Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Grok, Elon Musk, George Stephanopoulos, ABC Settles Trump Defamation Lawsuit, Nathan Wade WH Collusion, Daniel Penny, President Trump, Ann Selzer Non-Denial, MSNBC Chris Hayes, Vaccine Safety, Preference Cascade, Mystery Drones Multiple Possibilities, 5th Generation Warfare, Michael Flynn Drones Hypothesis, Biden Pardons Extravaganza, Richard Grenell, Devin Nunes, Hamas Hostages, iPhone Complaints, Apple Innovation, Traumatic Memory Suppression, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
A cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine of the day thing makes everything bitter.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens.
Now...
Go.
Thank you, Paul.
I never feel totally comfortable.
I see you tell me that the audio and video are working.
All right.
Would you be surprised to know that there's a new study that says coffee is good for you?
I know.
It's not like I don't have one every single day.
But this one is...
Coffee consumption correlates with better cognitive performance and less inflammation if you've had a stroke, according to the American Heart Association.
So if you have a stroke and you wake up in the hospital, ask for coffee.
Also, if you didn't have a stroke and you wake up in the hospital, ask for coffee.
Also, if you didn't go to the hospital and you feel perfectly healthy, ask for coffee.
Alright, I think you get the picture.
Did you know that low levels of vitamin D is a big cause of chronic inflammation?
So if you put your vitamin D right into your coffee, Your inflammation doesn't have a chance.
You know what I wonder?
Do we really know how much vitamin D is the right amount?
Do you ever wonder, does every single human need the same amount?
Like, what's going on with that?
So, anyway, it'll cause your inflammation to go down.
And it might, if you have inflammation, it can lead to type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and autoimmune disorders.
So, make sure you've got lots of vitamin D. Here's the good news, that obesity dipped in the U.S. for adults for the first time in more than a decade.
Let me see.
Let me check to see if the simulation, did the simulation write this, or was it a legitimate news entity?
Let's see.
What's the name of the reporter who's talking about people losing weight?
Denise Chow, C-H-O-W. Okay, really?
The reporter who is writing about eating too much?
Her last name is Chow?
Come on!
That's too on the nose for the simulation.
But yeah, this is mostly because of the Ozempic.
How many of you have noticed Ozempic people?
Have you noticed you can kind of spot them?
There may be people in your life who, for the entire time you've known them, have had some struggle keeping the weight off, and now they just look great.
And you say, hmm, I think that's a little Ozempic right there.
So I'll tell you one thing.
I definitely do not doubt that the Ozempic helps people lose weight.
No doubt about it.
In fact, it might be one of the most successful drugs in terms of the efficacy that I've ever seen.
I mean, it's amazing.
I do worry about any side effects, but I suppose we'll find out.
Now, how many of you are on X and saw that I posted a shirtless selfie of myself at the beach that looked a little too good?
Did anybody notice that?
And I put at the top, haters will say this is AI. And of course it was AI. I hate to break it to you.
But I didn't think anybody would believe it.
But based on the comments, Probably a good 25% of the people who saw it thought that I'd been really working out well.
And the photo, I'm not going to show it to you because some people just puke when they see it.
The photo was basically somebody who really, really worked out a lot.
And I'm pretty fit for my age, but no, that wasn't me.
So in case you're wondering, but here's the reason for bringing it up at all.
Oh, there it is.
It's in the comments.
If you're on Locals, you can see it in the comments.
What's interesting is that people ran it through AI to get AI to tell them if it was a real photo or AI. And I think people ran it through Grok For Grok to determine if it was AI? And Grok said, no, probably not.
70% chance it's real.
I think it was made by Grok.
I think Grok made an image that was so good that Grok couldn't tell that Grok made it.
I think that's what happened.
I didn't make the image myself, but I think it was Grok.
Anyway, there was a tornado In California, in a place called Scott's Valley.
Now, if you think to yourself, Scott, I didn't even know you had your own valley.
Well, I do, but that's not what this is.
There is a place called Scott's Valley that has nothing to do with me, which seems wrong.
It should have something to do with me.
But there was an actual tornado.
Some people say there was one that touched down here in California in 2005 or something.
But didn't make a lot of news, I guess.
So I still don't know if that freight train sound that I heard yesterday was a tornado trying to touch down where I live.
But I've never heard anything like it.
And some of the neighbors think that's what it might have been.
So I don't know.
Don't know.
It could have been just thunder that didn't sound like regular thunder for some reason.
Meanwhile, in Japan, they've developed a drug that can regrow human teeth, like in your body.
So you take a shot and your adult teeth grow back in, if they're not there, I guess.
But what if you already have adult teeth?
Does the new stuff push the old teeth out?
I have questions.
How can your body know when to grow a tooth and when not to?
Wouldn't it grow teeth everywhere and then just push your old ones out?
Like baby teeth get pushed out?
Well, I don't know that, but apparently it's a real thing.
It's already developed and it's already tested and they showed a reporter who was looking at her own teeth and was like, oh my god, there's two new teeth just started growing.
I don't know.
I'm not sure I totally believe that.
Now, the purpose is for people who have lost teeth.
The purpose is not for somebody who has already a full mouth of good teeth.
Anyway, I guess all it does is block a protein, and that's all it needed to do.
That's all it needed to do.
It was easy.
Meanwhile, the Malibu fire is...
Pretty, pretty bad.
It's been a few days now.
And it's threatening some Hollywood elites like Jay-Z, Beyonce, and Lady Gaga.
So many of them are evacuating their homes.
Mark Hamill was described as being stranded.
I don't think stranded, I hope.
I hope it doesn't mean that he can't get out.
I hope that's not what we're talking about.
But it sounds bad.
But I would like to point out that Have you ever thought to yourself, as I have, wouldn't it be great?
This is something I thought, let's say, a year ago.
I thought, wouldn't it be amazing to be Jay-Z? I mean, imagine what it's like.
You got all the money, you've married Beyonce, you're famous, you came from the streets, you made everything work despite all your obstacles in between, and He's not really having a good year, though.
So he's being dragged into, of course, the Diddy stuff, and he's got some accusations about him.
But now his house might be at risk of burning down.
That's like a really bad year.
So it makes you think maybe there's something to karma, and maybe there's something he did that he's getting paid for.
