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, Trump's Negotiating Technique, Democrat Family Exclusions, Jeff Bezos, Anti-Musk Democrat Narrative, Elon Musk, President Trump's Advisors, CNN Bad Ratings, Climate Change Iceberg, Lara Trump, Rep. Kay Granger, FA-18 Friendly Fire, Panama Canal Passage Charge, J6 Prisoners Class-Action Lawsuit, Liz Cheney, J6 Committee, Estate Taxes, Legacy Media Non-Stop Psyops, Van Jones, Hoax Susceptible Democrats, Billionaire Political Backing, Biden's Cabinet Interactions, Ukraine All-Robot Assault, Iran Proxy Forces, BWXT Soda Ash Nuclear Reactors, Fenbendazole Cancer Treatment, Dr. William Makis, 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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization, civilization.
It's called The Coffee with Scott Adams, and while those other podcasters are sleeping in on Sunday, I'm with you, giving you that free entertainment that you demand.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tanker gels, a canteen jug or a flask of vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's good.
That's good.
Well, we've got news and we've got fake news today.
We've got all kinds of news.
Real stuff, fake stuff.
You know, the usual stuff.
So there's a study, according to SciPost, that each additional fast food meal you eat per week is associated with a 4% higher likelihood of depression.
So 4% higher depression rate if you eat at least one fast food meal per week.
Does that sound like real science to you?
Or does it sound like backwards science?
Backwards science.
Well, I can only speak for myself here, but I suspect this might be generalizable.
When I ate fast food, when I was a younger adult, I don't do it anymore, but when I did...
I would do it for the enjoyment.
I'd do it for the dopamine.
I didn't really do it for the food.
It was because it just felt so good.
So, who would likely eat unhealthy food just to make themselves feel better?
Probably somebody who's trending toward depressed or sad.
So I've got a feeling that the reason people eat it is because they're already feeling not 100%.
So I'm not so sure it's the food makes them sad, so much as being sad makes you eat things that are unhealthy, but it sure feels good when you do it.
Now, this is part of my hypothesis.
It's the pleasure unit theory.
I call it a theory, but it's a hypothesis.
And the idea is that everybody needs a minimum amount of enjoyment, or else it's just not worth living.
And if you can't get enjoyment in legal and healthy ways, you will get it another way.
And this might be one of those examples.
So I think it might be, at least partially, backward science.
So some robots are learning to Maybe determine how humans feel, their emotional state, by touching.
So they figured out how to get sort of a galvanic skin response mechanism in the fingers of a robot.
This is all experimental.
But the idea is that apparently you can tell people's emotional state by their galvanic skin response.
Now, this is according to live science.
And maybe.
But here's what I think.
Why don't robots do it the way people do it?
Because people can tell people's emotional state.
We look at their body language.
We look at their eyes.
We look at their face.
We look at their smile.
We listen to the exact words they choose.
And those are all patterns.
So basically, humans have pattern recognition, and the pattern recognition allows us to know how other people are feeling unless they're trying really hard to hide it from us.
So I would think that the robots are 100% likely to deal with humans as emotional creatures, because they'll just know what that means, and they'll know how to deal with it, and they'll recognize the patterns, and they'll see if the irises of your eyes are larger or smaller.
They'll look for all those little cues.
By the way, it's the same thing I learned in hypnosis.
When you learn hypnosis, you learn to read people's micro changes, you know, tiny changes in skin tone and, you know, eyes and stuff like that.
It's very useful.
It's a learnable skill.
According to Zero Hedge, Trump says he plans to continue aid to Ukraine.
But he wants to raise NATO's spending limit to 5% from 2%.
So at the moment, NATO countries are supposed to donate 2% of their GDP toward NATO, and Trump wants to pump that up.
And I assume that means that the United States would save some money, or would it?
Because if we spend 5% on NATO, that's just more spending.
But the critics will say, wait a minute, I thought we voted for Trump to end this war.
You did.
But he says he's going to continue funding the Ukrainians to fight.
He did.
There's no conflict there.
Yes, he's going to negotiate an end to the war.
Yes, he wants to escalate the war.
Yes.
Because that's how you negotiate.
It's just negotiating.
So, Russia needs to feel like he's in it for the long run, and if they don't give him the deal he wants, he'll just keep fighting, and we'll just keep sending drones over there, and NATO will up its spending, and we'll just grind the Russian army down.
Now, Clearly, clearly, Trump would rather negotiate an end to the war.
But you don't get an end to the war if you say, I'm going to tell the Ukrainians they can't fight anymore.
That's sort of a bad beginning to a negotiation.
The best beginning to a negotiation...
Is we're going to go harder at you.
And that's what he's saying.
So if you don't understand Trump as a negotiator, everything looks backwards.
It all looks upside down.
You're like, what?
I thought he was going to negotiate peace.
Why is he going to fund the war?
Oh, it's all the same thing.
It's just negotiating.
You heard the story about Russia allegedly was going to launch some cancer vaccine in 2025. Newsweek's reporting on this.
So here's what we know.
It's not a vaccine.
So the first thing you need to know about the cancer vaccine from Russia, it's not a vaccine.
So it's not intended to prevent you from getting anything.
It's meant to treat people who already have something.
And the described methodology is Is that they'd have to take a little biopsy of your tumor.
And then they would concoct the vaccination to be specific to you.
And then they'd give it to you and it would fight your cancer, they say.
But I did hear just one anecdotal report from somebody in a Russian hospital saying they don't know anything about it.
So I don't think I would place a big bet that this is real or that it would work.
But it's out there.
We'll see.
