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, Tylenol, Ozone Hole, Mystery Orb Drones, Nancy Mace, Nuclear Power Need, RFK Jr., Pharma TV Ads Ban, Pharma's Censorship Power, Elon Musk, Ozempic Santa, Democrat Election Loss Confusion, Democrat Top-Down Brainwashing, J6 Fed Provoked Poll, Fed Jobs Reporting Errors, Foreign Tech Worker Hiring, Comprehending Superior Intelligence, Indiana University, Azerbaijan Plane Crash, Border Wall Sale Paused, Ukrainian Drone Production, RFK's Fauci Book, Pfizer Vaccine Data, 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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time in your whole life.
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 glass, a tank of chalice of stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's so good.
So good.
Well, I only slept about two hours last night.
I just wasn't tired for some reason.
I guess I think I didn't work hard enough.
You know, Christmas Day, I kind of relaxed a little bit, which is uncharacteristic.
And if I relax, I do two hours of sleep and I'm like, I think it's time to get up.
But it wasn't.
Well, here's the good news.
If you believe science and you think the news is telling you what's true, according to Science Alert, some scientists have figured out how to destroy 99% of cancer cells using vibrating molecules and some kind of light to heat it up.
So there's some kind of a molecule That they already use because it attaches to cancer so that when you're imaging it'll show up better on the imaging because it's some kind of chemical that only attaches to cancer and it leaves everything alone.
So if you're looking for just that thing it'll spot all your cancers.
But Turns out that if they put that very same thing, which they're already putting into people for imaging, and they shoot it with near-infrared light, which apparently can penetrate your body to some degree, and they can get all the way into your bone.
And if they heat it up a little bit, and it's already attached to the cancer cell, it destroys the cancer cell.
Now, it already worked in animals, so they don't have to wonder if it worked.
And they don't have to wonder if that chemical is dangerous because it's a chemical that they already put in people for imaging.
So that doesn't mean it's going to work in humans.
But if you factor in that it works in animals and it should be exactly the same mechanism because it's not like a drug.
Where if you give somebody chemo or a chemo drug or something, a human would interact with a drug differently than an animal.
So you can never know if your animal studies are going to translate.
Usually they don't.
But if what you're doing is a physical process, which is you're attaching something to cancer cells, that probably works in animals and people because they did it with animals and we attach it to cancer cells with people for imaging.
So that part works.
The only thing we really need to know is if they shoot this near-infrared light into a human, will it go deeply enough?
And they seem to be, you know, thinking it would.
And would it cause any problems that we're not aware of?
But it apparently is very isolated to just the cancer cells.
And here's the more exciting part.
You're probably aware that cancer is one word that describes a whole bunch of things.
So if you came up with a cure for one kind of cancer, probably it wouldn't work with any other kind of cancer.
But if this little chemical is used for imaging of any kind of cancer, and I'm guessing it is, Then this process would cure any kind of cancer.
Now, apparently it doesn't work 100% of the time, but it's really close.
And it cured like half of the rats of cancer entirely.
So, you know, I always tell you all these, maybe there's a cancer cure and there's a new chemical and there's a new pill and there's a new whatever.
But this is the first one where I look at it and I go, I would bet on this.
I would actually place a bet that once I go through the human testing that this one works.
If it worked on animals, which it did.
So maybe good news.
Meanwhile, Science Alert warns us that Tylenol may induce risky behavior.
If you take Tylenol, it might turn you into a criminal or make you overeat or take drugs or punch your spouse.
Now, I don't know if I believe this.
Remember, studies of this nature might be wrong, I don't know, half the time.
So, have you ever noticed it?
I feel like it's something I would notice.
Because I've taken Tylenol enough that if something happened that was out of my ordinary baseline, I feel like I would have noticed.
But I've never noticed.
So, apparently it makes you less afraid of consequences.
So, I feel like that would be useful.
I can think of lots of situations where you might be worrying a little bit about consequences of something.
