Episode 2136 Scott Adams: Trump Gains Power, Soros Retires, Crimea Land Bridge, Pyramid Power Source
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump gains energy
Soros retires
Dershowitz & Turley on Trump
War with China?
Crimea land bridge
Great Pyramid power source
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called A Coffee with Scott Adams, and you're very lucky to be here, especially if you're seeing it live.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to the orgasmic levels of euphoria that you know you deserve, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel or cistern, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel, You also need my microphone put on.
Yes, yes, yes.
Thank you for the assist.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Much better.
Well, I just saw a tweet from Elon Musk who says a friend of his who lives in San Francisco had a bullet go through his wall of his apartment yesterday.
But that's not the interesting part.
The interesting part is it's the second time.
Imagine living in San Francisco and on two occasions, two separate occasions, a bullet goes ripping through your apartment.
Now, I have what I call the three-bullet rule.
If I'm living someplace, the first two times a bullet goes ripping through my walls, I'm okay.
But that third time, I'm starting to see a pattern.
By the third time, I'm like, huh, I'm gonna start to evaluate my options.
Now, I remind you of my experience in San Francisco in the, let's see, it was the 80s.
San Francisco in the 80s.
Let's see, my apartment was completely cleaned out once.
So I got robbed while I was at work.
My car was broken into and my stereo was stolen four times, I think.
Let's see, I was mugged once by a giant knife.
Once by gun on the street.
Twice when I was a bank teller, people pulled guns on me.
One time I was walking down the street and somebody put a gun at my head and pulled the trigger, but there was no round in the chamber.
He thought that was pretty funny.
So that was my experience.
It wasn't unusual to come walking home and see, you know, somebody being beaten to death in the sidewalk.
It was sort of a normal experience where I lived.
So I'm not so sure that San Francisco is worse than the 80s, but it's definitely worsening.
Conor McGregor attended the Miami Heat game, and I guess they were going to do a little promotional thing where he would come out and he would humorously get in a fight with a Miami Heat mascot.
In which he would punch the mascot and that would be, you know, part of the show.
So he punches the mascot and the mascot goes down, as you'd expect, and then he gets on top of the mascot and he gives it a kill shot.
Well, anyway, the mascot went to the hospital.
And I'm wondering how that job was described to the mascot.
Was there a meeting beforehand in which the mascot, probably as a boss, right?
There's a boss of the mascots.
And the boss was like, hey, we've got the best idea.
You're going to love this.
And the mascot says, great, great.
What is it?
What is it?
He goes, you're going to share the stage with Conor McGregor.
And the mascot's like, really?
Really?
The most famous MMA fighter of all time, Conor McGregor?
Yes, that's great, that's great.
Well, there's one more thing.
Really, what is it?
Well, Conor McGregor's gonna punch you.
Oh, what?
Yeah, Conor McGregor's gonna punch you.
Wait, I thought you said Conor McGregor's gonna punch me.
Yeah, he's gonna punch you really hard.
It'll be hilarious.
Watch this.
But, uh, but he's gonna hold his punch, right?
He's not gonna give you, like, a full-force MMA punch, right?
Oh!
No!
No.
It's probably gonna be three-quarter speed, Tops.
And besides, your mascot head will be protecting you, won't it?
Well, it turns out that masked guy's head's a little softer than you'd expect, and a 75% punch from a MMA fighter kind of hurts.
Kind of hurts.
So he's in the hospital.
Anyway, it's not funny that somebody got hurt, but I like management.
I like bad management stories.
So to me, this just sounds like a bad management story.
They could have worked out a few more details before sending me out to get punched by the strongest puncher in the world.
All right.
I'm sorry.
I shouldn't be laughing at that.
I feel terrible about myself.
I really do.
But you might know that I treat my mascots the same way.
Got that in common.
All right, so now I've heard Alan Dershowitz's take on the Trump legal risk from all of his boxes of secrets, and Dershowitz basically says there's no risk.
And then I read Jonathan Turley, and he's got a slightly different take on it, but for different reasons, no risk.
There's just no risk.
All right, here's what Dershowitz says.
Basically, most of the charges look like they can be easily defended against.