Meanwhile, Rumble, which some of you are watching me on right now, the Rumble platform, they got $775 million investment from Tether.
Tether's a crypto outfit.
So according to Reclaim the Net.
And that's a lot of money.
How often does any company get a $775 million investment?
So if you were worried that Rumble wasn't going to make it because it's sort of a free speech, you know, one of the last places you can find it, looks like they're in pretty good shape right now.
I should tell you that I'm an investor.
In Rumble.
That's not why I'm telling you the story, but I am an investor, so keep that in mind.
According to Axios...
Democrat voters are five times more likely to exclude family members because of politics.
Now, fortunately, five times is not as much as it could have been.
So 23% of Democrats are willing to exclude Republicans in their family from family events.
But Republicans, only 5% of Republicans would do the same.
Only 5% versus 23%.
And independents are in the middle, of course, 11%.
Yeah, that's pretty messed up.
I wonder if that's true.
Do you buy that, 23%?
I feel like it might be more.
I think 23% might be the ones who admit it.
I feel like there might be people who say, I'm not going to invite you, but then there must be other people who simply don't invite you.
They don't tell anybody, they don't talk to a pollster, but they're just not comfortable being around you anymore.
I think this is low, 23%.
I'll bet it's closer to half, if I had to guess.
Well, in the fake news category, the news is saying today, this is fake news, by the way, that Jeff Bezos is going to marry his fiancée, Lauren Sanchez, in what's being called a lavish $600 million Aspen wedding.
So Bill Ackman was the first person I saw calling this out because he can do math.
Do you know what's wrong with most news people?
Can't do math, so they don't know what is real news and what's not real news.
As Bill Ackman pointed out, you couldn't possibly spend $600 million unless you bought a house for every person who attended.
No, it's not $600 million.
If you saw that story, and for even one second, for even one second, You believe that Jeff Bezos was going to spend $600 million on a wedding?
Well, he's already weighed in, and Jeff Bezos says there's not a single thing about it that's true, which opens the possibility that there's no wedding at all, but it definitely debunks the $600 million part.
No, there's no $600 million weddings.
How did anybody believe that?
No.
And yeah, so we don't know if the wedding is on, but certainly the 600 million part is off.
I suspect the Aspen part isn't real either, because Bezos said it was basically all false.
So don't believe that.
I saw the best response to the narrative that the Democrats are trying to use, that Elon Musk is, oh, he's the real president.
He's President Musk.
Oh, you know, they're trying to drive a wedge between Musk and Trump.
And here's the best that I saw.
Now, I didn't write down where this came from, so I'm stealing this from an influencer online whose name I didn't get.
But here's the persuasion.
We did vote for Trump.
And we did vote for Trump to pick his advisors.
Yeah, we did vote for Trump and his advisors.
Now, technically, technically you didn't vote for Elon Musk.
But you totally voted for Donald Trump and whoever he wants to work with.
And he wants to work with Elon Musk.
And you knew that.
You knew that.
You knew that before you voted.
So, surprise, you did vote for Elon Musk.
You didn't vote him for president, but you voted for him to do exactly what he's doing.
In effect, you voted for him.
Not technically, but in effect.
So, that's the best reframe I've seen on this.
Yeah, we always vote for the advisors.
We voted for Vivek.
We voted for J.D. Vance.
Even though he's vice president, you sort of vote for him.
We voted for Tulsi Gabbard.
We voted for RFK Jr. to do his thing.
Yeah, I can tell you for sure that in my mind when I voted, I was voting for the team.
Were you?
Or did you think of yourself as voting for one person?
Because, you know, technically you're voting for one person, but, I mean, the appeal of it was who he could bring to the game.
So, yeah, we voted for him.
We absolutely voted for Musk, indirectly.
CNN's ratings continues to make news how bad they are.
I would hate to be in the news business, but the news is about how bad your business is.
So CNN probably doesn't cover the news about how bad their business is.
But their ratings for their key demographic, 25 to 54-year-old people, the CNN averaged only 93,000 viewers.
So that must be per show or per hour, I guess.
93,000.
Do you know how many people are going to watch this live stream?
Probably 100,000.
If you count the audio on Spotify, and you count Rumble, and you count the XFeed, and you count YouTube, and you count Locals, so on multiple platforms, probably the live audience will be lower, but the nature of podcasts is they get replayed.
CNN largely doesn't get replayed.
At least the whole show doesn't get replayed.
So is my podcast as big as CNN? No.
Because here's what they never tell you.
When they tell you that CNN's ratings are low, they're leaving out the main part of their business model.
The main part of their business model is clips.
If you follow the news at all, you're going to see tons of clips taken from their shows.
So when the live show of CNN is on, I don't think even CNN expects you to watch it.
But they probably do expect you to be on social media and see the clips and all that.
So they probably make more money from the clips...
And then, you know, they have advertising, but as you've learned, especially the pharma advertisers, are really just trying to make sure that CNN doesn't say bad things about them, so they advertise.
But I think they make most of their money.
I'll take a fact check on this, but I think the cable news makes most of their money by charging the cable providers For their content.
So even though you pay just for cable access, the cable company pays for a lot of their content and they're paying CNN to be on their cable.
Because if you offer cable and you don't have CNN, it would look like it's an incomplete product.
So they kind of have to do it.
Anyway...
So whenever you see these news about numbers, there's always something missing that's important.
And what's missing is that they don't get much revenue from the live viewership.
And it's about clips and it's about charging the cable providers.
All right.
The What's Up With That, I think it's a blog or a webpage, by Anthony Watts.
He had an article out that says, Hey, media, remember in 2017 when an iceberg in Antarctica freaked everybody out?