It's like, ooh, I might get embarrassed if I go to the party or, you know, what happens if I slip and fall?
But maybe you can take a Tylenol and it would make you stop worrying.
Now, that's not medical advice.
Assume that anything that comes out of my mouth about medical advice is a bad idea for you to copy.
But if it really does induce risky behavior, which is very close to not being afraid of things that you shouldn't be afraid of, I wonder if you could game that to find some use from the fact that it helps you do things that are a little higher.
They seem too risky for you, but maybe they're not too risky.
If you actually did things that were high risk, it would be a bad idea.
But sometimes we think things are high risk just because they make us anxious and they're not high risk.
Well, according to Frank Bergman in Sleigh News, our Antarctic sea ice has slowly increased for the past 40 years.
I can't tell if I'm just in a bubble, because, you know, there's a certain kind of news that comes to me or that I notice.
But it feels to me like the climate change alarmism is just being chipped out from every direction.
Like, well, I'm not so sure those thermometers are right.
Well, did you know we were measuring the temperature of the ocean wrong?
Has anybody mentioned that the clouds haven't been accurately modeled?
And now we have, for the past 40 years, the Antarctic sea ice has slowly increased.
Now, it is true that in some years, including recently, it has decreased.
But as far as I can tell from the historical record, the increases and the decreases are just a normal thing that the ice does.
So it could have several years where it goes down.
It could have several years where it goes up.
But if you look at the past 40 years, when humans have been pumping out the CO2 like crazy, No real difference from the historical record.
So the Antarctic is not getting warmer?
Or it's not getting warm enough to make a difference?
We don't know.
But remember, I'm not going to say that the studies that kind of agree with me are the accurate ones.
That would be crazy.
So this, like all the other studies, throw it in the pile with things that are wrong half of the time.
But it does seem like there are a lot of things going in the same direction, suggesting that the ice hasn't melted, the sea level has not risen, there are no more hurricanes than you should expect.
I feel like climate change is getting ready for a tipping point.
Like, it's gonna be harder and harder to accept it as a real existential risk.
Okay, now, I don't know if this next part I'm gonna tell you is real.
If it's real, my mind is blown, but not surprised.
According to the same article, From Frank Bergman in Slay News.
And again, I don't know if this is true.
This is the first time I've ever heard this.
It's blowing my mind.
You remember the hole in the ozone?
So when I was younger, there was a hole in the ozone.
And then you remember that they banned certain kinds of aerosols that had some chemical that was causing it.
And then, it was one of the greatest successes of science.
Because the ozone hole actually closed.
Is that what you think happened?
How many of you think that's what happened?
That's what my news told me.
My news told me that science made a discovery of what was causing it.
Government worked efficiently to ban that one item that was the problem.
And sure enough, a little time goes by and that ozone hole closed itself.
Except...
According to Frank Bergman in Slay News, it's now bigger than it ever was.
And that it's also a natural, it's a natural variability.
That sometimes the hole is bigger, sometimes the hole is smaller.
And after all that banning of all those chemicals, it got smaller.
But while they're still banned, it's bigger than it's ever been.
I've never, I had never heard that before.
Have you?
How many of you heard that?
And again, I'm going to put it in the category of, is that true?
Or is it bad data?
I don't know.
I think I'm going to say I'm a little skeptical that the ozone hole is bigger than it's been.
But I will check it out.
So I only just read this this morning.
Has anybody heard of this?
I'm hesitant to say it's true.
I'll just say it's reported.
Well, did you see all the stories about the drones on Christmas Day?
You know, all the unidentified drones on Christmas Day?
My God, did you see all the stories about that?
No, you didn't.
You know why?
Well, I don't know for sure.
But I think all the drones took Christmas off.
Now, that's not confirmed.
I will say that we asked our own Erica, who's one of our favorites on Locals, who lives in New Jersey, to look outside and take a picture and see if the activity that she's been seeing for weeks died down.
Now, she got She was busy with her relatives and didn't get to do that.