In other words, the defense against most of what he did with the records, including not giving them back, I guess, doesn't rise to the level of a criminal case, but might be a civil case of some kind and should have been handled that way.
Or some other kind of crime.
So it wouldn't be the kind of thing that would keep him out of office or put him in jail.
So most of the charges are in that easy to dismiss or easy to defend concept because of some, I don't know, some records act that defines this area pretty well.
So that's what Dershowitz says.
He says there's one thing you have to worry about though.
There's one part that might put him in jeopardy.
And that's the audio that they have that alleges that he had a document that he even described as something that shouldn't be shown to people that maybe he showed to somebody.
Maybe he showed to somebody.
Which would be pretty bad if it were, you know, a really super secret document.
Which he said it was.
He said it was still secret.
And now, this is the funny part.
Dershowitz, in the process of simply talking about the case, he offered up the perfect defense for the only part of the case that he thought was risky, which is the audio.
Here's the perfect defense.
Which do you think is more likely?
Now, this depends on the writer's testimony as well, right?
So you'd have to hear what the writer says about it.
But which of these two things do you think is more Trump?
I'm going to give you an example.
I'll be Trump now.
Oh man, I got these secret documents here.
Got these secret documents.
Why don't you read them?
Here, here you go.
you go.
Why don't you read them while I sit silently?
All right.
Okay, you got it?
Did you read those?
Alright, so that's one thing that could have happened and that would be really bad.
Wouldn't you agree?
If he handed it to the writer and says, take a look at this, read this, that would be very bad.
Does that sound like Trump?
Is your imagination of who Trump is, they would hand somebody a document when he's the star of the meeting, right?
The meeting is about him.
But he's going to give you a document and maybe sit there silently while you read it.
That sounds just like him, doesn't it?
All right, let me give you another possibility that might have happened.
This might be closer to it.
Wow, I got these secret things that I can see because I'm a president, and you can't.
Whoa!
Imagine if you saw these.
If I showed you these, well, let me just describe what's here.
There's some bad things in here, but wow, whoa, wow, you can't see it.
This is some secret stuff.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
I was president, so I could see it.
Well, I'm not president now, so maybe, you know, but yeah, I didn't really.
Which one sounds more like Trump?
It's not even close.
I don't think there's a chance in the world that he handed it to him and he waited while he read it.
Do you?
I mean, seriously.
Now, like I said, if the writer who was in the room, and I guess there was one other gentleman in the room, if they said that's what happened, then probably that's what happened.
But it's really hard to believe.
And if it turns out that all he did was, you know, flash it and talk about, you know, overall the topic, Probably not a big deal.
So the Dershowitz take is that it's all easy to defend.
And that's the most dangerous part.
And we don't know all the details, but if it sounds the way it sounds on audio, in other words, if the story is just what you hear on the audio, there's no real risk.
So that's the Dershowitz take.
The Jonathan Turley take, I think, is cleaner and also to the same point.
But his take is there's no way you could complete this trial before the election.
You know, because everything takes years.
So if they don't complete it before the election, Trump can pardon himself.
Now, that's Turley's view.
Now, maybe the Supreme Court would disagree, but it wouldn't stop him from doing it.
I mean, maybe it would go to the Supreme Court, but I think they might agree.
My take is that the Supreme Court is not going to say there is something in the Constitution that forbids a president from pardoning themselves.
Because if the Constitution wanted that in there, it'd probably be there.
If it's not there, it's not there.
That should be the end of the story.
You know, I'm no constitutional scholar, But if it's not in there, it would be hard to imagine it was assumed to be there.
Like, why would you assume that?
On what basis could you make the assumption that they meant it to be there?
I see no argument for it whatsoever.
All right, so it appears to me that the Democrats are trying to win the next election via a process of proving that everything Trump said about them is true.
And that it really is a witch hunt.
By the way, Dershowitz says fairly directly, yeah, this is a political act.
Would you feel comfortable if you were the Democrats, and somebody who is a lifelong Democrat, Dershowitz, and also, you know, leading scholar of this exact kind of stuff, tells you it's obviously political, there's no doubt about it.
It's not even a gray area.
This is obviously political.