So there was some giant iceberg in 2017 that, I guess, it cleaved itself off.
And then everybody said, Oh, no!
Climate change is melting all the icebergs.
We're all dead.
And then, see, that was 2017. In 2024, the current understanding is that was just a normal thing that's been happening all the time.
It has nothing to do with probably anything.
It was literally just baseline.
It was the most ordinary thing that happens all the time.
So if you thought in 2017, my God, the world is melting, you were wrong.
Climate change, most of the news about climate change is fake.
So I think it's probably true that humans add to the heat of the world.
Whether that makes a difference or we're going to care about it in the long run or there's nothing we can do about it, Those are all the important questions.
But, boy, I would say the news about it is almost always fake.
Whether or not there's anything to it, whether or not there's any truth to it, the news about it is just about always fake.
Because the news is looking for stories to support a narrative, and there's always someone who's happy to give it to them.
Meanwhile, Laura Trump, who people thought was going to run for the Senate, I think she announced she was looking into it, for Florida, she withdrew.
So she wants to withdraw herself from consideration for being a future senator for Florida.
She didn't give a reason, but I'm going to speculate.
My speculation is that it's not really an ideal time, if she has younger kids, to be in a job that pretty much would absorb you and make you move out of town and fly around the world.
It probably just doesn't work with lifestyle, is my guess.
So I think she probably thinks she could win, and she probably thinks that she'd be good at it, which I think.
So, I'm going to say probably later.
If the kids get older and they're kind of self-sufficient, maybe she takes a second to look at it.
So, we'll see.
I'm just guessing.
I'm just guessing that lifestyle and keeping the family intact is their higher priority, but that's just a guess.
So you heard the story about Representative Kay Granger.
So this is somebody who's been in public life for a long time and is a representative in Congress, but hasn't been there for six months.
And when they finally figured out where she was, she was in a memory care facility.
So she's completely checked out.
She's not coming back.
And apparently her interns have been posting.
So it seemed like she was, you know, on the job because her interns were posting on X. And the funniest thing is the interns posted something about how great the interns were in her office with a picture of them all posing with her.
Must have been from the past.
So the interns who were running the account were complimenting themselves in the account.
I like those interns.
As soon as I find out that they were using their privilege access to a representative's account to compliment themselves, I said to myself, approved.
Yeah, that sounds like something I might do if I were an intern.
Anyway, so I don't know if we have a real government or maybe they're all in memory care by now.
So there was a sighting in the southeast United States, something in the sky.
They don't know if it was a satellite burning up and crashing or if it was some kind of a satellite.
I'm sorry, a meteor or a satellite.
They don't know.
But I guess people can see it in Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, parts of Louisiana.
So I saw the video of it, and it really looks scary because it's, you know, there's flaming particles coming through the sky that look pretty big.
And it was in multiple parts.
So as far as I know, we still don't know what that was.
But if I were a meteor chaser, let me give you a little financial advice.
If you could be the first one to find a meteor, and it's not on somebody else's private property, those meteors are worth a lot of money.
Did you know that?
Yeah, they're worth, you know, it might be worth a million dollars if there was a big chunk of it.
Or actually a lot more.
So we'll see.
If I saw where that was landing, I would have been driving toward that thing so fast.
Because it's basically just free money laying on the ground if it's intact.
If any of the parts came through big enough that there's a nice chunk.
Well, you probably heard the story that a U.S. jet, military jet, got shot down by a military destroyer in the Red Sea.
Now, I didn't see as part of the story what the...
It's an F-A-18, so one of our advanced jets.
A Super Hornet.
Hmm.
Anyway, so it got shot down in what they call a friendly fire, which is sort of the worst name for your co-workers trying to kill you accidentally.
But the good news, as somebody said, is apparently our anti-aircraft defenses are really good, because I think it only took one missile to take it down.
But the pilots got out.
So there were two people in the plane, or the jet, and apparently they ejected in time.
So I think we're going to find out more about this story.
On the surface, it's sort of a perfect bad anecdote for the Biden administration.
By the end of the Biden administration, the military was shooting at each other.
It's a little too perfect.
As a little punctuation at the end of the sentence.
So I'm going to wait on this one.
There might be more to this story.
I feel a...
I have a suspicion that there's a little bit more to it.
And maybe we'll never know, but...
I don't know.
Maybe it's a DEI problem.
We'll never know.
Trump provocatively has put out a notice on...
Social media that Panama Canal either needs to lower its prices for American ships or maybe we should take it back.
Now, you might not know if you're not old enough that the Panama Canal was built by Americans.
I think 35,000 Americans died building it, mostly from mosquitoes.
Trump was mentioning that statistic recently.
And Then Jimmy Carter sold the entire canal to Panama for $1.
I think he just didn't want to be colonizing Panama, so he said, all right, even though it's very, very profitable, and even though we built it at a great personal expense, it's not our country, so we're going to turn it over to you.
And I understand.
I mean, I get why Carter did it.
We just don't want to be that kind of country where we're just basically colonizing the middle of Panama.
On the other hand, what happened was Panama grossly increased the price for passage for each ship.
And I did see that they could charge as much as $450,000 for one ship.
Nearly half a million dollars just to pass.
And our ships are paying that?
So Trump is basically saying, if you don't want us to take it back, which wouldn't be hard militarily, you're going to have to lower those prices, at least for American ships.
And again, the way you should see this is as negotiation.
Did Trump just declare war on Panama?
Sort of.
Yeah, sort of.
He kind of did.
But it's in the context of negotiations.
So I like that.