But I've seen a few posts on social media on X that suggest it was a quiet night for drones.
What does that tell you?
Do you think the aliens take Christmas off?
Do you think that China stops surveying our military bases because it's a holiday?
Maybe.
It's possible that they do.
Because maybe then there aren't enough drones in the air to disguise what nefarious things they're doing.
So it is possible that the Chinese would take the holiday off because everybody else did.
Just so it's not obvious what they're doing.
I'm pretty sure this is an American...
Yeah, the drones are American.
But...
But...
I saw Nancy Mace, who apparently has been in a skiff and knows more than you and I do about the UFO sightings.
Now, I don't think the drones are UFOs, but in addition to the drones, there are also sightings of other kinds of crafts, and Nancy Mace described it as, there are two shapes that can't be explained.
By shapes, I think they mean the tic-tac and the orb, but I'm not positive.
So the things that look sort of like drones, I think everybody's decided that they're Either ours or some kind of hobbyist or maybe an adversary, but they're not from outer space.
But the orbs, the alleged round, shiny things, sometimes they're metal, sometimes they seem like clear with something in the middle.
And maybe the tick-tocks, but I don't know for sure.
Just Nancy Mace says some of the shapes are not explained.
And then on top of that, there's a story today about an ex-NASA commander, commander meaning of a space shuttle, so he's been a commander of space shuttles, and he now flies his own private small plane.
And he was flying his private small plane, and it says that two shiny metallic-looking orbs flew past him at a high rate, and the orbs were not spotted on any radar.
Including, I think he had some radar?
I'm not sure.
Or at least the ground radar didn't measure it.
Now, given that there are widespread reports of orbs, round things, that can't be explained, and the reports are that I'm just laughing at one of your all-capital.
But Scott, CO2 is plant food.
I know what you're doing, David.
I get it.
That's what I call the NPC response.
So, now we've got a highly credible NASA commander who said he saw it very clearly, but only for maybe less than a second, because there were two of them, I guess, and they were zipping past his airplane.
Do you think it's more likely...
Given the context of all the orbs which apparently have been sighted according to people say they saw them, do you think it's likely that the orbs are real or that, let's say this ex-NASA commander, we'll just pick him as my example, or do you think it's an optical illusion or some other kind of cognitive effect where he thought he saw something but he didn't really see it?
Now, in the context of lots of people talking about orbs and UFOs, what would you expect would be the number of reports of orbs?
They should go way up.
Will they go up because people now know what they're looking for and they're looking at real orbs, unexplained orbs?
And the answer is, maybe.
Maybe some of it is people just notice what they didn't notice.
Far more likely, far more likely, there is priming in the environment.
So all of us are thinking UFOs and orbs.
And then if we see something out of the corner of our mind, we go, was that an orb?
And then the rest of your brain talks you into seeing an orb.
Or some other illusion or optical thing or something that was a shadow or a bird or there was a balloon in the air.
Probably not that.
So what would you say?
If you had to bet your entire life savings, would you bet on magic orb that can't be seen on radar, reportedly has no heat signal, and no means of propulsion?
Meaning it's not coming from this planet, or at least our civilization that we know of.
Would you bet that that's what's happening?
Because remember, there's a very credible witness, and he's not alone.
There are multiple very credible military people, pilots, etc.
And I don't know how many orbs have been spotted, but quite a few now.
So given the high credibility of the witnesses, and given the relatively high number of sightings that are somewhere in the same category, would you say it's more likely that there's really orbs, whatever they are, or more likely that it's a cognitive thing where people are imagining stuff?
What's more likely?
Well, I'll tell you from the hypnotist's perspective, it's 100 times more likely that there are no orbs at all.
It's about 100 times more likely.
Now, that's just the hypnotist talking, because the setup should guarantee lots and lots of fake sightings.
Because the setup is people are told there are orbs all over the place.
So if you tell me, if you make me think of magic orbs all day long and then you put me in an airplane, what are the odds I'm going to think I saw one?