To me this is absolutely confirming everything that Trump said about people going after him and they would go after you next.
Because they're going after supporters too.
So Trump is gaining energy.
He is flipping people who were, let's say in the past they were anti-Trump or at least didn't care.
And they've radicalized people to care a lot about defending Trump.
They've also taken everybody else out of the news.
Do you remember that big DeSantis news?
I don't.
Was there any?
I don't know.
You know, a few people got into the race, but the only thing you heard about them is they got into the race.
Do you remember what Chris Christie's policies are?
No you don't.
Nobody knows.
I mean some Republican stuff I guess.
How about that Mike Pence?
Who?
Who?
You just took him right out of the news.
So I don't, I don't know what the Democrats are thinking.
Are they thinking this is a good play?
Because on day one it looked like it was.
I have to admit on day one when I heard all the charges and the 37 charges, and the pictures of the boxes in the bathroom at Mar-a-Lago, and I thought to myself, oh, that's worse than I thought.
All this time I thought it was going to be no big deal, but it's, oh, it's so much worse.
And it took exactly, what, 48 hours for, you know, let's say Dershowitz and Turley to weigh in, two people that I trust on this stuff, to basically say, nah, it's another one of those, walls are closing in, not much to look at here.
Now it'll be interesting and you know the process has to play through but I don't think there's a risk.
It looks like they just found the only way that you could guarantee Trump would get elected.
Now some would say that's their plan Scott.
Their entire plan is to look incompetent and look like liars until Republicans nominate Trump and then they can beat him easily because he's so beatable in the general election.
Let me ask you this.
If Trump quit today, which will never happen, and DeSantis became the presumptive nominee, how long would it take for DeSantis to be accused of something equally bad?
Different, but just equally bad.
About, yeah, about a minute.
Yeah, DeSantis would immediately become the anti-LGBTQ Hitler, right?
Or Mussolini, because they like to keep it nice and racist.
That's how the Democrats like it, nice and racist.
Call him Mussolini because he's Italian.
So, we'll keep an eye on that, but it sure looks like they're trying to get Trump elected.
All right, George Soros has retired, I guess you could call it that, and handed over control of his charitable stuff to his 37-year-old son.
I guess he's got two sons, and it was not obvious that the younger one would take over.
Now you say to yourself, well, Scott, that makes no difference whatsoever, because the son is radicalized by the father, and The sun will just take on, you know, carry on and maybe the sun was in charge for a long time anyway.
Maybe there's no difference at all.
And maybe you're totally right.
However, I would like to inject this little note of optimism.
So Alex Soros is his name, the sun.
And, you know, he does say that defeating Trump is still important.
You know, he's definitely going to be political and even more political.
And he says as long as money is part of the process, money will be part of the process, and he'll be part of that money process.
However, here's something he said that I feel gives you cause for hope.
He says that he's a Bill Maher Republican.
And he said he went to bed watching Bill Maher at night.
So now you have a pretty good shorthand for where he is politically.
Are you worried about that?
Would you be worried?
Let's say it's true.
Let's say it's true.
And I don't think you'd make that up, right?
That doesn't sound like something you would just come up with to sound good or something like that.
That sounds real.
My guess is he's genuinely a fan of Bill Maher.
What is Bill Maher's opinion of the liberal prosecutors.
Do you know his opinion?
It's not a Democrat opinion.
Bill Maher says it's gone too far, and that the cities are hell holes, and I'm sure that you would think that the prosecutors are some part of that problem.
So does that mean that Alex Soros might be influenced by the Bill Maher position that things have gone too far?
And that the craziness level has just reached an unsustainable level for the Republic.
What do you think?
I'm just going to poll you.
If you think that he's going to agree more with George or Bill, just say George or Bill, who do you think he's going to be more influenced by?
George's father, George Soros, or Bill Maher?
Just show me in the comments.
I'm seeing mostly Georges.
And that wouldn't be surprising, right?
You'd expect the father to have a big impact.
And some say Bill.
Yeah.
Maybe... I don't know.
It looks like 75% George, 25% Bill.
Coincidence.
You could be right.
Now, I do think that George will be Influential on all the things that he already agrees with.