Jack Posobiec is saying that I think he's involved in putting together a class action suit for the January Sixers, and the class action would be against the committee, the January Six committee, who may have done unethical things, maybe even illegal, we don't know yet, that would cause some of them to go to jail in a context in which they normally would not be going to jail.
So, you know how often you've been bugged by the fact that somebody will become innocent by the law and then there'll be a legal case?
So the private lawsuit takes all their money even though they may not have done the crime or they were not found guilty of the crime.
I hate it when it works against my interests.
Where I think, come on!
The law found them innocent.
It's not fair that they get sued when they're innocent on a legal sense.
You probably all know the reason that you can find somebody liable and have to pay money, even though they were found not guilty of the very crime, is that there's a different standard.
So if it's military...
The entire jury has to agree that they're guilty.
If it's a civil suit, we're just suing them for hurting you in some way, then it just has to be the majority of the jury.
So it's much easier.
So, and Jack Posobiec is saying that they would start with Liz Cheney.
Now, I asked my digital device, what is the net worth of Liz Cheney?
It said $14 million.
But, of course, nobody really knows that stuff.
Nobody really knows anybody's net worth.
I've been looking at my own net worth as estimated by social media for the last 25 years.
Not even close.
I don't know where they come up with those numbers.
Nobody asked me.
I'm literally the only person who knows my net worth.
Literally the only one.
There's no financial institution who has a good view of it.
Nobody.
And nobody asked me.
So when I check social media for somebody else's net worth, it could be five times that.
It could be one-fifth of that.
So that's what you have to look at.
Now, Although I do assume she's doing okay.
What do you think of that?
So, separate from the question of whether those lawsuits would succeed, and I suspect they would, actually.
I think they would.
Do you think that this is the right approach?
I'm going to say yes.
Because I'm not so sure that there would be any success with a criminal trial, because that's tough.
But I'll bet you would have success with a civil trial.
And if, in the unlikely event, it produced any money, then that would go to the J6ers after legal costs, of course.
So I guess I'm in favor of this.
I guess I'm in favor.
There has to be some kind of response to the pure evil of the January 6th convictions.
So if conservatives push back with every single tool they have, I think this would be the place to do it.
I'm not universally in favor of whatever they did to you, do it back to them.
I'm not in favor of that.
I'm in favor of usually taking the high ground and trying to win, you know, persuading people that you're the good guys seems like a better long-term play.
But in this specific case, the level of evil in this January 6th conviction stuff, that needs to be addressed with a hammer.
This is not one of those where you want to nuance it.
You know, you take a sledgehammer to this one.
So yeah, first go after them criminally.
Whether or not that works, you also go after them civilly.
I would say that that's probably the right play.
Typically, I don't like this stuff because it feels revenge-y.
But this is revenge-y with utility.
So I'm responding to the utility of it.
At some point, conservatives have to say, if you do stuff like that, it might take us a year, it might take us two years, it might take us three years, it might take us four years, but you're fucked.
I think that's important.
You need guardrails in this world.
So you've got to tell them it doesn't matter how long it takes, you're going to eat this.
Because it was evil.
If they had a good argument, you know, I'd feel completely differently.
But January 6th convictions were pure evil.
And there were a lot of them.
And it was sketchy behavior in every possible way.
So yeah.
Sledgehammer.
Meanwhile, President Trump said he wants to eliminate estate tax, calling it unfair to hardworking Americans.
I want to give you a sense of the estate tax, if you weren't aware of this.
Of course, there's like a close to $14 million exemption.
So if your estate's under $14 million, you get away without estate tax, for the most part.
But if you had a business or a farm, there's a pretty good chance that the business or the farm would be worth more than that.
And then once you cross that number, everything above that gets a 40% estate tax.
So the government just takes 40% after that.
Now, if you have a SEP, a retirement plan, the SEP requires that if you were to take money out of it after you retire, If you took money out of it, you would pay regular income tax, which is fair because it was tax-exempt when it went in.
So all you're doing is paying the taxes that were owed plus some extra if you made money.
So I understand that part, and certainly I understood that when I went into it and funded my SEPP. What I wasn't counting on is that if you have a business, as I do, you know, the Dilbert business is a business, that after you paid 50% income tax, you would also pay 40% estate tax on whatever was left.
So you'd pay 50% Half of it just gone.
And then the half that's left, 40% of it, also gets taken away.
So what does that come out to?
80, 85% when you do the math tax?
Now, I didn't know that when I funded it.
It's something I started, I don't know, 25 years ago or whatever.
And I just did it because everybody does it.
You're supposed to have a retirement account.
It's good for saving on taxes.
I knew when I took it out.
But basically, the government is just going to confiscate it.
They're just going to confiscate it.
Now, imagine if you owned a farm, and the farm has been in your family the whole time, but you've got several beneficiaries.
Well, what do you do then?
You're going to have to sell the farm to pay the taxes and then split up whatever's left to the beneficiaries.
But you're out of business.
Your farm's out of business.
And so I'm very much in favor of getting rid of this estate tax for selfish reasons, but also because it's basically theft.
I mean, to me, I pay a lot of taxes and paying taxes doesn't feel like theft.
I know what you're saying.
You're saying all taxes are theft.
But if my money is going, you know, some percentage of it that I knew they were going to take and it's higher than other people's taxes because my income is good that year or something, I'm not going to complain too much about that.
I don't like it.
I'd like it to be lower.
But the estate tax is just confiscation.
I mean, that's really dirty stuff.
Anyway, I know you don't feel sorry for me.
That's okay.
Elon Musk said in the Post that the legacy media is a nonstop psyop.
That is true, but I would add the following.
It's not a nonstop PSYOP by accident.
