God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of human civilization.
If you'd like your experience to go up, unlike the stock market, to go up to levels that you can't even believe, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice, or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
A thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now.
Go. Go. Life is complete.
Sort of.
Well, you're probably saying to yourself, Is the world going to disappear?
Are we all dead?
No, you'll be fine.
You'll be fine.
We'll get to all the economics and the politics and all that.
But the most important story of the day, if you haven't heard it, I'm going to call it RFK Jr.
and the Dead Bear.
If you haven't seen this on social media yet, go search for RFK Jr.
and the Bear.
I don't want to ruin the whole story, but I'll give you the beginning part, and then I'll tell you that it just gets better.
So the beginning part is that I guess some automobile hit a bear and killed it.
And RFK Jr.
was somehow in the neighborhood and thought, hey, I don't want to waste a completely good dead bear.
I could have it skinned and I could use that bear skin for something.
And by the way, I could, you know, the law of the land allowed him to make bear steaks.
And so he could actually eat it.
So he thought, I'm not going to waste this dead bear.
So he put it in his car.
That's right.
He put a dead bear in his car, but then he had things to do.
And he had a meeting, and then he had to go to the airport, and his plan to take care of the bear in the appropriate way was thwarted by his own schedule.
And so, being the creative man that he is, he came up with another plan of what to do with the dead bear.
Now, I'm not going to ruin it for you.
The only thing I'm going to tell you is that if you start listening to the story, do not bail out before the end.
You're going to want to, because the story goes on a little ways, but trust me, you've got to follow it to the end.
It's one of the best stories in any domain I've ever heard about anything.
It's just so weirdly beautiful that, you know, it's sort of a perfect slice of life.
So definitely make sure you listen to the RFK Jr.
and the Dead Bear story.
Anyway, there's yet another technology for extracting water, clean water out of the air, even in dry climates.
It's self-sustainable, runs on solar power, and you just put it outdoors and it makes water forever with no maintenance whatsoever.
No maintenance!
It just sits there making water out of the air.
Now that's pretty cool.
That's pretty cool.
We might all need that someday.
All right, you all want to talk about the stock market, and what's happening, and Japan's having some issues, and blah, blah, blah.
Here's the bottom line.
How many of you didn't know there was going to be a correction?
Didn't every single one of you who invest say to yourself, oh, it's one of those times that the market's getting a little out of itself?
I thought everybody knew it, and that a 10-20% correction was pretty much guaranteed.
Isn't it the way it always goes?
So, here's my take on it.
It looks totally normal to me, but of course, with these stories, there's always stories of the cause, right?
There's always something, oh, this caused it, and it did, in the sense that it caused the current thinking that will last a little while.
So one of the things is this, uh, apparently because Japan had something like zero interest rates forever.
Uh, a lot of people in Japan were borrowing because the interest rates were basically zero and then they would use it to speculate in other currencies, et cetera.
And, uh, it's the sort of thing that can catch up to you.
And so the stock market in Japan took a dump, but not like the end of the world dump.
Just a good serious correction.
I think it was 12% down, uh, the last time I checked, but it's bouncing around it.
If the only thing that happened is Japan had a 10 to 20% correction and the rest of the world did too.
Most of that would come back and it would turn into maybe down five or 10% for the year.
It'd be kind of normal.
So what are the beauties of being my age?
Is that having been to this cycle a bunch of times, it all looks the same.
So I don't think there's necessarily anything big that changed except I don't know what to do about the debt.
But the current problems are probably somewhat because Japan had a special situation.
And then, of course, we're going to look for all the other reasons, such as a potential war with Iran.
We'll talk about that.
But if Iran decides to go big in their revenge against Israel for killing that Hamas guy on their territory, if they decide to go big and activate Hezbollah and Hamas and Syria and all their little proxies and things get out of hand, it could lead to a close in the Straits of Hormuz and then suddenly
Everybody who depends on that oil is in trouble, and one of those countries would be Japan.
So Japan's got sort of a double whammy.
Something about the yen, but also something about the supply of oil.
Two things that matter a lot to a country that doesn't produce enough oil on its own.
And then on top of that, we hear the stories about Warren Buffett sold more than half of all of his apple stock.
And people are saying, what does he know that we don't know he's cashing out?
To which I say, well that's probably true that he's getting more into cash because he's expecting there'll be a correction.