I don't know.
This is one of the reasons I always think that if the first part of your life was extra bad, then the universe owes you.
Has anybody tried that?
That's one of my reframes.
One of my reframes is that the universe just owes you if you had a bad childhood.
All right.
Grok, according to Brian Romelli, who knows a lot about AI... Grok is now beating OpenAI across the board.
So basically in all the metrics, it's beating it.
And then Elon weighed in on that post on X. And said that Grok 3 will be a major leap forward.
So Elon Musk starts late, because he had originally invested $50 million in OpenAI, and somehow Sam Altman and Microsoft found a way to turn his investment into their investment.
I still don't know how they pulled that off.
How do you take $50 million from somebody and turn it into your investment and it's not the investment of the person who invested $50 million?
How in the world did they pull that off?
But anyway, it looks like Musk is going to get his revenge.
So he starts late, says some kind of a world record for building a data center, He's already lapped the competition, and when he gets his latest upgrade, he'll probably have an advantage they can never catch up to.
How is that possible?
You know, I get the idea that Elon Musk is a good entrepreneur.
I get that he's a good engineer.
I get that he's good at a range of things that all come together for the things he does.
But really?
How in the hell Do you have yet another success like this so quickly?
It doesn't seem possible, does it?
Like, how could you dominate space, electric cars, satellites?
And then somebody says, AI is a big thing.
Oh, okay, well, give me nine months.
And then what?
I'm just making up that number.
But in nine months, he's leading the entire industry of the entire planet.
How does he do this?
This is really weird.
I guess a lot of you have had the same thought.
If anybody else in the world, literally anybody, literally anybody, this is not hyperbole, But literally anybody else on the whole 8 billion people on earth, any other person, if they were in charge of Doge, I would say, eh, it's not going to happen.
You know, they'll run into the brick wall, they'll find out it's impossible.
Can't be done.
Elon Musk is literally the only, only person on Earth, you know, and of course he's working with Vivek, so he's got, you know, two superpowers at least.
He's the only person that I would say to myself, you know what, I think that's going to work.
There's not a single other person on the whole frickin' world.
Pretty amazing.
But the fact that he made AI already leading in the field...
I don't even have words to describe that.
How do you even describe what we're so lucky to be alive when this is happening?
You know, I often think, I feel sorry for anybody who is a basketball fan who was born after Michael Jordan left the league.
Do you ever think about that?
Imagine being a basketball fan and you missed the Michael Jordan era.
Now, if you don't care about sports, that doesn't mean much to you.
But, I mean, that would be a big difference.
So being alive when Elon Musk is doing his thing, and he seems to be at his prime, is just breathtaking.
It really is.
Meanwhile, there's a robot, according to Reuters, that can herd cattle.
And it's so smart, it can kind of herd the cattle over to what part of the field they haven't overgrazed and It can tell you if he knows if the cattle are in good health or not.
So that's pretty cool.
So that's a case of the robots taking my old job.
It used to be my job at my uncle's dairy farm to go and get the cows out of the big 400 acres of field and get them back to the barn so they could be milked in the evening.
And I would get paid 25 cents Every time I got the cows.
It was called getting the cows.
That was the name of the job.
It's your job to get the cows.
So 25 cents, I would go out in the field and get them.
The very first day I took over from my older brother, he was an expert at getting the cows, and I was a rookie.
But my first day, I was told it'd be kind of easy because, you know, the dog does most of the work.
There's a sheep dog.
Yeah, it's like a herding dog, but the dog does most of the work.
You basically just go out where the cows are, and then the dog knows what it has to do, and it rounds up the cows.
And the cows are kind of trained.
You know, they know they get fed at night.
So it's a real easy job.
You just sort of walk out there, and then the dog collects them all up, and you got your 25 cents.
So I walk out there and the cows start walking like in the opposite direction.
I'm like, what the hell?
What's wrong with you cows?
Don't you know you're all trained to go the other direction?
And then they started dispersing like they weren't even going in the same direction.
It was like they knew the new guy was starting.
They all started spreading out.
And next thing I knew, I was lost in the swamp.
And it was getting dark, and it was before cell phones.
And not only had I lost all of the cows, all of them, I couldn't find a single cow, but I'd lost the dog.
That's right.
You can't herd cows any worse than that.
Yeah, I lost all of the cows.
It was dark, I was in a swamp, and I lost the dog.
And I didn't know how to get home.
I had no idea how to get out of the swamp.
So as luck would have it, I hear somebody calling my name eventually.
Scott!
Scott!
So my uncle had formed a search party to go find me when the cows and the dog and I had all disappeared.
And so they found me, and I'm like, oh, finally, you know, I'm saved.
But I felt really bad because I'd lost all of the cows and the dog.
The worst farmer ever.
And finally, I got up the courage to say, because I might have been, I don't know, 10 years old or something, 11 maybe.
And I got up the courage to say, I lost the dog.
And they said, what?
They said, I lost not just the cows, but I lost the dog.
And my uncle said, no, the dog already got the cows.
So while I was lost in the swamp, the dog had herded up all the cows because it was trained to do that.
And they were already back in the barn.
I think I still got paid 25 cents.
Didn't deserve it.
Meanwhile, speaking of paying, ABC News is going to pay $15 million to Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit because George Stephanopoulos had said during one of their interviews that Trump was, quote, found liable for rape.
Now, I can't believe how many even Trump supporters have gotten this one wrong, including me, including me.
There was a time when I believed, incorrectly, that he had not been found guilty in a criminal way, so I knew that, but I thought that he had been found liable for the rape in some kind of a civil suit.
But that wasn't the point of the suit.
The suit was about whether he had lied about her lying, I guess.
So it was more about lying about her lying.
It wasn't about the rape, per se.
So there is no court.
There is no court that has a finding that he raped anybody.
Just speaking purely from a court's perspective.
So I guess that was enough for him to win that lawsuit.
And George Stephanopoulos has to apologize, too.
He has to apologize.
That's the best part.
But as Mike Cernovich points out, ABC News probably desperately wanted to avoid a court process where their emails may have had to have been turned over.
Imagine how many things you would find out about ABC News if you had access to their emails.
Do you think there would have been any other indications that they were just backing the Democrats?
That was free money.