It's a nonstop PSYOP by design.
And this is one of the hardest things to accept as true in your world.
The news is not meant to inform you.
It's meant to control you.
The news is, and always has been, and always will be, So there's no real alternative to the news being a PSYOP. There really isn't.
Because I don't think you could hold a country together if you had actual free speech and free news.
So the best you can do is have something like the X platform in Rumble where you can get something closer to the truth if you want it.
But the news is designed as a psyop.
It's not designed as a public service which morphed into something bad.
No, it was always a PSYOP, by design.
All right, so I continue to be entertained by Democrats trying to figure out what went wrong.
The closest one is Van Jones, so I talk about him a lot, Eric Abinante.
I was talking about, on X today, a post where Van Jones was explaining to some Democrats what went wrong and basically how to adjust.
So here's what Van said.
He said he identified what he called the high IQ, low EQ trap.
So by his telling...
The Democrats are the high IQ group, but their emotional intelligence wasn't good because they showed their arrogance and disrespect and condescension that people can see from a thousand yards away, says Van.
Now, so far...
Is he right?
Well, he's definitely right that Democrats showed their disrespect and condescension, and that almost certainly changed votes.
I think he's right on topic on that.
I don't think it's the key problem.
I think people not being able to buy gas and people coming over the border was probably bigger.
But yes, it definitely made a difference that one side was saying that you suck.
And the other side was saying, you know, what about these policies?
Well, you suck.
I know, but what about policies?
So he's correct that the Democrats need to do less disrespect and condescension.
But is he correct that they're the high IQ people?
They're not the high IQ people.
Again, this is disrespectful and condescending, Van Jones.
When I hear your comments, I say, are you teaching them not to be condescending, or are you being condescending and teaching them how to be more condescending?
Because if you tell me that the Democrats were the high IQ group, sorry, let me make this adjustment for you.
The Democrats are probably the high college educated group.
Are you with me so far?
I would agree that they're the more educated party.
But didn't we watch them get just about everything wrong for four years or ten years?
So why is it that the smart party got everything wrong?
They fell for every hoax.
They fell for every hoax.
Every hoax.
The smart ones.
The smart ones fell for every hoax.
I don't think you saw one Democrat saying, you know, this whole fine people thing is crap.
Well, I guess Bill Maher.
So, eventually some.
But the thing that the Republicans have going for them is a much clearer idea of what's happening.
Not always right.
Plenty of Plenty of dumb people in the world, so they're going to be in both parties, of course, and you're going to see them more than others because it's fun to see the dumb people in both parties.
But I really think you need to back off the high IQ thing because if you're talking about leadership, Trump has assembled the smartest advisers And team of leaders we've ever had, maybe since 1776. I'll give you that Jefferson and Adams and Washington might be pretty smart.
But since then, we've never seen a group this smart.
And that's also why they were able to work together.
Why can RFK Jr. work with the opposite party?
Well, part of it is because he's smart.
Being smart gives you lots of powers, like flexibility, ability to make hard things work for you, right?
So, far and away, far and away, the current Trump administration has the smartest leaders and advisors we've ever seen.
I mean, they impress almost every day.
And the Democrats had the worst.
Literally brain damaged.
Biden's brain didn't work.
And they replace him with Kamala Harris, whose brain doesn't work, and they're the high IQ party.
The high IQ party couldn't tell that Biden was mentally diminished.
They couldn't tell.
How many Republicans couldn't tell?
None.
Every single Republican said, um...
I'm listening to you in 2019 and you don't sound so good.
I'm not sure you're going to make four years.
All of them.
Pretty much every Republican saw it.
How many Republicans knew that Kamala Harris was not bright enough to be the good candidate for all of them?
Every one of them.
Meanwhile, what were Democrats thinking was happening?
They thought that Russia was colluding.
They thought that the president was a neo-Nazi.
Don't even get me started on the pandemic.
They got everything wrong.
They're transing people, children, everything.
If you measure the IQ of the Democrats, I do believe...
Because a lot of them are in the higher education group.
They'd probably pass an SAT or a GMAT. They'd probably do really well.
But when it came to the real world, where they had to make decisions about what's real and what's not, they got everything wrong.
Climate change?
The way the left understands climate change is just a joke.
It's just a joke.
They have no idea that...
Multi-year predictions with many variables aren't real.
That's not real.
You can't predict the future that way.
Nobody can.
And I think the Republicans all know it, that the models are ridiculous, and the Democrats don't.
The smart ones.
Anyway, but I'll say again, You know, even though I'm criticizing, you know, Van Jones' take on this, he's still the closest.
I think he and, you know, James Carville and probably Bill Maher, I think they're circling it, but they're not quite there yet.
They're on the outside of the, you know, they're knocking on the door, but they're definitely not inside.
They don't know what's going on yet, but they're very close in there.
So the other thing the Democrats keep complaining about is that Trump has a billionaire helping him.
They're talking about Elon Musk.
So here's the current number.
According to Maria Naufel, who was reporting that Forbes was saying this, that Kamala Harris was backed by 83 billionaires.
Trump had 52 billionaires.
So even the billionaire backing was way more for the Democrats.
Now, on top of that, what about George Soros and Bill Gates and Reid Hoffman?
I mean, the Democrats have been just living off this billionaire backing forever, but both parties have.
So the billionaire thing is ridiculous.
As Marc Andreessen said, that Elon's enemies have a real problem.
Their argument that a man worth $400 billion is doing it to make more money is obviously not credible.
So Elon Musk responded to that on X. He said, also, if I am allegedly, quote, bought by some country or group, how can they realistically afford it?