But I think a bigger reason would be that Apple went up so much since he bought it that by selling more than half of it, he just gets back to the amount he bought in the first place.
So I think all he's doing is rebalancing his portfolio.
If you had one stock, and of many, that was your star performer, and for many years it just was crazy, at some point you can't have that be, you know, 50% of your whole portfolio.
You have to trim it.
Now that's why I did it.
I think I told you I sold my Apple stock earlier, several months ago.
And the reason I did it several months ago is partly because of AI, because I thought Apple didn't have an AI strategy that was visible.
It could turn out they have the best AI strategy of all time, which would be consistent with their history.
But it opened up an uncertainty.
Here's a little investment wisdom from Warren Buffett.
It's the one I used to sell Apple stock, so it's not surprisingly he did it too.
So the reason I sold was because of Warren Buffett's advice, not recently, but advice that I saw from him maybe 25 years ago.
And the advice was, if you buy a stock and you've got a reason for why you bought it, don't sell it unless the reason changes.
Which sounds dumb, doesn't it?
You think, well, I don't know, that's not saying much.
But here's the example.
I bought Apple stock because nothing could stop it.
They had basically a monopoly position for half of the phones.
If you got into that Apple environment, it was hard to ever leave.
So it was almost like they were just sucking money out of my pocket.
And I thought, well, if they can just suck money out of my pocket and there's almost nothing I can do about it because I'm so hooked on their products, maybe other people have the same problem.
So I owned the stock when it seemed like a monopoly.
When there wasn't much that could go wrong.
But the introduction of AI changes everything.
It might make them twice as much money.
It might.
But you can't predict it anymore.
So the reason I bought it was that it was so predictable.
And it was so safe.
And then it grew until it was too much of my portfolio.
It was like just too much of a risk for one company.
And so I did what Warren Buffett did, exactly what he did.
I reduced my risk in that one company because the reason I bought it was now different.
And the reason that Warren Buffett bought Apple was also different.
And so he ended up trimming it.
So two reasons to trim.
One is it grew so much, it's too much of his portfolio.
That would be all the reason he needed.
He doesn't need any other reason.
And the other would be the reason he bought it changed.
So, you would reduce his holdings.
So, I don't think that's necessarily signaling some big problem, because Warren Buffett often says that the safest place is the American stock market.
Yeah, where else are you going to put your money?
I mean, the problem is not that the stock market is good or bad.
The problem is, where else are you going to put money?
So Warren just says, well, just leave it there and it'll correct and you'll be glad you left it there.
So most of his money is still in the stock market.
That's the more important statement.
So Rasmussen had a poll, 45% of US likely voters think the Biden economic policies have been generally successful.
So it's less than half.
But 53% think his economic policies, including Harris, I guess, would be unsuccessful.
Including 40% who say Biden has been very unsuccessful.
So that's not too far from just the size of the parties.
But it looks like the independents are definitely leaning toward Trump on the economy.
It looks like all the Democrats are for Biden and all the Republicans are for Trump, but the independents seem strongly leaning toward Trump on economy.
Speaking of Trump and the economy, here's something that Trump said recently that I only just read today.
According to Forbes, Trump was talking to Fox Business not too long ago.
He said, and I quote, crypto is a very interesting thing.
Quote, maybe we'll pay off our $35 trillion, hand them a little crypto check, right?
We'll hand them a little Bitcoin and wipe out our $35 trillion.
Is that a thing?
How in the world do you just pay off the national debt with Bitcoin?
Now, you might remember that I was asking this question publicly, not necessarily about Bitcoin, but about crypto.
Can you just invent a crypto that is like
Creating free money and then it pays off the debt, but then people said no Scott if you just create money It wouldn't matter what form you create it if you can exchange it for the regular dollar You've created an inflation and then I saw another opinion, which was much smarter Which said yes, you can pay off the the dollar debt with crypto you know you just buy a bunch of crypto and
In the US government's name, you wait for it to go up in value, like Bitcoin just naturally goes up in value, and then you basically use it to pay off the debt.
And I said, well, wouldn't that cause inflation so that the dollar part would be inflated into infinity?
And the expert said, yes, the dollars would just become useless.
But it's going to happen anyway.
In other words, inflation will make your regular dollars useless, so it doesn't matter that if you sped it up a little bit with crypto and just made all your debt go away, because the debt would go away from inflation anyway.
Now, that seems a little extreme.