I think just suing them and putting up the possibility that they would look through their emails was enough for them to say, oh, how much do you need?
Here's 15 million.
Now imagine how many other entities the Trump administration could do the same thing with.
So the game here, which I guess maybe they just discovered or they knew and I didn't, The game here is to get them to not want to show you the rest of their email.
So it's not even about the specific question and the specific 15 million, although that's not chump change.
So maybe Trump could just roll up all the network news.
He could probably do every one of them.
Because every one of them made up stuff that they knew to be untrue.
Imagine if he sued over the fine people hoax.
Think about all the things he could sue over.
Maybe.
I don't know.
Meanwhile, Nathan Wade, the boyfriend of Fannie Willis, he admitted now that he worked with the White House while he was trying to prosecute Trump in Georgia.
That's right.
We now have on record...
That the prosecutor that was the boyfriend of Fannie Willis, so she chose her boyfriend, and the boyfriend started colluding with the White House, and he had to admit that to the House Judiciary Committee, that he met with White House staff several times, and that he had to brush up on RICO law.
So, is that as damning as it looks to me?
Is this a case where there's more chance that the prosecutor will go to jail than the accused?
I think at this point there's more chance that the prosecution will go to jail than Trump.
And I think we all knew this.
Yeah.
Trump has so far the best third act.
The only thing we need is proof that any one of our elections were recently rigged.
If he gets that, which he doesn't have, but if he gets that, there's your third act.
Meanwhile, Daniel Penny was invited to the Army-Navy game, and I guess Trump was there and Elon was there and some other politicians Top-ranking Republicans were there.
And here's what I love about this.
Here's what I love about it.
I don't think this is good for Trump's anything.
It was just the right thing to do.
That's what I love about it.
I don't think Trump, because Trump, remember, he doesn't have to run again.
I think this is just something that you will be disliked a little bit more by the people who already dislike him.
But it's just simply the right thing to do.
And I really love that.
I love seeing the right thing get done.
I love seeing justice.
I love seeing Daniel Penny come out, not just even, but ahead.
I hope he comes out ahead.
And everything about this is good.
Just great.
Meanwhile, pollster Ann Seltzer, you remember her.
She was the pollster who said that Kamala Harris was like way ahead in Iowa.
And it was such an outlying number that people wondered if she intentionally was lying and faking her own poll.
Well, she's here to tell you that she did not do anything wrong.
Untoward or unethical.
But I'd like to read you her actual words.
So remember, she's being accused, this is Ann Seltzer, a pollster who recently retired, but she was accused of, you know, kind of intentionally faking the poll.
And she goes on a show, a local Iowa show, to make sure that you know that she would never do anything like that.
But listen to the exact words she uses when she denies it, okay?
And what I want you to look for is where she denies it.
So I'm going to read you her denial, and then see if you can find a denial in the denial.
You ready?
So listen carefully.
Try to find the denial.
She said, and the allegations I take very seriously.
Those would be the allegations that she somehow rigged her own poll.
They're saying that this was an election interference, which is a crime.
So the idea that I intentionally set up to deliver this response, when I've never done that before, I've had plenty of opportunities to do it.
It's not my ethic.
But to suggest, without a single shred of evidence, that I was in cahoots with somebody, that I was being paid by somebody, it's all just kind of, it's hard to pay too much attention to it, except that they're accusing me of a crime.
What's missing?
The denial.
There's no denial.
She's just saying that the situation is such that she shouldn't have been questioned.
That's not a denial.
She's saying that if she did that, it would be opposite of her ethic, which is not a denial.
She's saying it's very serious because it's a crime, which is not a denial.
She says she's never done that before, even though she's had plenty of opportunities.
That's not a denial.
I could have easily done it.
And that to suggest without a single shred of evidence, It has also nothing to do with the denial, because how would we have any evidence of what she did privately?
We wouldn't have any evidence.
We would just look at the result and say, well, obviously you knew that wasn't real.
And then if you're curious, you should look at her body language.
Because if I were a body language expert, and I were looking for signs that somebody was being deceptive, well, I'll let you judge for yourself.
I'm no body language expert, and I'm not a mind reader.
But if I were innocent, I wouldn't be looking like that.
That's all I'm saying.
So there's something...
That didn't quite land if she was trying to get herself out of the accusation area.
MSNBC had a guest on talking about vaccines with Chris Hayes.
So Brandy Zedrosny is joining the theatrical people who are mad at RFK Jr. Now, if I've taught you how to be mad at RFK Jr., you have to do it with like a disgust.
An attitude that shows your superiority.
So this is important.
You have to look arrogant and superior, and you have to sort of ignore what RFK Jr. actually says, and instead imagine he said or meant something different.
So here's a way you can't do it.
This would be the wrong way to do it.
Well, you know, RFK Jr. makes a number of claims, but according to the science that I trust the most, I don't think those claims are...
So that's what you would say if you were making some kind of a logical argument, and then maybe you'd show your sources and stuff like that.
Here's what you would do if you're just trying to defend your point of view and you don't have anything else.
It would go like this.
And RFK Jr., well, he's making the...
He doesn't believe in science.
He's a...
So you've got to make the face and show the attitude, but then don't show anything to actually debunk his point of view, because they don't have anything to debunk his actual point of view.
Here's what they do have.
Ways to misinterpret his point of view to make him sound dumb so you have something to say about it on TV. All right?
So Chris Hayes, so first of all, the guest was saying that there is not a vaccine that Kennedy thinks is safe or effective.
Okay.
Does that mean that he says all of them are bad?
Because that's what it sounds like, right?
If you said there's not a vaccine that Kennedy thinks is safe or effective, you would think to yourself, is he saying that they're all unsafe?
No.
No.
He says very clearly, I'm not saying all vaccines are bad.
He says it directly and often.
But she wants to say there's not a vaccine that Kennedy thinks is safe and effective.
Here's what he does say.
There's not this vaccine that's been tested adequately.
He does say that, right?
So, of course, it is also fair to say that he doesn't know that any of them are safe and effective.
He doesn't know because they haven't been tested to his level of satisfaction or mine either.
And there's a thought out there that the polio vaccine may not have been eradicating polio, but it just sort of happened at exactly the same time that there were some changes in the world about, I don't know, hygiene and cleaner water, washing your hands or some damn thing.