I'm too expensive.
How could they afford it?
It's too expensive.
Yes, that is exactly correct.
How could you possibly afford it?
What would that even look like?
All right, we Russians, we have an offer for you, Elon Musk.
If you will sell it to America, we will give you $10 million.
Ten million dollars?
That's nothing.
All right, we'll give you...
I mean, it sounds like Dr. Evil, doesn't it?
We'll give you one billion dollars.
Really?
That's all?
One billion.
Hold on, hold on.
Hold on.
I just made a billion.
Well, we'll give you two billion dollars.
Hold on, hold on.
Two billion.
I just made another billion.
You can't really buy a guy like that.
It'd be kind of hard.
But I should point out, before you get all high IQ about it, one of the things that conservatives say, at least on social media every day, is that Bill Gates is in it for the money.
How many of you believe that Elon Musk is definitely not in it for the money?
He's not.
In my opinion, he's not in it for the money.
But you think that Bill Gates is?
Do you feel that that would be a consistent opinion?
That Bill Gates is in it for the money, but Elon couldn't be, because how could you bribe somebody that rich?
I don't think either of them are in it for the money exactly.
I think they're in it for whatever reasons.
Usually good.
All right.
So I'm not defending Bill Gates.
That's not my job.
I'm just saying that money's probably not the main thing.
Probably not.
All right.
I've been waiting to find out, and some of you have as well, What Elon thinks about the drone sightings and all the UAPs and UFOs.
And I saw him post a meme that suggests he thinks it's all fake.
He didn't say it, but the meme was showing a bunch of aircraft silhouettes and they were all labeled drones to help you spot drones.
So the joke was that it's just regular airplanes that people are saying, I've never seen anything like that.
It must be an alien drone or China or something.
So since that was just a meme, I don't know if Musk has more of a nuanced take on it.
But it doesn't look like he believes we have any trouble or that there's anything unusual.
And I don't know either.
So I'm genuinely puzzled because it looks for all the world like a mass hysteria.
To me it looks like a mass hysteria.
But I can't explain...
Why so many capable, smart, and credible people are saying, I'm looking at it right now, and I've never seen anything like that.
Like, that part I don't understand.
Like, because there's no airplane that's hovering over your house at 500 feet, right?
And there are very credible people who say, there's this car-sized thing hovering over my house and And I can see it clearly.
I can't get a good picture, but, you know, you can never get a good picture of anything interesting.
So, I'm open to being surprised about whatever the real answer is.
My current best hypothesis is that it's a combination of things, but none of them are aliens.
That's my best guess.
It's just a combination of things.
Some of it fake sightings, some of it mistaken.
Some mass hysteria, some actual, maybe somebody's testing some technology so they don't want to make a big deal about it.
It could be some foreign influence, some foreigners looking at our army base.
It could be all of that.
But probably not one big thing.
I'm guessing it's a number of things.
But I'm ruling out aliens so far.
I might rule them in later.
But on the all-in pod, Friedberg, whose name, interestingly, I don't know his first name from the all-in pod.
What is Friedberg's first name?
Because on the all-in pod, they call him by his last name.
I think they call some of them by their last names.
Anyway, whatever his first name is, Friedberg, he thinks it might be a psyop by China to crush America's drone economy.
And the thinking goes like this.
China has an advantage in drones because they have fewer regulations.
So they can design and build things and prototype faster than we can.
And they control most of the manufacturing of drones now.
If they were to be clever...
They would take a bunch of suspicious drones, fly them around in our busiest airspace around New Jersey until we were all freaked out and said, we must have regulations that no drones can fly in residential areas.
And then we would over-regulate ourselves and then China would go wild and own the world with drones.
I like the addition of that To the possibilities, I don't think that's the highest possibility.
To me, it feels a little too clever.
But maybe.
I mean, I can't rule it out.
Maybe.
Anyway.
We've learned about Biden's brain not working for his entire term.
You may have heard that Insurrection Barbie is talking about this on X, that Biden only had nine cabinet meetings in four years.
But here's the part So you already heard that he didn't meet with his cabinet often.
But here's the more disturbing part.
The members of the cabinet had to submit written questions in advance.
It's being written so that he could have the answers written down for them.
Now, I don't think he's the one who wrote down the answers.
I think his staff and advisors wrote him answers.
So not only was he incapable of having these meetings, but he was incapable of handling them like a meeting.
He just used it to read something that was given to him.
That's really, really bad.
However bad you thought things were, it might have been a lot worse.
It sounds like it.
Meanwhile, Ukraine established a new point in history by doing an all-robot attack on the Russian lines.
An all-robot attack.
Apparently that included remote-controlled surveillance and mine-laying drones.
So some of the drones were surveillance, some of them were laying mines.
It included one-way explosive robots.
Now, it doesn't explain what the robots look like.
I'm guessing their dog form, the four-legged kind, because I don't think you'd build a two-legged robot if it's just going to run ahead and explode.
So probably four-legged.
So they sent these robots, exploding robots, at the Russians.
And they also had gun-armed bots.
So they had robots.
I assume these are remote-controlled.
They had guns.
And they sent no humans.
They sent only robots and drones, and they took out the Russians in a very small area.
Now, as...
As the article I read described it, the robots are not good for holding territory.
They're good for killing people.
But you'd have to move in humans to hold the territory.
So we don't know if the Ukrainians even tried to hold the territory.
But it does suggest...
It does suggest that it's going to be all robots from now on.
Now, I think that's a really good thing for negotiating.
Because apparently there are way more Russian soldiers than there are Ukrainians because they're running out of people.
If the Ukrainians could show the ability...