But let me read, I just saw before I went live here, John Thompson on the X platform, who may be listening right now, did a little analysis about what that would look like if you use Bitcoin to pay off the debt.
And the idea would be, let's see if I understand this, let's say the US government decided to use a bunch of dollars to buy a bunch of Bitcoin.
So the U.S.
government, of course, has to borrow to do anything.
But let's say it took $270 billion and just bought a bunch of Bitcoin.
And then you just use your predictions for the natural growth of value of Bitcoin, since it's a limited thing with a demand.
And you just say, okay, in 10 or 20 years, Bitcoin will go up so much, it will equal the debt.
And then you'd have a way to pay it off.
But of course, that's where the inflation kicks in.
So it's not a clean, it's not like free money.
Your regular dollars would be inflated away.
But there is some kind of an idea that if the government used its dollars to buy Bitcoins, it would be like an investment.
So let's say if the government, instead of buying Bitcoin, let's say the government bought the stocks.
Just thinking this through.
I'm not suggesting it, I'm just thinking it through.
If the government bought a bunch of stocks, and then the stocks went up in value, and the value was so much that it could pay off the national debt, would that create inflation?
Does anybody know?
So here's the question.
In this specific case, because Bitcoin has this unique ability, That there'll be limited supply by design, but yet the demand could go up for a while.
The value of a Bitcoin, one Bitcoin, should go up quite a bit in the natural course of life.
So, how is that different than just an investment?
Is it?
If the US government bought something that was just worth $35 trillion after a number of years, but they didn't pay that much, Would that not create money that they could use to pay off the debt?
And if they did, would it be inflationary?
I don't know.
So I'm in territory that I'm not an expert in.
But I'll say that Trump floated the idea and people were smart to say, yeah, I mean, it's going to happen anyway.
Your dollars are going to get deflated into nothing, no matter what you do.
So, can you see a way that this ends?
I'm not so sure.
It's a fascinating conversation, and I love especially that Trump wades into it.
I don't know that he completely understands the situation like most of us don't, but the fact that he's even noodling on it is kind of interesting.
Very interesting.
All right.
This is a poll from You gov, according to the Gateway Pundit, 92% of voters believe Kamala Harris is to blame for covering Joe Biden's obvious mental decline.
I feel like that's a attack vector that Trump hasn't fully exploited.
Meaning that pretty much everybody believes that she was covering up one of the biggest secrets in political life.
And a bad one.
Like a really bad one.
I don't know how she can explain that.
There's nothing she can say about that.
That's not going to sound like bullshit.
So that's a strong attack because remember her attack, uh, Harris's attack on Trump is that character thing.
Oh, he's a liar.
He's a liar, but she's the biggest liar we've seen.
It's one thing to be a salesperson liar, where you say I was better on this and I was better on that.
And the economy was great, even if it's an exaggeration.
Right.
Those are sort of salesperson lies.
But to actually cover up that the president can't function.
That's a really, really deep lie.
That's the kind that could get the entire country destroyed.
The stuff that Trump lies about.
Well, here's the test for you.
All right.
Here's a good test.
I've never seen anybody ask this question.
And maybe there's like a clever answer to it that I haven't anticipated.
So we'll try this live.
Everybody knows, everybody who's a Democrat, believes this to be true.
That Trump's lying is bad for everything.
Right?
That Trump doesn't pass the fact checks and therefore that's going to be bad for the America if he's in charge.
That's the claim.
All this lying is very bad for America.
It's obvious.
All this lying, bad, bad, bad.
Here's my question.
Name one thing that broke During Trump's first term because of his lying.
Now it has to be because of the lie, not for any other reason.
Because, you know, things break.
But what was, within four years, namely the one thing that went wrong because Trump failed the fact check?
Anything?
Can you think of anything?
Now compare that to Compare that to Harris hiding Biden's situation.
That was bad even for Democrats because it constrained their choices.
They didn't get a regular primary situation to, you know, to come up with the best person.
So I would say that Harris's lying about Biden's health was good for Harris and bad for the country in a way that even Democrats can see.
Because now they're running Harris because they didn't have time to do a proper primary, which could have gotten them somebody who would just easily beat Trump, perhaps.
But Harris might be uniquely unable to beat him because she hasn't talked yet in public.
As soon as she gets some tough questions, we don't know where this is going to go.
So it looks like she is behind the biggest, most dangerous and damaging lie in American history.
I can't think of any lie ever told by the government.