For example, I think the fact that George Soros was a Democrat largely guarantees that Alex will be one, has been one, will continue to be one.
So I would say I would agree that George Soros is the primary influence because he's going to do some Democrat liberal stuff with his money.
Well, I would say that Bill Maher is going to be more influential on a narrow question, such as the prosecutors.
Now, that doesn't mean he'll stop funding them, because I've always thought that the funding was sort of indirect.
You know, I don't think he wanted these specific outcomes, he just got them.
So, I'm going to say that the sun will, here's my prediction, that the sun will modify the things that weren't working.
Because when somebody takes over, they do like to put their fingerprint on it.
Might be too early, because the father's still alive, so at the moment he probably just has to do whatever his father wants, you know, just out of respect.
But I would say fairly soon, when his father is a little bit more out of it, I think the son is going to look to correct the excesses.
And by that I mean, giving money to Black Lives Matter looks like a mistake in retrospect, wouldn't you say?
It didn't really look like that much of a mistake when it happened.
But at the moment, it looks like a huge mistake.
It just wasn't obvious at the time.
Now, what about the prosecutors?
When George Soros first had the idea of not putting people in jail for nonviolent crimes, do you think that maybe that sounded like a good idea on paper?
Because I actually think I might have been persuaded by that.
I've heard the argument.
If you hear the argument separate from what actually happened, and you just heard it in a conceptual state, stop putting people in jail for little stuff, because once they get a criminal record, they get locked into the criminal path because you can't get a good job, and then you get taken away, and then your kid doesn't have a father, and then there's a whole ripple effect.
So I'm very much in agreement with George Soros That arresting people for small crimes can make the life of their child, their child, much worse.
However, it's clear that nobody thought it through to the ultimate conclusion, which is it destroys the retail industry entirely and turns everybody into a criminal.
Because it's just too easy to steal and get away with it.
Now, do you believe that 37-year-old, college-educated Alex Soros thinks that what's happening right now with the liberal prosecutors is working?
Do you think if you were alone in a room with him and said, look, do you think that worked?
Is that what you planned?
You're almost all saying yes.
OK, I'm going to disagree with you and say that there's no chance he would say that.
Not at all.
I would put the odds at exactly zero that he would say that worked out.
Because he's looking at the same news you are.
Remember, the Democrat news is saying it didn't work.
It's not just the Republicans.
It is now a, I would say, it's a matter of obvious fact that both the left and right can see that the cities have been destroyed by rampant crime.
So you think that if you were alone with him in a room, He would say that worked out the way we wanted.
Do you really believe that?
Do you really believe he would say, yes, this is what we were looking for?
All right, you got a little quiet there, didn't you?
No, there's no chance he thinks that worked.
There really is no chance.
I'll respect your disagreement, OK?
I will respect your disagreement.
Because I know where it comes from.
It's not an unthoughtful disagreement.
It's a thoughtful disagreement.
So I respect that.
I disagree completely.
I think there's zero chance that privately he would say it worked.
Do you think I should ask him if he'll talk to me?
Maybe do an interview?
I think that would be very interesting.
I understand he's a Berkeley graduate, somebody said.
So we both got that Berkeley Cal Bears thing going.
So maybe he'd say yes.
Maybe he'd say yes.
Anyway, if I were him, I would say yes.
Because for someone who has a mostly conservative audience, as I do, I would give him the friendliest interview.
Because I don't start with the assumption that they're all guilty of everything.
They might be.
I don't rule it out.
I'm just, I don't start with the assumption that he's guilty.
I just don't have that assumption.
So maybe he would talk to me.
I think that would make everything better.
All right.
Let's see.
I've said this a few different ways, but I'll try it another way.
In 2023, when somebody goes in public and says, No one is above the law.
How do you hear that?
Because in 2023, what I hear is, I'm going to do some dictatorship now.
I'm going to take away your civil rights.
That's what I hear.
I no longer hear this as some kind of a statement of, you know, constitutional lofty ideals.
It just sounds like something the dictator says before they put your ass in jail.
Oh, nobody's above the law.
And you're in jail.
It's amazing how that changed in the era of Trump.