To double their strength through robots and actually have them offensive robots.
I think that would make Russia ask a lot of questions because I don't think Russia can maybe match them with robots yet.
I don't think that China would provide them with robots yet.
So how would Russia ever match an all-robot army?
They could afford it, but could they build it?
Does Russia have the ability to manufacture robots?
They can make drones, or they can buy them from Russia, but I don't think they would buy four-legged, exploding robots or machine gun robots.
So there's some possibility that That we're on the verge of completely changing how war is done so that the robot army will beat the human army basically every time, and you just need more robots to win.
So if Trump comes in, he says, here's the deal, Putin.
I'm going to keep funding Ukraine, which you already said, that's part of this negotiation, but I'm going to massively supply them with killer robots.
So you have a human advantage right now, but I'm going to take that away from you with robots.
I'll just have the robots kill your people until you don't have any left.
Because you can't match us with robots.
Now, of course, Putin does have plays as well.
He could say, I have hypersonic missiles, and I could aim them at the United States.
To which point, Trump would say, and you'd all be dead.
Because they would be.
Because the United States would destroy everything it could destroy in Russia.
Certainly Putin would be dead.
So nobody wants to do that.
So timing is really good for negotiation reasons.
It's always good to have an unknown that you can take with you to negotiate.
Because when you hear that there was this one successful little attack, the first thing you should ask is, is that bullshit?
I wasn't there.
I didn't see it.
Do you trust the Ukrainians to say that they had an all-robot attack and it was a big success?
No.
You shouldn't trust anything coming from a war zone.
Not anything.
But do the Russians know?
No.
Because if you say to them, we're already destroying you with our robot army, you know, the prototype already worked, now we're going to just flood the zone with killer robots, and you guys basically are all dead.
Now, if Russia doesn't know if that's true, and how could they?
I mean, even we don't know if it's true.
Because even if you tried hard to do it, well, I don't know, could you do it?
Could he build enough robots fast enough that it changes the course of the war?
I don't know.
I have no idea.
But here's the fun part.
Russia definitely doesn't know.
They don't know if he can do it.
So Trump can come in with the threat of moving to an all-robot army that will destroy all of his entire army, and Putin won't know for sure if that's real.
That's pretty strong.
That's a strong way to go into the negotiations.
Because you can threaten it quite credibly, now that they've tested it and it worked, allegedly, according to their reporting.
Well, here's an interesting one.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, claimed that they don't have any proxy forces in the Middle East, and that if they want to attack anyone, they'll do it themselves.
Okay, now, you all follow the news enough to know that Hezbollahs are proxies, and Hamas is their proxies, and they got proxies in Syria, and, you know, they're big on proxies.
Oh, and they have proxies in Yemen, right?
And why do you know that?
Why do we all know that?
Because of the news.
We already done the news.
The news that's a psyop.
So the news that isn't even trying to be real, the PSYOP news, it told you that Iran has proxies.
I'm just going to put this out there.
What if they don't?
What if they don't?
Now, your first impression was the same as my first impression, that it's such a bald-faced lie, it's so obviously not true, because every news entity reports that they have proxies, and Israel's entire existence is based on the understanding that these are Iranian proxies.
So how in the world could they say this with a straight face that we don't have any proxies?
Well, maybe they're doing like the word thing where they say they're not our proxies.
They're just people we support with our money and our weapons.
What they do is up to them.
So maybe they're weaseling it somehow.
But here's the thing that has stopped me in my tracks.
I still think they have proxies.
So I think we are correct.
You know, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.
I think they have proxies.
But I had to stop and pause for a second and ask myself, is it possible, given all the other things that the news has told us over the years that turned out not to be true, a lot of stuff that turned out not to be true, like even our reason for the war in Iraq, like really basic major war things that we've been told were true that just weren't.
And it made me stop and think, what if Iran doesn't have any proxies?
We do live in a world where, as shocking as that would be, and I don't believe it's true, by the way.
I do believe they have proxies.
But we do live in a world where if I found out I had been wrong about that for decades, it wouldn't be that much of a surprise.
Because pretty much all the war news is fake.
So could that be fake?
And the answer is, it could be.
Now, if you lived there, and you lived in Israel, and you had much closer on the ground direct observations of things, I'm sure they know for sure that they have proxies in Israel.
But you and I don't have access to anything except what people told us.
So, are you going to believe Israel?
If Israel says, hey, we've got this problem, it sure would help if you gave us a ton of money to solve it.
Mm-hmm.
I wouldn't believe any country told me that.
But I do think there are proxies.
My only point is that we live in a world where something as basic an understanding as that could turn out to be wrong.
And you just have to stop and say, all right, I'm pretty sure this isn't real, but can I be sure?
Hard to say.
Well, here's something interesting.
This snuck up on me.
So Tata Chemicals in North America, they've got this soda ash subsidiary.
And I guess soda ash is something you mine, and it's not based on soda.
It's just what they call it.
And apparently it's super energy intensive.
And so they're going to build...
Eight small micro-reactors, nuclear-powered micro-reactors, that I think is just for their own operation.
So eight separate nuclear reactors, tiny ones, just for one company.
And I said to myself, when did that become possible?
I followed this topic.
I didn't know anybody could just buy this shit off the shelf from an American company.
Is this going to work?
Is there already a demo model where this works?
And then I read...
So I have questions about this one.
And then I read that it's gas-cooled, right?
It's a gas-cooled micro-reactor.
Now, the traditional reactors that we have in this country, even the newest ones, the third-generation ones, those are still water-cooled.
So if you lose your power, you lose your water cooling, if you lose the backup power as well.