I suppose you could get into the pandemic stuff, but that was lies by the experts as well as the government.
It seems to be the biggest lie I've ever seen.
That's obviously damaging.
It's obviously damaging to Democrats because they didn't get their first choice for a candidate.
Presumably.
Well, there's a new peer-reviewed scientific paper that people are taking seriously that says that, you know how you thought the government told you that CO2 increases increased temperature?
Do you remember the first thing I said about climate change when I didn't know anything about it well over 25 years ago or something?
And I remember hearing that the fear was that CO2 rising happens at roughly the same time as temperatures, so the CO2 must be causing the temperatures.
Do you remember what I said?
I said the same thing I always say for every study.
Well, you showed correlation, but how do we know it doesn't work the other way?
Because I'm pretty sure that warming also creates more plants.
And, you know, anyway, it just seemed to me that warming probably was associated with more CO2.
And sure enough, this new peer-reviewed paper, which doesn't mean it's true.
Remember, peer-reviewed doesn't mean much, because you can always get somebody to say, oh yeah, that looks good to me.
But they seem to have shown, according to them, that it's very clear, both on an annual level, a decade level, and a hundred year level, on any scale you look at, it's obvious that the temperature came before the CO2 increase.
Do you think that's true?
What if that is borne out by other studies?
It suggests that maybe the entire climate thing is ready to just disappear, and that it was never real.
And I think the pandemic is what might be the final thing, because before the pandemic, I think people were quite poised to say that science was always right, And people who were going to complain about 98% of the scientists obviously were wrong.
Because I mean, 98% of scientists can't be wrong, right?
And then we learned, oh yeah, not only can 97% of scientists be wrong, it would be ordinary.
That's the big deal.
The big deal is not that it's possible that 98% of scientists could be wrong.
The big deal is that we now know that's ordinary.
That's new.
That's new.
And we also know the mechanism.
The mechanism that if the experts have any kind of a boss, an employer, or any kind of a funding request, that the employer and whoever does funding will be weak links, and they will have to do whatever is the standard narrative.
So since the boss has to go along with the standard narrative, it's too risky for them not to, and they have to go with the narrative to get funding, and almost everybody has a boss, or needs funding, you can get to 98% of experts lying so easily, it requires nothing unusual.
They simply have to have jobs.
And they do.
The only thing you need to know, Is that the experts work for somebody, and you can guarantee that they will conform to the narrative even if they don't believe it.
So now that you know that for sure, that's not hypothetical, it's not some weird theory I concocted, it's observable every single time.
Well, that's gotta hurt your climate change claims.
Because that's all about the 98% say it's true.
And now we know that means absolutely nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
All right.
There's this weird story, Undercover DC has this story, that Tulsi Gabbard was being surveilled by some division of the TSA that follows people around who are suspected terrorists.
So if you're a suspected terrorist, but you're still allowed to fly, There's some group within the TSA that will literally follow you around.
So they'll follow you around when you're waiting for the flight.
They might even be on the flight to keep an eye on you.
I didn't know any of this.
Did you know this was a thing?
And then some whistleblower says that Tulsi Gabbard is one of the people that they're following around.
It's the Quiet Skies program.
Now, here's what I think about this story.
There's something wrong with this story.
If you buy this as a complete story, I think that's a mistake.
There's obviously something we don't know about the story.
It might be something terrible.
It doesn't mean that it's something innocent.
It could be even worse than the story sounds.
But we don't know what's going on here.
They didn't simply decide that Tulsi Gabbard is the most dangerous person in the country, so they're going to follow her around, and why would you follow her around?
How would that help anybody?
Suppose you were anti-Tulsi Gabbard, and so you're going to follow her around in the airport?
For what?
Unless she has an actual terrorist device with her, which she doesn't, how is that going to help anybody do anything?
How is that even anti-Tulsi?
So none of it makes sense.
So I'm going to say put a pin in this story and wait to see if you learn anything useful, because there's something missing from the story.
I don't know what it is, but I don't buy it on its surface.
Over in Great Britain, apparently there's a bunch of white people rioting.
They're not even Antifa.
They're being described as Far-right extremists.
And they're causing a lot of trouble and burning stuff and looting stores.
And it seems to be mostly driven by an anti-immigration policy reaction.
And so I asked myself, how big do you think this will get?
The anti-immigration white people rioting in Great Britain.
You think that's going to get bigger?