Because we can see now, I mean, it's really, really, really obvious that the law is being applied differently.
You see the shoplifters coming in and taking what they want.
Is that equal application of the law?
Not even close.
Is Trump being treated the way anybody would be treated?
Well, according to the most storied and qualified lawyers of all time, no, not even close.
So to imagine that somebody could go in front of the public and say, nobody is above the law, and not look like a fucking idiot.
It's amazing they even still say it.
It's just the dumbest thing you could say in 2023, when it's just so obviously not true.
It's not true, it doesn't even make you look smart when you say it.
It now makes you look like you're a criminal, basically.
When Jack Smith said that, I immediately thought he was just a criminal.
Now, not necessarily breaking a law, but not acting in the benefit of the republic, not doing the job he was tasked with doing, and doing a hit piece on an American citizen that happens to be an ex-president.
That's what I saw.
To me it just looked like a criminal talking like a criminal.
Yeah, why do you rob banks?
Well, that's where the money is.
That's what it sounded like to me.
Alright, you following this UFO whistleblower?
Alright, I believe that almost none of you believe the UFOs are real.
And therefore don't believe the whistleblower.
Am I right?
Let me do another quick survey.
Do you believe that the whistleblower talking about the aliens being possessed?
How many of you believe it's true?
Yes or no?
All no's on locals.
Everyone is no.
25%.
All right.
We got a sprinkling of yeses on YouTube.
Well, let me speak to the yeses, the people who think it's true.
We now have new information that the whistleblower says that at least one of the vehicles, these captured UFOs, is bigger on the inside than on the outside.
Huh.
Huh.
Where have I heard that before?
It's a structure, some kind of a vessel or a ship, that's bigger on the inside than the outside.
Huh.
Well, there's Snoopy's Doghouse.
Snoopy's Doghouse is bigger on the inside than the outside.
And let's see, in Doctor Who, there's the TARDIS.
Looks like a phone booth, but when you go inside, it's a whole big ship.
Yeah.
So how do you feel now?
Those of you who think that UFO story and the whistleblower are true, does that sound good?
Still?
And he also added that one of the crafts is the size of a football field.
Yeah, there's something the size of a football field that crash landed and nobody got a picture.
I mean, nobody outside the government.
Nobody got a picture.
So you're still feeling pretty good about that UFO whistleblower?
Feeling pretty confident about that?
All right.
Well, the Unabomber died in prison and some are saying it was suicide.
Some were saying... I don't know.
I'm not interested in the Unabomber.
Can I get a vote of agreement here?
We don't care about the Unabomber dying at 80, do we?
Nobody cares.
You know, but... Here's a true story.
The Unabomber actually caused me some problems.
So the Unabomber and his situation actually overlapped with my personal life.
True story.
So when stuff was blowing up, and make sure I got this story right.
I think this was the Unabomber.
Maybe it was a different bomber.
But weren't they saying that the packages had some way to tell that they were maybe a problem?
Because it'd be something in the return address It sounded like a tree or something.
There was some kind of signal or no return address or something.
So there was something we were told that if the package looked sketchy, that you should call the police.
Well, I actually got a sketchy package that had a return address that had one of the sort of keywords in it that tells you it might be a bomb.
So I actually called the police.
And they took a look at it.
And I was a public figure.
So I was potentially somebody in the target list.
And it was just a fan.
Just a fan sent me something unsolicited.
But it did ruin my day.
All right.
Let's talk about Ukraine and then pyramids.
So there's very little news out of Ukraine, and even the very little news is not reliable.
Most of the news is either a Russian or Ukrainian source showing a tank that got blown up by the other side, or something like that.
Basically you can't tell anything from the videos and reports, just nothing at all.
But the reports, the news says that maybe Ukraine took two villages without much resistance, That means about nothing because it's not like every village is equally protected.
So I don't know.
Maybe they weren't strategic.
So there's basically no news.
But the thinking of the experts is that the objective of the Ukrainian counteroffensive is to cut off the land bridge to Crimea.
Does that sound right?
They want to cut off the land bridge to Crimea.
But does that really mean that they plan to take Crimea back?
Here's my prediction for the day.
Prediction for the day.