That's what happened with Fukushima.
That's what happened in Japan with their nuclear plant.
It's not deadly to lose power.
It's deadly to lose power And also your backup power.
That's what happened to them.
And the reason is, if you can't keep the water cooling the thing, it overheats, etc.
But what about these gas-cooled ones?
Is it the same problem?
That if you lose power, it melts down?
Or are these the fourth generation where it's designed so it can't?
Maybe it just can't.
So I have lots of questions.
This company, BWXT, is the maker of these little micro-reactors.
And if this is real, this is a really big deal.
Because micro-nuclear reactors is...
In my opinion, almost certainly the future of U.S. energy, with solar, of course.
Well, there's a skinny spy drone that can fly for a whole year within a break.
So it just stays in the air, uses solar to recharge.
And it's so light and skinny that it doesn't take much energy to stay up there.
And this is according to IFL Science, an article there.
So it's so good, it could be a cheaper alternative to satellites.
So instead of putting a satellite up there, which is super expensive, you could just send your drone up and it just stays there all year.
I assume it can stay there forever, because if it can stay there for a year, why wouldn't it stay there forever?
Until it wears out, I guess.
Anyway, and here's some interesting news.
So the Vigilant Fox has been reporting on this.
And Joe Rogan was reporting on the Vigilant Fox's reporting.
And there's a...
I don't know if I mentioned this before.
There's an existing drug that is being repurposed for cancer, but they don't know if it works yet, called fenbendazole.
Fenbendazole.
So fenbendazole is sort of like ivermectin.
And that they're both in that existing drug that's already approved for, I think, worms or something.
So it's sort of like ivermectin, same domain, but also low side effects, like ivermectin.
So there's something that has low side effects, and apparently there's, according to Dr. Mackis, there are like 12 different mechanisms for stopping cancer in this one drug.
Now, as I've told you before, The odds of something that works in the laboratory and works in animals also working in humans, not so good.
It's about 5% that work in animals and then it successfully becomes a product in humans.
But at least some of the reason that things don't become legal for humans is that they would have side effects.
And the side effects might be worse than the thing they're treating.
However...
When you're talking about ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or fenbendazole, you're talking about things where we already know that the side effects are minimal.
So if you've crossed the no side effects that are going to stop it, then it's not 5%, I would guess, that it would be bigger by the percentage of things that typically were ruled out just because they had bad side effects.
So I don't know what the odds are, but the reason there are no big clinical trials is that there's not enough money in it because it's an existing drug, doesn't cost much to make it, and if it worked, it would be amazing.
So the question will be, does it work?
And how would you ever know if there's never a trial?
Well, one way you can know is by talking to people who tried it.
But that's not going to work most of the time because people who get cancer diagnoses will try everything that's even mentioned.
So if their doctor says, do chemo, do radiation, do hormones, they'll probably do all of those things, or at least two of the three.
And then if they also take this drug, then it won't be so clear, you know, what's making a difference.
So it'd be unusual for somebody to just take this and then see what happens.
Right?
So there's not enough money to test it.
But there's also not even the anecdotal works, because nobody will do a clean anecdotal.
They'll always do everything you could possibly do, because you're a little desperate.
But I will tell you that I have personally communicated with somebody who had one of the bad cancers.
I won't be more specific than that.
And it claims to me in person, by message, but a personal message, that the cancer is cleared.
And it's an incurable one.
It's one of the incurable ones.
Now, it's one person.
But what's special is that this one person did not do chemo, radiation, or any of the normal stuff.
And his doctors tell him he's cleared.
So that's an incurable cancer.
It's one of the incurable ones that nobody's cured of.
When I say incurable, I mean nobody.
But there is a real human being who has told me personally that...
I think he may have also taken ivermectin.
But he's on this Dr. Maccas program.
And it's one person.
But here's what I don't trust.
If a big pharma company does a trial and they say you'll live 30% longer if you take their drugs and your chemo and stuff, I don't trust the 30%.
Because I just feel like it's too easy to manipulate numbers.
You know, 30%.
But if there's even one person...
That you could be sure, and I can't be sure in this case, by the way, because it's not somebody, you know, like you'd have to live in their house to be sure.
You know, I'd have to stand next to them and, you know, watch them put the pill in their mouth to be sure.
But somebody who sounds honest to me doesn't have any, you know, financial incentive that I can tell.
And one person says that according to their doctors, he's cleared.
Now, one cure of an uncurable thing gets my interest.
Now, that is far, far from proof.
You all know that, right?
It's far, far from proof.
You need real science to get to proof.
But it's enough to ask if there's any others.
So, if it turned out there were two or three other people, and their doctors also confirmed that they were cleared, I'd be quite excited about that.
Quite excited.
So I think you're going to hear...
Well, I know you'll hear.
You're going to hear more about this.
And you'll probably figure out sooner or later whether it works or not.
And I'll keep you informed.
Keep your eye on this one.
I just have a feeling about it.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got for now.
We're going to enter our incredible, incredible Sunday.
Sunday is going to be the best thing ever.
It's called remission.
Well, I understand what remission is.
And I know that you have to watch them for five years or something.
But we're talking about a specific answer that basically doesn't go into remission.
So at least nobody's ever heard of it.
Nobody's ever heard of it doing that.
But maybe it has.
But I would agree with you.
We are nowhere near proof.
So don't take any medical recommendations from me.
But it does have that pattern recognition thing where it makes you think of ivermectin and other things.
So who knows?
Who knows?
Maybe we get lucky.
All right.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately for just a moment.
The rest of you, thanks for joining on Rumble and YouTube and Spotify and all that.