Now, I suspect if this were studied, you would find that the polio vaccine works.
But have they all been studied to the level that you would be satisfied with?
Well, here's what Chris Hayes says.
He says, quote, Kennedy was like, they should be studied.
I was like, I think we've got the studies.
Like, I think we've studied it pretty damn well.
Do you see how I added the theatrical part?
I'm going to say it again, but I'm going to act like Kennedy's really dumb.
Kennedy's like, they should be studied.
I'm like, we've got this study.
He's like, we've studied it pretty damn well.
We've studied it pretty damn well.
Do you know what the truth is?
None of them are a double bind study, which is the only gold standard study.
So then Chris Hayes says, quote, the other thing is that we do randomized controlled trials and double-blind randomized controlled trials in the process of approving all the time.
That is how we get them.
That is how we know they're safe and effective.
None of that's true.
That's Kennedy's whole point, is that people think, and I thought this, I always believed that they did some kind of randomized double-blind trial.
Nope.
Nope.
They do not do a randomized double-blind trial, not typically, and not even often.
The reason you can't do a double-blind trial probably is because you can't leave some people untreated or something like that.
Anyway, so MSNBC is telling its audience that the vaccines are not only safe, but they've been studied pretty damn well, and they are the subject of randomized controlled trials and double-blind randomized.
Almost none of this is accurate.
According to RFK Jr., as best I understand his claims.
So, do you think that MSNBC depends on any drug companies for their funding?
I don't know.
Or maybe it's just automatically you have to disagree with anything that's good for Trump?
I don't know.
So, I have a...
My personal opinion on vaccines is almost certainly some of them are good for you.
Almost certainly not every one of them is good for you.
That's all I know, but we'll find out.
Mark Andreessen has been talking about The collapse of a preference cascade, or maybe it's just without the collapse part, a preference cascade.
And this is a kind of an interesting concept that I've not heard before, but immediately embraced.
And the idea, if I understand it, is that you can have times in society where people are simply pretending to believe what they think they have to pretend to believe in public.
But if everybody's pretending that Then you have a possibility that when some brave person stops pretending and says, wait a minute, wait a minute, every bit of this is bullshit and you all know it.
Then suddenly all the people who are just trying to stay out of the heat just by saying, oh yeah, sure, it's true, yeah, whatever, I believe that, that they can now change to the opinion of the brave person and that there's something called a preference cascade.
Now, what makes it interesting is how fast it can happen.
Because if you had to change people's minds, like where they really held a genuine opinion, and it was their own opinion, and they got there through their own thinking or whatever, if you had to change their minds, almost never.
It's just, I mean, I study persuasion all the time, and it's just hard to change anybody's mind about anything that's a deeply held belief.
But there can be times when people pretend to have a deeply held belief, but they absolutely don't believe it.
They just know they have to say it in public.
And so the thinking is that there were way more anti-Biden and pro-Trump people in the country than anybody was willing to say out loud.
And that when Trump won...
That was probably something about a preference cascade where people had to stop.
Well, they could.
They had the option of not pretending that they believed.
So once enough famous people, and I think Elon Musk is the number one thing, because we had a country where people sort of genuinely believed For good reason, that Elon Musk was unusually smart, and that he was very much on the side of America doing well.
And when you see somebody who's way smarter than you are, and is really paying attention to the topic, and definitely wants the country to do well, it's hard to say your opinion is the opposite of that.
But it also makes it easier, if you're going to switch your opinion, you're switching it to a side that looks credible.
Then RFK Jr. added a lot.
You take RFK Jr. and say, okay, the most famous Democrat political family in the world, Clinton's maybe second.
If somebody like that can take the enormous, enormous hit, his family, his reputation, everything, his marriage, just everything, If he can take that kind of a hit because he thinks it's important, that's very influential.
And it doesn't take too many people to change their stated preference before you have this preference cascade that just goes, oh, house of cards.
So it looks like that might be what's happening.
So pretend opinions are being discarded.
All right, you know we're going to have to talk about the drones.
You know, I love this story.
I totally love this story about the drones, partly because it's a good mystery.
Like, I genuinely don't know what's going on, but I do think we can now narrow it down.
So, let's talk about that.
So there are many theories that have been promoted.
But the theory that makes the most sense is that the government is lying.
Would everybody agree with that?
Are we all on the page that the government is obviously lying?
Because I don't think there's anybody who thinks that they're trying hard to figure out what this is, what the drone stuff is.
So obviously it's our stuff.
So it's obviously stuff that's made by human beings on Earth.
I mean, it has running lights and all the human stuff.
So we know it's human-made.
It's not aliens.
You probably saw a picture in the news of one thing that looked like this gyrating orb thing that looked almost like a hologram or something.
And then somebody smart said, oh, no, that's just a camera.
You know, oddity.
If you focus on a distant light, sometimes it'll look like it's jumping around like a hologram.
So the only thing that we've seen for sure are human-made crafts.
So even when people said, I saw an orb or I saw something coming out of the water, probably none of that checks out.
But definitely there are lots of crafts.
So one thing we could say is there are lots of them.
I think as of today, for the first time, I'm moving to the opinion that it's happening in more than one place.
I was convinced that it was happening in New Jersey, but I thought it was still possible That the other ones are fake sightings, you know, just people being influenced by the one place that's really happening.
But now I think that it seems likely it's happening on the West Coast and on the East Coast at the same time.
So I would say it's definitely American.
It's American products.
It's definitely in more than one place.
It's definitely over an extended period of time, which is interesting.
I do believe the drones themselves do not represent a risk, because the government knows what's happening, and if it were that risk, I think they'd tell us, and they'd be shooting them down if they could.
So it's ours, it's military.
I think it's obvious that a lot of the people who are in the government would not have the clearance to know exactly what's going on, so I don't think they're lying.
Well, the top guys are lying, obviously.
But most people, like mayors and governors, there's no way that they've been filled in on whatever this is.
So, definitely not UFOs.
Definitely not adversaries.
Definitely American stuff.
Definitely military and or CIA, but, you know, same thing for this context.
Definitely happening in more than one place.
Definitely happening over an extended period of time.
Now, the next question is, why?
And I'll give you two hypotheses that so far seem to be the leading candidates.