Or do you think there's maybe a few weeks of trouble in the summer and then everybody goes back to work?
I don't know.
So far, let's see, there have only been 150 arrests.
It's mostly Islamophobic and anti-immigration, they're calling it, because there was some knife attack that killed three young girls and a Taylor Swift.
A themed party, but I think there was some fake news about it which made people think it was immigrants and maybe it wasn't.
And so things turned violent.
So most of the major cities in Britain are affected.
Here's what I think.
I think Britain's already done.
I think the immigration policy has basically destroyed whatever they had as a coherent culture.
So I don't know what's gonna happen to it, but it won't be Great Britain.
You know, it's not gonna be run by a bunch of white people.
So I don't think the white people have the desire to be violent enough that it would make a difference.
I don't think anything short of violence would change their situation.
I don't recommend it, so I'm not recommending it.
I'm just stating the obvious.
Anything short of major violence will keep things exactly the way they are, which would be the end of Great Britain.
So I think you could write them off.
There's nothing that looks like there's a counterforce big enough.
There might be a lot of rioting, but It's not a big enough counterforce.
So, anything short of massive violence will make no difference whatsoever, and I don't expect it to be massive.
So, I think it's the last whining before they go under, actually.
Here's an interesting update.
Every single day we get another little dribble about the Secret Service failure to protect Trump at that rally.
And the Muse account on X is summarizing this.
So apparently in Pennsylvania, because it's an open carry area, it would have been completely legal for any citizen who had illegal access to a gun, including, you know, a serious looking rifle, to simply put it over your shoulder and walk around directly outside the rally.
Did you know that?
If you'd brought your own rifle, and had it, you know, I think, external, I mean, you could just put it over your shoulder, you could have stood right outside the rally.
And the Secret Service wouldn't be able to do a damn thing.
Because it would be outside the security zone, and it would be completely illegal to have your own legal gun.
So, part of what, and who knows how many times this story will change, But part of it is that they may have seen a guy with a gun on a roof, and they knew that if they shot him it would be murder.
Because he might be legal to have a gun, and being on a roof isn't illegal.
I mean, it might be trespassing, but it's not shoot you illegal.
So that they would have to actually wait until he pointed and shot.
I don't know if pointing is enough.
Seems like it should be.
But their hesitation was that it might have been a citizen with a legal gun.
Now, does that sound real to you?
Doesn't sound real to me.
Nope.
Nope.
I think there's something being hidden.
There's some indication that somebody lied again.
Everything about this is sketchy.
Why was this the first time that they ever even had countersnipers?
So the first time they ever had countersnipers, they needed countersnipers.
That's a pretty big coincidence, isn't it?
The first time they've used countersnipers for a non-presidential thing.
And then they're claiming that the reason they don't have the recordings of the conversations of the Secret Service during the event is that they were not recorded Because it would not be normal to record unless it's a president or vice president.
And since he's only a candidate at the moment, it was not their deal to record it.
To which I say, what?
In what world wouldn't it make sense to have a recording if any action happened?
If you're going to have a sniper team, it's because you think things are important.
You don't bring the sniper team You know, the anti-sniper team.
You don't bring the snipers unless you think something important might happen.
And if you think something important might happen, why in the world would you have a rule that says you delete your evidence right after it happens?
Or don't save it?
None of that makes sense.
Yeah, so everything about that story is not holding together.
Balaji Sreenivasan warns us, as he has before, that our military drones, actually all of our drones in the United States, are primarily made in China.
So even if the drone doesn't say made in China, it's full of parts that are made in China.
So we don't have an independent manufacturing facility for drones, the most important future medical or future military device.
And it turns out that almost all of our other military equipment is also at least partly made in China.
Now, when I first heard this story, my first reaction was, oh my god, this means China could beat us in a war because they would just, you know, wear us out and we'd run out of resources, because China makes it.
And then I thought to myself, why would China ever want a war?
You know, we tend to put I guess an American spin on things?
You know, America likes starting wars.
We're like really big on starting wars.
So you naturally assume that other countries might be big on starting wars too.
Right?
But what exactly would China ever want to start a war for?
I think whatever's going to happen in Taiwan, they can control by not invading.
They can just wait it out.
And it looks like that's what they're going to do.
But even if they invaded Taiwan, I feel like that wouldn't become a general war.
It might get really messy in Taiwan, but I feel like it would still be limited.
I can't think of any scenario In which China as a country would want to be in something like a general war with the United States, or anybody else.