That Ukraine's objective is to cut off Crimea and then negotiate.
Because I don't think they want to take Crimea, that would be That would probably wipe out their whole army in the process.
But they want to make it look like they could.
They want to make it look like any moment now we're going to take your Crimea away.
We took your land bridge away so it's harder to reinforce it but we're going to take your Crimea back.
And then they're going to negotiate.
That's what I think.
I saw Biden talking about when he was vice president, his trips to Ukraine.
How many of you know how many trips Biden made to Ukraine when he was vice president?
Do you know how many?
Some of you are saying 25.
I think it was in the high teens.
It was like 17 or something.
Now, how many times does any vice president Go to any specific country during the term of the vice presidency.
How many times has Kamala Harris gone to Central America?
Once?
Once?
Can you give me any good reason why a vice president would go to any foreign country 17 times?
Any country.
For anything.
I can't think of any.
I can think of no Legitimate government purpose for going there 17 times.
And by the way, why didn't we know about it?
Are you telling me that during the Obama presidency, that Biden went to Ukraine 17 times and that was not news?
That nobody mentioned how many times he's going to this one place?
Yeah, there's clearly something very, very wrong going on here.
Clearly something wrong.
How is that not big news?
I never even fucking cared about Ukraine until the recent dust-up.
Are you telling me that Ukraine was so important that Biden would go there 17 times, or whatever it was, it's some number in that range, and we would never even hear about it?
I don't believe I saw one story about that.
Did you?
Do you remember seeing any news story about the Vice President traveling to another country?
How is that not a story?
I mean, at least a mention.
Somebody says only six times.
Biden himself, I saw a quote yesterday that was way more than six times.
Now, he might have been lying, but I guess that's another story.
Yeah, that's too many times.
Too many times.
There's something wrong there.
All right.
I'm going to talk about the pyramids last because it's the most fun.
So I saw that there are a bunch of links to news stories claiming that those Canadian fires are most clearly caused by climate change.
At the same time that the satellite imagery shows that there were a whole bunch of fires set at exactly the same time.
Now, I am genuinely, genuinely curious.
Did the people who wrote those articles blaming climate change, did they believe what they wrote?
You're saying it's lightning, but there's always been lightning.
There's never not been lightning.
But whether it was lightning or whether it was arson, and it certainly looks like arson, but whichever it was, neither of those have anything to do with forest fires.
Because the number of forest fires is down.
It's not up.
It's down.
But don't you wonder if the people who wrote the stories actually believed what they wrote?
because usually...
Because usually...
Well, anyway.
Yeah, I'm just...
Usually I think people believe what they write.
But this one doesn't look like, yeah, this doesn't look like they believed it.
Or are they that clueless?
I mean, it could go either way.
Rand Paul says there's a bunch of Republicans that are beating the drums of war with China.
What?
What?
I'd like to know their names.
Who exactly thinks a war with China would be a good idea?
We actually have some members of Congress that have an R next to their name who are beating the drums for war?
Are you kidding me?
Who?
So, RFK Jr.
was tweeting the Rand Paul thing.
And RFK Jr.
says, you know, basically we should find a way to work with China because a war with China would just be insane.
I mean, I don't know what else you could say about it.
It would be literally insane.
And China knows that, right?
You don't start a war unless you have some chance of winning.
Isn't that like the first rule of war?
You don't start a war unless you think you might win it.
Who thinks they could win a war with China and the US?
How could that be anything but a huge gut punch to civilization for the next 30 years?
How could it be anything but that?
There's no winning scenario that anybody can even imagine.
In their greatest imagination, you can't imagine winning either side.
There's no way anybody wins.
So why are they even talking about it?
Now if you're talking about it as a threat or something like that, as part of the negotiation, okay.
That would be the Trump method to just give them an idea it might happen.
But Rand Paul is suggesting that they're serious about it.
I don't even know what to say about that.
How did those people get re-elected?
I don't know.
But RFK says in a tweet about this, he says, ultimately our free market system is superior to China's centrally controlled one.
We can out-compete them in peaceful competition as long as we stop squandering our resources in endless foreign wars.
I agree with most of that.
The trouble is that how do you compete against low labor costs?