Number one, Apparently, the U.S. has devices that can hover, but also have fixed wings.
They're called VTOLs, or vertical takeoff and landing.
We know that we have manned aircraft that can do it, but we also know that we have drones, unmanned drones, that are designed to take off from a ship at sea.
And people say that the drones are coming from the direction of the ocean.
So they're coming from a ship, a sea.
And they're designed to go to a base on land or maybe some military conflict area.
And they're mostly for bringing large-ish, at least as large as a drone can carry, goods back and forth.
So if you need ammo or you need to Take something out, I guess.
We also know that since these already exist, but it doesn't look like that's what we're seeing, it looks like it could be the new model.
In other words, this could be the upgraded versions of the ones we know about, and somebody who pretended to know something about it mentioned the name of the model of the drone, and you can get a picture of it online, and it looks like it might be the thing, or the new ones might be the thing.
So So hypothesis number one is they're just testing new drones.
Does that fit the facts?
They're just testing new drones.
Now that would include, perhaps, if they're trying to test one kind of drone against another kind of drone.
Now that could explain the extended time frame.
Because if you're building a drone and you're trying to sell it, One of the main selling features is how long it can operate without being charged and how long you can operate it before it has to be taken out of service.
So it could be that they just have to put these into service for two months in a row in order for the military to say, all right, here's your $10 billion, make us more of these.
Now we know that they last two months at least.
Could be that.
But do you believe that if there were no danger to the public, That the government would allow the public to be this worried and that they would be testing these devices over residential areas without telling us.
Because if there's anybody in the chain of command who okayed testing in the residential area and creating the panic that we're seeing now, that person would definitely be fired.
Am I wrong?
There is 100% chance...
If anybody in the military authorized testing in a residential area and over our nuclear facilities or over our nuclear...
Well, I guess military bases wouldn't be a problem because they'd be in on it.
But that doesn't really track, does it?
Do you believe that they would do it for months?
Months, or at least over a month, right?
Do you think they'd do it for over a month?
Letting everybody panic and see it and not tell us it's just a test doesn't really track, does it?
Now, the other hypothesis is that they're trying to detect something or search for something.
And the people who want to scare us the most say, oh, there's There's a rumor of missing nuclear weapon from Ukraine, and maybe somebody snuck it into the country.
Maybe our intelligence people know it.
They don't want us to panic, but they're not so sure it's here that they want to tell you to leave.
But they've got a little bit of suggestion that it might be here, so they're checking.
So if they knew it was here, I don't think they'd stop at 11 p.m., Would you agree?
If they knew, they really knew that there was some nuclear weapon of mass destruction, that a terrorist had moved onto the mainland of the United States, if they knew it, they'd be looking longer than 11 p.m.
11 p.m.
seems like when you quit because nobody wants to work too long and work overtime.
That feels like more of a business-as-usual situation.
It doesn't sound like an emergency situation.
And then there's also the question of what they can detect.
So apparently the drones can detect radiation, but it's far less likely they could detect, let's say, a nuclear warhead that was shielded properly.
So if it's something shielded properly, there's no way they're going to detect it.
But if it was some external radiation problem, but also chemical and biological weapons, So apparently some of the drones can detect chemical warfare.
Now, would they really need to do that, though?
Because people would be dropping like flies if they'd already been deployed.
Or is it possible that if anybody had shipped any of those things into the country, that it's never completely secure?
So maybe they could sniff it out.
Because it's not like the biological stuff...
Would necessarily be perfectly sealed by the bad guys.
So, here's the bottom line.
Can we rule out business as usual, ordinary testing on the military?
I'm going to rule that out.
And by the way, that was my first choice.
But it's going on too long, and the public is way too panicked.
For them not to say, oh, it's almost over.
Don't worry.
We did a little testing.
We can't tell you why we had to do it over a residential area.
But trust us, if we hadn't done it over a residential area, we'd be a little bit weaker as a military.
And the testing gave us a lot of good information.
We can't tell you more than that.
But we do have drones that can operate in deserts and overseas.
And now we know that they can operate in our most dense populated areas.
We didn't want to tell you what we were doing because then the adversaries would check it out, something like that.
I'm not going to buy that.
It doesn't completely fit.
So what about the one where they're trying to detect some kind of problem?
To me, that seems pretty likely that they're trying to detect.
But...
I don't really see them operating in a way that looks like they're detecting in an organized grid-like pattern.
The flights seem a little bit more random than that, although they do seem to go from ocean to land.
They don't appear to be doing anything, any kind of a grid.
I mean, we would notice that if they were doing some kind of an extended, you know, grid-like pattern, which is the only thing you do if you're looking for something.
So it doesn't seem like they're looking for something in the way that you would expect them to act if they were looking for something.
Now, somebody smart said that if they were looking for radiation, that's why they would do it at night.
Because at night, the sun is on the other side of the earth, and apparently the sun gives a little background radiation that makes it harder to detect the stuff you're looking for.
But just being at night doesn't seem enough to go for the radiation.
So it doesn't look like they know there's an immediate emergency, or else they would work past 11 p.m.
It doesn't look like They're sensing for any biological or radiation issues, because I don't think they're low enough and slow enough, and they don't seem to be doing a pattern that would make sense there.
So, what's left?
Well, now we get into the real 4chan stuff.
So, it comes from two different sources.
That one is highly credible, and one is highly not credible on this topic.
Credible, but not on this topic.
So there's the Charlie Kirk theory, that it's basically an op of some kind, and that they're maybe setting us up for something to come, or But basically, it's a psychological operation to gain something bigger, like the overthrow of the country, something like that.
Some way to thwart Trump, make it look like there's more of a thing happening, make it look like there's some kind of invasion that they have to stop, and then they have to need...
Maybe they need martial law before Trump gets sworn in.
Oh, oh, we're being attacked by something...
We can't do an orderly transfer of power because, you know, something like that.
Now, that's Charlie Kirk and other people.
I would say they're not military experts, and although I can't rule it out, I can't rule it out because, remember, I've already ruled out everything else.
So whatever it is is going to be something that a normal person would have ruled out.
Just think about that.
Whatever it is, whatever is the real answer, it's probably something that a reasonable, well-informed person has already ruled out as a possibility.