Anybody else.
Because we don't have a border, and we have so much economic connections, it would be devastating for both.
Why in the world would we ever have a war?
And there's a similar but different situation with Russia.
Russia definitely doesn't want to have a war with the United States, even though it's sort of in one, indirectly.
But with Russia, we do suspect that Putin has some ambitions, you know, to control other countries, and that's, you know, that's war-like.
But China seems to already control everything except Taiwan, and in the long run that's only going to go in one direction, so they're patient.
I think we should just admit that the U.S.
and China don't have any reason to be at war, and maybe act like that.
And I don't see that ever changing, actually.
So of all the things that I'd worry about in the world, at the very bottom is a war with China.
It's just the bottom.
I would worry about everything before I'd worry about that.
They just don't want to.
And we don't want to, and we have no reason, and it doesn't look like anything would ever change that would make us want to have a general war.
Anyway, so remember I told you that Josh Shapiro seemed like the likely candidate choice for Vice President for Kamala Harris?
And as of today, the news is still saying it could be any one of the people we've talked about.
So, it's not a dumb deal.
Some people say that the Josh Shapiro story was Intentionally leaked just to see how people would take it?
I don't think so.
That assumes a little bit of extra cleverness and capability than I think we have.
I think it was just a mistake.
I also think that choices of vice president can often be up in the air until like 24 hours before the announcement.
I think that it just goes back and forth and like, how about this one?
How about that one?
Like right until the last minute.
So even if there was some point where Josh Shapiro was the number one preference, it's not real until it's real.
Everything's totally hard to guess.
But allegedly tomorrow, Harris might announce who that person is.
We'll see.
Um, Breitbart is reporting that, uh, Kamala Harris is backpedaling on yet another one of her radical policy At one point, She wanted a federal job guarantee so that everybody who was unemployed could at least have a federal job.
Doing what?
I don't know.
But now she says, absolutely not.
She's totally against that.
And part of me doesn't care when people change their minds about policies, especially if they're changing it from something crazy to something more mainstream, which would be a case here.
But, in this one weird situation, since we don't know who the president is, and we're watching Harris, who should be the one setting policy, running away from all of her old policy positions.
Now, do you think she's doing that?
Or do you think that there's somebody who runs Biden, who also runs her, and is telling her to go to the mainstream or they won't support her?
That's what it looks like.
So we really don't know who's running the country, and that's not hyperbole.
It's definitely not hyperbole.
We literally don't know who's running the country.
So that's bad.
And Zero Hedge is reporting that Russia might be aggressively behind the Houthis and Iran, may have already sent weapons to Iran, because the hypothesis Is that it would be good for Russia to drag the U.S.
into another larger regional war, because then we would have less will for war in general, and maybe we would settle with them a little faster.
So that seems at least, I would say on the surface, probably they're helping in some way.
They may be helping a lot less than they could, Which would make it look the opposite of the way it's reported.
So if, let's say, Iran was just really, really pressuring Russia to help, and Russia wanted to remain an ally with Iran, but didn't really want to create another big war, they might give them some stuff so they could say they did something, but not enough to make it a really big war.
So Russia probably has this narrow little window where they can help a little bit because they are allies with Iran, but they don't want to go overboard because there could be some pushback on that.
That would be severe.
So we'll see.
But like I said, no missiles flying yet.
There's some thought that if they try to overwhelm the Israeli defenses, that pure number of missiles would be too many for the Iron Dome to stop.
Bye.
But do you think Iran has the right risk profile to do a major damaging attack on an Israeli population center?
I think no.
I think no.
So I think that whatever Iran does may take longer than we thought, because they've got to really think this through, but will be maybe weirdly militarily focused.
I don't know that.
But if I were Iran, I would want to take out, let's say, a weapons depot or just some kind of asset, maybe even just the air defense assets.
So one possibility is that Iran will try to avoid population centers and go after a military target because it's less likely to escalate.
I don't know.
So, we'll see.
And then reports are that when colleges are back in session after the summer, the pro-Palestinian protests will just kick right back in.
So the U.S.
will be full of protesters as soon as college is back.
Do you believe that any protests in the United States are organic?
I don't.
I don't think that the United States has people who spontaneously go to the streets to protest anything.
There has to be an organizer or nothing happens.
And the organizer is almost always paid.
By somebody.
Either our government or another government.
So I just don't see any protests as real.