I mean, I get that robots can help us a lot, but ultimately you can't compete against that.
I mean, you can move your business to another low labor cost place, but you can't, you know, we're not going to lower the labor cost of America.
So we don't really have a way to compete against that directly.
But I do agree with the general point, you know, between robots and moving our business elsewhere, you know, there's a lot of stuff we can do and none of it requires a war.
So I like RFK Jr.' 's instincts on this.
The best.
All right, let's talk about pyramids.
So I watched a video on YouTube yesterday that makes some claims that I've seen before.
And I can't remember the name of the video.
I wish I could.
It's something like what the heck or something.
I don't know.
But it's really good, and I'll tweet it around if I run into it again.
But the idea is this.
How many of you believe that the ancient Egyptians, the direct descendants of the people who live there today, how many of you think they built those pyramids and that they forgot how they did it?
Does that sound remotely possible to you?
It doesn't to me.
Honestly, it never sounded real to me.
I just don't believe that the descendants used to know how to build pyramids, but now they don't.
No, I'm sorry.
I just don't believe it.
Yeah, and there are some people who say the pyramids are older than the civilizations that are there, and some people say it's aliens.
Now, do you know that they've never found a mummy, A dead leader in a pyramid?
And we were taught in school that these were burial tombs for the dead leaders.
They'd never found one in there.
Nor have they ever found evidence one has ever been in there.
There's one sarcophagus, but it doesn't look like it ever had a body in it.
And the one sarcophagus is not even in an ornate pyramid.
It's in a pyramid that doesn't even have, like, wall writing.
So it doesn't look like it was even made for a leader.
It looks like it had some utility.
All right, so here's the theory that I'm actually a little bit convinced by.
It goes like this.
The outside of the pyramids, which have mostly crumbled with age, used to have a different kind of rock that was covering the rough edges, so it was more smooth.
And that kind of rock we know has electrical insulation properties.
Right?
It had electrical insulation properties.
I think it was limestone, yeah.
Now that alone doesn't tell you much because, you know, rocks have different qualities.
They just use limestone.
But the limestone was covering the base rocks and the base rocks were Tell me what the base rock was.
But it had a lot of crystal in it.
Sandstone?
Granite?
Was it granite?
Whatever it was, some kind of red granite, somebody says.
But whatever that rock was, apparently it had a lot of crystals in it.
Now, the nature of crystals is if you compress them, they create electricity.
I'm sorry, quartz.
Quartz, not crystals.
Quartz.
Quartz, quartz, quartz, not crystals.
So there's quartz in the rock.
When you compress quartz, it turns into electricity.
Now, if you were to have a quartz watch and you shook it, the shaking itself would be enough to create electricity to run your watch.
Yeah, the piezoelectric process.
Now apparently at least one of the pyramids, maybe all of them, have an aquifer underneath.
And the aquifer would act to create noise.
And the noise would travel up through the chambers and create a vibration.
And the vibration that it would create would activate the quartz, because any movement of the quartz creates that little bit of electricity.
And because the pyramids are massive, It sums up all those, you know, tiny little electrical signals until you have a massive electrical power plant.
And apparently there's some indication that the top of the pyramid was gold.
You know, sort of like an electrical conductor situation.
Now here's the fun part.
Did you know that inventor Nikolai Tesla had plans to create a A generator that would send you electricity through the air so you didn't need power cables.
Did you know that?
Did you know that he built one and it worked?
So he could stand across the field with just a light bulb in his hand and the light bulb would light up using the electricity that had flown through the air from his power plant at a distance.
It wasn't hypothetical.
He actually built it and it worked.
So he went to J.P.
Morgan and he said to him, J.P.
Morgan, can you give me some money for this?
Because J.P.
Morgan was the richest guy.
And J.P.
Morgan said no.
Do you know why?
Because J.P.
Morgan owned the competing form of electricity.
Westinghouse.
He owned the companies that made telephone poles, copper wires.
He owned the companies that made every part of the process of what you see as our modern grid.
So he said no.
And Tesla never built his machine.
So it looks like the pyramids are actually a Tesla, you know, in the form of Tesla, kind of a power generating device that was designed to send electricity through the air to some recipient.