So whatever the hell this is, it's not normal, right?
It won't be routine, whatever it is.
But will it be some big advanced psychological operation to take control of the country?
Well, I wouldn't take Charlie Kirk's word for it, although Charlie Kirk is very effective and smart and good at what he does.
But then, he's not the only one talking about it.
Here's the problem.
You're also seeing things from General Mike Flynn.
Now General Mike Flynn clearly knows a lot more than you and I know about what militaries have or have not considered.
So somebody who really knows the good stuff...
It's saying this on X. If you don't like the weather, just wait a few minutes.
If you don't like the wars we're involved in, just wait a few minutes.
What's next?
Martians landing on Mar-a-Lago?
Remember, this is General Mike Flynn.
He says, fifth generation warfare is real.
The drones and the threats they pose are very real.
Our military's hands are clearly tied because we, the U.S. military, have the full complement of capabilities to stop it.
So he's noting that we could stop it easily, but we're not trying to.
The White House is purposely allowing this to happen to further complicate the smooth transfer of power.
Do not kid yourself for one second.
Okay, now I'm worried.
If you see a civilian telling you that the military might have some clever plan, the first thing I say every time, even if I'm the one who's saying it, is, well, civilian.
Like, what do you really know about the deep workings of the military?
But then somebody who actually does know the deep workings of the military says kind of the same thing.
Kind of the same thing as Charlie Kirk.
So, if the general is right, Charlie Kirk's right.
I'm not there yet.
I'm not there yet.
I'm not yet at the point where I think that the only reason for this is to somehow complicate a transfer of power.
However, let us speculate about all the things it could be.
Could it be that somebody has a plan to take out the inauguration with a drone?
And could it be that if you've had a month of drones everywhere that the military has decided are safe, that that's the perfect setup for explaining why you let a drone through your defense net and took out the inauguration?
Right?
The only thing I can think of that would make this drone swarm make sense is Is if later you wanted to use a real dangerous drone, but you wanted to do it in the context where you could explain why nobody stopped it.
And then the military would say, well, honestly, there were 50 drones in the air.
How did we know to stop this one?
Right?
So if you put 50 drones in the air every day...
And then there's this one extra drone that jogs out of the usual place and shows up in D.C. at exactly the wrong time and takes out the leadership.
You're actually going to wonder if the military did it or the military simply was doing some training exercises that had the terrible, terrible effect of Of making it impossible to know what the real threat was versus all the drones in the air.
So, if this is what it looks like, and of course it probably isn't because we're just guessing, if it really is some kind of way to complicate or make a mass event, casualty event possible, We really have a problem with their military, if that's the case.
But I don't think...
I'm not ready to embrace that theory yet.
But we do know, let's see, Senator Chris Smith of New Jersey has a massive invasion, and he says some are circling military bases and shadowing Coast Guard boats.
I don't know if any of those kinds of stories are real.
The types of stories I don't believe are that an orb transmogrified into a fixed-wing plane, because I watched one on video that did that, and all it is is the...
When the big light that's shining in your eyes gets close enough, you can see the rest of the vehicle.
It's not transforming.
It's just you can see it better when it's close.
So I think the transmogrifications are fake.
I think that when people say they saw it come out of the ocean, it didn't literally come from underwater.
I doubt.
I think it was on a ship parked off the coast, which is the ordinary way it happens.
So it would be ordinary if there was a military ship with some drones on it that could do this that was parked off the coast in New Jersey.
That would be just ordinary.
Let's see, what else?
What about the drones following the Coast Guard?
Well, it's possible that it's one of those.
It's possible that they weren't following it.
They just happened to be going in the same direction for a little while.
It's possible that that was part of the training, just to see if they could follow something.
It's possible that they were testing some sensors to see if they could sense something on the Coast Guard boat and it was just a test.
That seems unlikely.
Seems like they would have told the Coast Guard.
So I would say anything that's off, everything that's off the basic things we know for sure, You should not trust.
The things we know for sure, I think, it's military, it's fixed wing, probably there are VTOL kinds that can hover in one place, probably it's something new, and probably our top military knows what it is.
That's all we know.
All the weird stuff, the glowing orbs and the things that it's probably just...
Bad photography and old video and some combination of other stuff.
And then State Senator John Bramnick on NewsNation, he said, quote, there must be something going on that they can't tell us because they're so fearful of what the public's going to do when they hear what the drones are doing.
Or the real test It's what happens to the public if they don't know what's going on up there.
So it could be a psychological operation to just find out how we react.
Maybe.
I don't know.
So...
And then we hear that the government might be lying about these drones never being in restricted airspace because...
According to Michael Schellenberger, they have been.
They have been in restricted airspace regularly.
Like, routinely, they're in restricted airspace.
So does that make sense if they're just doing a test?
Do you think that the military would do a test in the United States where it would routinely be in sensitive areas?
Or...
Is going to these sensitive areas exactly what they should be doing, because they're looking for trouble, and there might be trouble around, let's say, a nuclear power plant or a military facility.
So the missing...
The nuke sniffer is real.
So what we don't know is if it's possible to find a nuke with some drones that don't look everywhere and just occasionally fly over your house.
I don't know.
It doesn't look like that's what's happening.
All right.
So it's either a test or a psychological op or Or something.
Or they're trying to detect something.
So maybe we'll find out.
I don't know.
So as you know, Joe Biden's doing a lot of pardons and commutations.
And he looks like he's on track to do...
He's already done over 8,000 pardons.
8,000.
How does that compare to past presidents?
Well, let's see.
Gerald Ford, 409. Nixon, 922nd.
Reagan, 406. Clinton, 459. George W, 200. Barack Obama, 1,900.
And Trump, 237. So, the two biggest ones by far were Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Now, do you think there's any chance they're not selling these?
Really?
How do you pardon 8,000 people?
Unless you're selling them.
Now, why would you do so many pardons?
Are they all paying?
No.
No, you would do 8,000 pardons, so it's not so obvious which ones paid you.
If you did 100 pardons, and five of those people paid you, directly or indirectly, it might be easy to find, five out of 100. But could you find five out of 8,000?
Would you ever put the time in to look for them?
To me, this 8,000 number just screams corruption.
Wasn't there a point when politicians tried to at least remove the impression that they were doing something illegal?