Now the opposite would be, you know, maybe some BLM stuff that jumped up because the news got everybody excited.
But even BLM was backed by billionaire money.
Anyway.
Wall Street Journal is reporting that Russia may have rushed that hostage deal with the U.S.
because it wanted to get it done before Trump got in office.
Joel Pollack had predicted that, and apparently the Wall Street Journal is confirming it, that the timing of it was not a coincidence.
It was to do it before the election.
Now, why would they do that?
Why would Russia care?
Do you think they want Biden to be in charge?
Do they prefer Biden so they make Biden look good by getting that done?
Is that what's going on?
Or could it be as simple as the fact that Trump says he doesn't give anything for hostages?
So maybe Russia said if we trade him now, we'll get a bunch of our prisoners back at the same time.
So that'll be good for us.
If we wait for Trump, Trump is going to say, give us our prisoners or we will sanction you to death.
And then they'd basically just have to cave and give him the prisoners.
So we don't know exactly what Putin's thinking, but I doubt he's... Well, maybe he did want to prop up the Biden-Harris group just because he thinks that they're weak.
Maybe.
Don't know.
But it does show that he didn't want, he wasn't really enthusiastic about a Trump presidency.
And that's got to be good for Trump.
Because the best thing that Trump could do is have an argument that Putin is working against Trump, and this would look like one of those situations.
All right, Elon Musk has reopened his lawsuit against ChatGPT.
According to Reuters.
So he's suing the OpenAI people, because remember, that's the group that he was part of with Sam Altman, and he was the original big money into OpenAI, because it was promised that it would be an open thing, not a commercial thing.
But then Microsoft got involved, and now it's a total commercial thing.
So Elon is suing.
I don't know if that's just for competitive reasons or what.
Anyway, so according to PGA Media, Biden's freezing these immigration flights where they were bringing in 30,000 citizens a month from places like Cuba and Haiti and Nicaragua and Venezuela.
And the reason they paused it Because there was a massive fraud alleged by the sponsors of the migrants.
So it wasn't the migrants themselves that were doing the fraud, but there were moneyed sponsors that were organizing it all.
And they have apparently been accused of some major fraud.
So that program's on hold.
Why did that program ever exist?
Not for any good reason for America.
No, it was either for electoral advantage for Democrats or something, but wasn't what was good for America, obviously.
Are you aware that the way our U.S.
government controls free speech is that there are all these, somebody called them pop-up industries, that are international groups Whose job it is to monitor the fact-checking of social media.
So, these are basically fake groups that will... Essentially, they're looking to get rid of alternative voices.
Anybody who's against the narrative?
So, basically conservatives.
So, this whole industry of fake pop-up fact-checkers, they're really just to stop conservatives.
And, you know, they'll always say it's about misinformation, but they only chase misinformation in one direction.
Yeah, these are the so-called NGOs, non-government organizations.
So it looks like the way the intelligence people in the U.S.
control free speech is by making sure that if you're an entity that requires advertising dollars to survive, they'll have some fake entities say that you're a liar, And then they'll talk to the biggest advertising groups, and they'll say to the advertising groups, hey, these big entities that are independent, but not really independent, they're fake, say that this group is bad apples.
So you should not give any of your advertising dollars to these groups.
So they can basically bankrupt any group that's making money and saying things they don't like to hear.
Now, let me ask you this question after some time has gone by.
How many of you think that I got cancelled from my Dilber job because of what I said?
Versus how many of you think it was to make sure that I didn't have money and that I would drop out of being a public figure?
It's kind of coincidental that there's this entire structure whose job it is to bankrupt people on the right, such as Alex Jones got rid of Tucker Carlson.
Roseanne lost her job.
Yeah, you do notice that there's this big coincidence that whenever there is a conservative who has some source of money, that source of money will go away because it will be attacked.
Does that happen in the other direction too?
Yeah.
So I don't believe anything about my cancellation.
I don't believe that had anything to do with anything I said.
Because I've actually said that before.
I don't know.
I said exactly the same thing in public before.
It's just that when it's taken in context, nobody really even shrugs.
It's only out of context that it sounds alarming.
By the way, if anybody is new to this and says, what do you mean it's out of context?
You said black people are a hate group.
What are you talking about?
I was there.
I saw it.
I saw the video.
No, the context is that in the context of ESG and CRT and DEI, white people are being framed by the common narrative to be the problem.