Which would also explain why the, you know, the pyramids are largely in one area.
Just like we would build a second power plant where a current power plant is.
I mean, you would put them where you already had one, but you needed a little more.
So, I'm actually kind of persuaded by that theory.
I'm not going to say it's 100% true, but I am now persuaded that there probably was a civilization that was advanced, came before us, and has died out.
How did they learn that thousands of years ago?
The idea would be that there was once an advanced civilization that was not related necessarily to the ancient Egyptians.
But rather there was somebody who knew how to do this stuff and maybe had power over them or influence and worked with the locals because they needed a lot of labor to do this stuff.
Now I have another theory.
If it's true that the pyramids were about vibration, which that's the theory, that it had to vibrate at a certain level in order to put out the electricity, and so that the entire design was to cause vibration of a specific type.
If the ancients who built that were big on vibration, do you think they could have used vibration to cut the rocks?
In other words, could you, let's say you had a saw or a wire, I don't know, something like that, and you just used vibrations, could you vibrate it enough that it would make a clean slice through a rock?
I don't know.
Just a question.
I've never seen anybody try it, but if they were capable enough to create the pyramids as a power source, Would they, and using vibration, would they also know enough how to use vibration to cut the rock?
Maybe?
Maybe there's an exact vibration that cuts rock.
How about that?
If you were to try every kind of vibration against a rock with, you know, some kind of cutting tool, do you think it would be the same at every vibration?
I'll bet not.
I'll bet there's some vib... Oh, you think it would be?
High-pressure water can cut steel.
Yeah, I've also thought about the high-pressure water.
Because they could do that, right?
So here's how the ancients could create a high-pressure water cannon.
Because we know they could move large rocks.
How would they do it?
Just put large rocks on top of a container of water, the large rock would push it down and put pressure on it, and then they've got a little hose thing, and the pressure comes out because there's a giant rock on top of the water, you know, with a seal.
So could the ancients have built a powerful high-pressure water cannon?
I think they could have.
Yeah, I think they could have.
It would be hard to get the The nozzle to work, if they didn't have good metal, I suppose.
But if they had a gold top on their pyramid, they knew how to work with metal a little bit.
Well, OK, maybe they had electricity, so they just had power tools.
Maybe that's it.
Maybe they had the flex hose.
I just bought one of those.
They have no pictures, so they never documented it.
All right.
What do you think of that theory?
Would that explain everything?
To me, that answers all the questions.
Oh, no?
Doesn't explain everything?
What would be unexplained by it?
The Y-files?
Oh, I think?
Is that what I was talking about?
Was that the Y-files?
That might be the one I'm talking about.
It had a what or a Y in the name.
Dunning-Kruger.
I'm not sure what sense you're using that.
it.
Stones are still a mystery, yes.
Don't need volume, only elevation.
Oh, that's true.
Check the hieroglyphics.
Yeah, the hieroglyphics, apparently there are no hieroglyphics on any pyramids that show how the big rocks were moved.
Can you believe that?
The most impressive, amazing part of building a pyramid is how do you move those big rocks, and there's not a single hieroglyphic that shows them moving any big rocks.
Wouldn't that be like the most likely thing to be on the wall?
It's too dumb.
There's no...
Yeah, there's also no pictures of the leaders on the walls, which would suggest they're not burial tombs.
Canals and sluice gates.
Yes, so one theory is that they used canals and sluice gates to float the rocks.
I saw the video on how they did that.
That was a reasonably good hypothesis.
Yeah, that was a reasonably good hypothesis.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I needed to talk about today.
Was there any story I missed?
Anything in the news that you wish I had talked about?
Everything is frequency and vibration, you're right.
Transgester, that was just a meme.
Sphinx is older than the pyramids.
Yeah, the Sphinx is.
Now correct me if I'm wrong.
Did I see that there's more than one Sphinx?
There's the Egyptian Sphinx, but there's at least one other Sphinx somewhere, right?
There's one great one, but there are other ones.
Yeah.
Las Vegas.
I think the fact that there are other sphinxes built in the ancient times suggests that there's some common civilization that touched the primitives.