Like, you don't even want to leave the impression.
Well, no.
8,000 pardons just screams, I'm guilty of something terrible.
Like, really, really bad.
I don't know.
Meanwhile, Trump has announced that Richard Grinnell will serve as the presidential envoy for special missions.
And two special missions that were noted would be hotspots such as Venezuela and North Korea.
Now, I have questions.
My first observation is that in the Dilbert comic universe, Wally is the one who usually gets put on the special project.
Because when I worked in corporate America, special projects were used for two different things.
One, something very important that you put your best people on.
Or two, a way to get rid of your worst people.
So you put them on the special project that wasn't that important.
The special project doesn't work out or is completed.
Then you say, well, we don't need you anymore.
Because the project's over.
So it's actually a way to fire people who are incompetent while never, ever having to say they're incompetent if you don't feel comfortable saying that.
So, but Richard Grinnell would be more like a superstar, so he wouldn't be, at least as far as I know, I mean, his reputation is pretty stellar, so he wouldn't be like a WALL-E. He would be put where it really makes a difference and the president thinks he can get some leverage.
But I have to ask this question.
And I can't tell if this is Trump being awesome or not.
So you tell me.
So Richard Grinnell famously is gay and, you know, public about it.
And I've always loved the fact that Republicans are only looking at his capabilities.
And I never hear anybody talk about the gay part because they don't care.
You know, can you do the job?
Yes.
We're done.
So Republicans are very open-minded when it comes to getting a job done.
Are you good for this job?
Yes or no?
Yes.
Well, we're done.
The other stuff, that's your business.
So I think we're all good with it in America.
Finally, right?
Finally get to the point where we can stop obsessing about the things we shouldn't have obsessed about in the first place.
But is that who you want to send to North Korea?
So my question is not about America.
Because I think we passed the test.
We passed the test.
Thank you.
By the way, thank you to Richard Grinnell for making it easy for America to pass the test.
Because he performs.
And then we say, we're done.
Good.
Thanks.
Do more of that.
But what if he goes to North Korea?
How does North Korea treat the LGBTQ community?
And if it's not good...
Does that make him the most effective person to be in that realm?
Or, here's the awesome part.
What if we know it's a problem and decided to do it anyway?
Which is kind of baller if you think about it.
What if we know it's a problem and decided to do it anyway?
I might love that.
I might kind of love it.
Because I think one of the ways that Trump can help the LGBT community globally is exactly this.
You know, you hire an ambassador or somebody you know is going to be dealing with the other country and somebody that you know is not super cool with the LGBT community.
So we just make sure that they have to deal with one.
And if they're dealing with one that's extra good at their job, like Richard Grinnell, Then what you've done for the LGBT community is tremendous.
And then maybe you also solve some big problems in some hotspots.
So here's what I would say about this.
Given that it's my assumption that some of the other countries are not going to be totally cool with an LGBTQ member being in a job in their country.
Because they're less, let's say, less open-minded than Americans are at the moment.
If Trump could get a twofer by having somebody who is so capable that he could essentially change the way other countries are thinking about this topic, that's sort of the ultimate confidence, isn't it?
Imagine being so confident that you think not only could Richard Grinnell will get the job done, he might change how the world thinks about LGBTQ. That's pretty baller, if you think about it.
And you wouldn't do this unless you knew the person you were sending was A++. If you send your B++ person, you're not going to get the project done, but you're also going to make the LGBTQ thing worse Because then those leaders will say, well, they sent us this guy.
Why didn't they send us, you know, the usual bigoted stuff?
So, I love that.
Then Trump apparently picked Devin Nunes to be the chairman of his Intelligence Advisory Board.
So there's going to be an advisory board to keep an eye on the intelligence community, and Devin Nunes will be the head of that.
How perfect is that?
How much do you love that?
Like, if you haven't been following politics for a long time, you don't know.
Devin Nunes had been the head of Truth, right?
Truth Social.
So he had been out of politics, but supportive of Trump, of course.
But when he was in politics, he was one of the main guys, or the main person, debunking the Russia collusion hoax, at great personal risk.
And that's something that I think Trump will always be loyal to him, because Nunes was just a great patriot, fighting for that hoax to be debunked.
So that's good.
What are you pointing to?
Okay.
So that's good.
Anyway, according to Jeff Charles, writing in Red State, so Hamas has agreed to some concessions after Trump threatened them with they'll be held to pay if they don't let the hostages out.
Now, what Hamas is offered is something like Not all of the hostages in return for IDF not having a military presence right away in Gaza or something like that.
So there was some thought that they were getting flexible because they were worried about Trump.
I don't know.
I just have a problem with this being a negotiation.
I like the way Trump did it.
Trump said, if we don't have all the hostages back, there will be hell to pay.
If we back off from that and start negotiating, oh, well, okay, yeah, we'll take half the hostages and give you something.
I'm going to say it again.
Hostages is the price you pay to get into a negotiation.
They got to pay the whole price.
That's just the entry for us to talk to you.
Because our first choice is to fucking kill every one of you.
And that's the plan.
If you don't like that plan, you have a way to avoid it.
Give all the hostages back, and then maybe we can talk.
But I absolutely would not negotiate for one of them.
Because it only makes it worse.
They're just going to kidnap more people and try to negotiate again, if it works.
You have to break the cycle.
You've got to break it hard.
You have to break it so hard they'll never forget.
So, do I believe that we should sacrifice the hostages?
I don't like to use that word, but if you want fewer hostages being killed and tortured in the future...
Yes.
That's what it means when countries say we don't negotiate with terrorists.
That's what this means.
You don't do it because there'll be more terrorism later.
So if you want to show the most sympathy or empathy for your public, probably not negotiating for them is your best play.
But threatening to send them to hell And then going through with it would be a really good way to handle it.
So I think if Trump were in charge more efficiently, he could sell his threat even harder.
But he's the only one who could do this.
You know, it's still not easy.
You can't predict he'll get it done.
But nobody else could.
I'm pretty sure nobody else could do this.
Speaking of Iran and the possibility of war with Iran...
When Trump was asked, he said, quote, anything can happen.
That's about war with Iran.
But he apparently said he wants to take care of the problem of Iran and not with a war.
