I don’t know anybody who believes that they could win back the territory. I don’t know anybody who thinks that’s going to happen. But it goes further and says, “Yeah, maybe they could get a little extra too, take some of Russia.” So I don’t see how that could possibly happen with the current variables in play.

But Trump and the administration are still pushing the other countries to stop buying Russian oil and gas. And if he succeeded—if Trump succeeded in getting these other countries to stop buying, mostly China and India and some European—that would collapse the Russian economy and might—might bring them to the table. But as others have pointed out, Russia still has the ability to turn off Europe’s energy in the winter. So are we seriously three and a half years into a war? Are we seriously letting Europe’s stupidity with energy affect us? I mean, it’s one thing when the situation first comes up, but it’s been three and a half years. If Europe is still depending on Russia for their energy and therefore cannot mount a vigorous enough defense, I’m not sure how much we should protect them. I mean, you need to do something for yourself as in work harder to get another source of energy.

Zelensky and the Kremlin

Zelensky has warned Putin that he and Putin’s officials need to find the nearest bomb shelter—the nearest one to the Kremlin—because he says the Kremlin’s going to come under direct attack. Now, I think they’ve sent a drone or two over there before, but sounds like Zelensky plans a more major attack on the Kremlin. Now, I don’t know how Russia could fail to escalate if that happened. I mean, the escalation is going to get higher. But do you think it’s possible that Zelensky could dismantle the entire Kremlin—like: one drone at a time? You know, if you just send dozens of them every day, and maybe one gets through every now and then, couldn’t you make the Kremlin unusable in, let’s say, a month? Could you? And if you did something like that, what would Russia do to respond? Maybe they’re doing everything they can do short of going nuclear. I don’t know. So I have lots of questions about what Russia would do if we—if we increased the pressure in any other way.

Mexican Cartels in Ukraine

Apparently there’s some Mexican drug cartel members, according to the publication The European Conservative, that joined the Ukrainian military so they could learn drone warfare. So believe it or not, there are Spanish-speaking troops fighting for Ukraine, but apparently they’re doing it more for their own training, and they are Colombian and Mexican and they’re cartel members and they’re terrorists and they’re going to take this learning back. Great, terrific.

Greta Thunberg’s Freedom Flotilla

Well, you know Greta Thunberg’s got her “freedom flotilla,” she calls it, trying to go over there and fix everything in Gaza. And apparently it’s being—I’ll say “attacked”—by jammers. They’re jamming their radios and playing ABBA on their radios on repeat, and so if they keep their radios on, all they’re going to get is ABBA on repeat. And apparently there were some other kinds of attacks, non-lethal attacks are happening, but mostly to make it really unpleasant to be on that flotilla.

The group said that Israeli military drones targeted five of their vessels—there’s quite a few vessels actually involved—and damaged masts and communication equipment. And it’s the third assault on the aid-bearing ships they say. So they got 51 boats in that operation. That’s pretty big. They sailed from Barcelona at the end of August. They’re going to try to break that siege on Gaza. Do you think they’ll break the siege on Gaza, or will they just hear a lot more ABBA than they wanted to? Yeah, it might be their “Waterloo,” exactly. Waterloo. All right.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that’s all I have for you. Sorry I went long. I’m going to talk to the Locals subscribers, my beloved Locals subscribers. I love them more every day. The rest of you, thanks for joining. I hope you got something out of this, and I will see you again tomorrow, I hope. Same time, same place.