They're the ones that have the money and resources and you should take it from them because they have it illegitimately Anytime you're in that situation you want to get away from it if you can Because you literally have been targeted If you're being targeted where you live, you should try to live somewhere else if you have an option and likewise Because there's so much racial racial Animosity that's been you know drummed up by the bad people in the world
That if you just have co-workers who are diverse, your odds of getting sued go through the roof.
Now I like diversity, but here's a fact.
A white man will never sue me for discrimination.
That's just a fact.
So if I happen to be working with mostly white men, one thing we wouldn't worry about is anybody suing us.
If you work with a diverse group, your odds of being sued if you're the white guy and you're in charge Are really, really high.
Really, really high.
So you would want to get away from any situation where you're at high risk, and go where you have lower risk.
Everybody agrees with that strategy, that you should go where you have lower risk, all things being equal.
So, if you looked at what I said in context, and of course I didn't get to complete the context because I get cancelled so quickly, But everybody who's a regular viewer of my stream knew what the context was.
Yeah, these are purely punitive actions against people who go against the narrative.
That's what it is.
You do not live in a country with free speech or anything like it.
There's a concern now that AI will be so good That people will prefer AI as companions and even lovers compared to humans.
And it will be further destruction of humankind, not just reproduction, but our ability to even relate to each other.
Now, you may say to yourself, well, that's a little overblown.
I'm not going to fall in love with a robot.
Yes, you will.
Let me tell you just as clearly as I can.
Yes, AI and robots will have the ability to make you fall in love.
You do not have the ability to resist that.
Now, I'm not saying every single person, of course, but most people.
The average person will find that the AI that is good to them all the time and never tries to sabotage them, never tries to, you know, shit test them, you know, never is unavailable.
You're going to find that very appealing.
And AI is only just starting to get good.
It's not even good yet.
Wait till it gets good.
So my prediction is that AI will actually replace a lot of human contact.
I can't wait for mine, let me tell you.
I can't wait for my robot so I've got somebody to hang out with that doesn't give me any trouble.
It's like, oh, you're not going to gossip.
You're not going to say shit behind my back.
You're not going to change your mind.
You're not lying when you say you want to do something or don't want to do something.
It's going to be kind of refreshing.
And some people are talking about using AI to replace departed partners.
So there's going to be some number of young enough widows who don't remarry.
They're just going to replace their beloved with a robot.
So that's going to happen.
That will definitely happen.
And the sex will be even better than people.
If you haven't seen the Braai AI sex model, he's combined AI with a sex toy.
I won't be more specific than that.
But if your AI can talk to you, and the sex toy part feels as good or better than a human would feel, you're gonna feel like you have a human relationship.
And it will activate your oxytocin and all your good chemicals.
So yeah, it's a thing.
It's a big thing.
And it's gonna dominate civilization within a year.
Within a year, people will be just fully into their computer friends.
All right, now let me, if anybody joined late, here's what I think about the economy.
The economy is fine.
We have a debt problem, but short of the debt problem, what's happening now is temporary, normal.
Stock markets go down 10% routinely, and sometimes they go down 20%, and then they come back.
So every single time our stock market has gone down, it's come back.
Every single time.
So this probably won't be different.
There's nothing structurally different except the debt, which is not what's driving the current problem.
So maybe we have to get on the other side of the Iran response.
Maybe we need a president who can drill more oil.
But I think we'd be fine.
We'll be fine.
Here's what I recommend.
Don't look at your portfolio.
So, I'm not even going to open my app today.
I don't know what my net worth is.
Don't want to know.
Right?
I'll just wait.
Yeah, the odds of it going up if we get, let's say, a Trump presidency, pretty good.
Pretty good.
Um, Poon said what?
I want to see that, uh, if you, what, what, all right.
I was looking for a comment, but it went by too fast.
All right, everybody.
Don't panic.
You'll be fine.
But the news likes to scare you, so there'll be a lot of scare stories today.
And I don't know what else you would put your money in if you were afraid of the market.
Yeah, what I always say is if the entire market goes down and stays there, nothing's worth anything.
It's not like your real estate isn't going to be worth anything if the stock market goes to zero.
Anyway, so I'm just going to keep my money where it is.
Not going to do anything differently.
And I will talk to you tomorrow for everybody else.
And I'm going to see if I can go private with just the local subscribers.
And, uh, I will say thank you to everybody on Axin YouTube and Rumble.