And I guess his national security team, Trump's incoming national security team, they want to put maximum pressure on Iran without having to attack Iran.
But I can't see any theory, I can't see any way that Israel is going to allow Iran to still have a nuclear program in a few months.
Could we really talk Israel out of taking out Iran's nuclear program, if they have the ability to do it?
And I'm guessing they do.
I think nothing's going to stop Israel from taking out their nuclear program.
So how will Trump play that?
The only way that makes sense is if Trump could get almost immediately a comprehensive deal that's like for the whole Middle East, just like this massive peace deal.
But that doesn't happen fast.
And something fast-ish needs to happen with their current situation.
So I don't know if there's any way to keep Israel from taking out what's left of their nuclear program.
So we'll see.
Well, over on the All In pod, they had Keith Raboy.
I'm talking about Apple.
And...
But Chamath was saying, quote, my iPhone does not work.
I'm sorry.
I'm just going to say it, okay?
So he has the iPhone 16 with the most recent iOS update.
And then Jason said, you upgraded your software is what happened.
You're on iOS 18. It doesn't work.
Now, that's a hell of a thing.
For some of the most prominent technologist investors in America to say that the Apple iPhone basically just doesn't work.
That's pretty brutal.
But they went further.
Thinking that Apple is really a design company more than a product company.
In other words, it just looks cool, feels cool, impresses your friends that you have an iPhone, etc.
But they say their product strategy is still living in the Jobs-Ive era, where good taste and stuff were driving things.
But this brings me to my complaint.
So, it's time for me to upgrade my phone.
And sure enough, the battery life just went to completely unusable.
In other words, if I don't charge every time I stop walking, I have to plug it in, it'll lose its charge.
And it went from the most reliably charged phone where I can go for two days without a charge to, it feels like an hour.
I'm probably exaggerating, but it feels like an hour if I'm using it at all.
And I don't think that's a coincidence because they do have a history of intentionally crippling an old phone to get you to upgrade.
Am I right about that?
Can you confirm that?
Give me a fact check.
It is a true fact that Apple in the past intentionally, with software, intentionally crippled your phone To convince you to upgrade.
That's a fact, right?
I'm not hallucinating that.
So when I see the exact same thing happen to my phone, that happened that time, because I also noticed, as many of you did, when they were accused of doing it, I noticed it.
I mean, it was really, really noticeable.
And it's really noticeable right now.
Are they doing that again?
Or did they find a clever way to do it without doing it?
For example, would you say that they're crippling your phone if all they did was add a new software update that just happens to use a lot of energy unless you have the new phone?
Is it possible that they put out of sync the software upgrade With all of the old phones.
So that, yeah, you can have the software upgrade.
Your phone might overheat if you have one of those old ones, but, you know, on the new ones, it works great.
Would that be illegal?
It should be.
Is it?
I doubt it.
Right?
I doubt it.
If iOS 18 is way better, but only on a new phone, is it illegal for them to make it available to everybody, knowing that it will cause them to hate their old phone and need to upgrade?
Is it illegal?
It's sort of maybe, I don't know.
Now, remember, I'm not claiming this as a fact, so I want to make sure I don't get sued.
I have no factual data to support the hypothesis that they're degrading my phone.
It's just a hell of a coincidence.
It's a hell of a coincidence.
It's what it feels like.
And I would agree with the All In Pod opinions that Apple's future doesn't look the same as it used to.
Now, I remind you, I was a long-time Apple stockholder until several months ago when I completely eliminated my position.
Now, the reasoning was, and I don't recommend this, by the way, so if you sold Apple when I did, you lost a bunch of money because it went up from when I sold it.
It went up quite a bit from when I sold it.
But here's just an investment advice.
It's a generic advice, so it's not about Apple.
I don't give investment advice about specific investments.
If your reason for buying a stock changed, that's when you should rethink it.
I bought Apple stock because they had a monopoly and it didn't look like anybody would ever stop upgrading their phones.
And, you know, they built a network of products that worked together.
It was impossible to leave.
It was like you're trapped there.
And so that was a good long-term play.
And it was just like they printed money for a while.
But...
It was my observation that their innovation seems to have stalled and that the competitors presumably will make better and better phones.
Maybe somebody like Elon Musk will someday introduce a phone and he's already got his network.
So it seemed to me that they were no longer an obvious impenetrable monopoly.
And that was the only reason I had my money there.
I wouldn't put my money in an individual company.
At least not any sizable money, unless it just looks so strong that nobody could kick them out.
For example, Amazon.
Now, I'm not recommending Amazon.
I don't own any of the Amazon stock at the moment, but It doesn't look like anything's going to replace it.
So if that's the reason you invested, because nobody can touch them, maybe that's different now.
So rethink that with Apple, but don't take my advice on any investments.
According to Gilmore Health News, scientists have a way to maybe suppress traumatic memories and enhance positive ones.
So, some kind of medical intervention to do that, to suppress traumatic memories and enhance positive ones.
There's already a way to do that, I hate to tell you.
I don't recommend this because I'm not your doctor, but that is what weed does.
Now, again, weed's not good for everybody.
If you're under 18, don't touch it.
Actually, if you're under 25, it's probably a bad idea.
If you have a job that requires you to be not high, don't recommend it.
Don't recommend it.
So there's tons of reasons not to.
And my low battery, I just got a low battery notice on my phone, ironically.
But it is my experience, as a lived experience, that you can make most traumatic memories soften pretty quickly.
I don't know if it's going to make you remember the good ones more than you did, but you can definitely make the bad memories go from DEFCON 5 to DEFCON 2 in about five minutes.
So, there's that.
And then according to Stanford University, there's a new device that somehow it can make fertilizer out of the air.
They found a way to make fertilizer out of air.
So, apparently, they can somehow pull ammonia out of the air, and ammonia is one of the big fertilizer components.
So, sure enough, they can pull fertilizer out of the air now, at least a component of it.
That's kind of cool.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I needed to talk about today.
We'll keep an eye on those drones, whether you like it or not.
You can replace your battery.
On an iPhone?
We'll see.
I've got a feeling it's not the battery, but we'll see.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to go talk to the local subscribers privately.
You think there's a Tesla phone coming?
I know it's a possibility.
All right.
Everybody on X and Rumble and YouTube, I'll see you tomorrow.