Well, it goes through the roof.
Not for any one person, but if you're looking at, you know, 8 billion people in the world, it doesn't take much.
To get 100 people to say they saw an orb when they didn't see any orb at all.
Now, and if you're tempted to say, but Scott, we're not talking about idiots.
We're talking about trained pilots.
They're clearly not lying.
I think some have passed...
I believe some of the past lie detector tests, although they're not completely reliable, but they might work in this context.
So I don't think they're lying.
I don't even have a slight suspicion that this ex-NASA commander is lying.
I believe he believes he saw what he saw.
I'll still say 100 to 1 odds that it's imagined.
100 to 1. Now remember, this is coming from my perspective as a hypnotist and the fact that we have a perfect situation for a mass hysteria and lots and lots of fake sightings.
But you can't really rule out that it might be real.
Because there really are a lot of them.
So I'm having two feelings simultaneously.
There are way more sightings than my common sense can understand unless they're real.
Real unexplained, not real aliens, but maybe, but real unexplained.
So simultaneously, my experience and my logic and my common sense says things that fall in this category are about 101% Likely not to be aliens.
About 100 to 1. At the same time, I totally think it might be aliens.
Is anybody having that same experience?
In terms of persuasion, I am persuaded.
I am persuaded that these are unexplained things that could be spiritual things like Tucker Carlson thinks, or it could be what the ancients thought were angels, but maybe they're coming from some advanced civilization that lives under a sea and has always been there with us.
It could be.
Or aliens.
Or one of our adversaries has some technology that we can't even imagine for reasons that we don't know.
So all of those are possible.
So if you ask me what does it feel like, it feels like these orbs are real and that we don't know what they are and we better find out soon.
At the same time, if you said, all right, now place a bet, I'd be like, oh, place a bet.
I'm so sure these are real.
But a bet, I bet against it.
I bet against it with odds of 100 to 1. And I just hold those two thoughts simultaneously.
What can I do about it?
Because the persuasion level is through the roof to make you think there's something there.
And there might be.
There legitimately might be.
But the common sense is really arguing against it.
All right, we'll see.
Maybe we'll know someday.
According to What's Up With That, three authors, Stein, Hemmers, and Curtis, they say that the amount of nuclear waste that we already have still has 97% of its electricity potential.
So if you knew how to get it out, not only would you have Very inexpensive power, in likelihood, but it's enough energy that, let's say, the estimate could be worth $100 trillion, three times the national debt.
That could be the value of the unused nuclear waste that we just have in barrels.
We have access to it just sitting around in barrels.
So you've heard this before, but the way you would access it is by building a different kind of reactor, which apparently we've known how to do for decades.
So it's not like a big surprise.
I think one of them is the salt.
So basically not water reactors like we use now.
You'd need a different kind of reactor.
I think they used to call them Gen4s.
I haven't seen that term for a while, fourth-generation nuclear power, but they're the ones that can use the nuclear waste.
So, at exactly the same time, the AI and robots and electric cars are all, you know, the current thing, and Bitcoin.
These are monstrous uses of electricity, just monstrous demand, way more than we have And way more than anybody knows we could ever make in time to take advantage of everything we want to do with AI. So if you think we're, oh, you know, we might have to boost our energy production by 20%.
No.
No, it's not 20%?
All right, all right.
We'll probably have to boost it by 40%.
No.
The actual number might be like 100, like 100x.
I don't think anybody can really estimate that.
That doesn't feel like something that people would be too accurate in.
But if you're thinking it's a, yeah, we've got to work a little harder to do what we're already doing.
No, that's not even close.
Now, we're talking about the amount of energy that we need to do the things we already know we have to do.
We have to compete with AI and robots.
We just have to.
It's an existential threat if China or Russia become the robot kings and we don't.
So, it's kind of convenient.
That we stumble upon $100 trillion worth of almost free energy, because it's just sitting basically in the garbage, but we know where it is.
And at the same time that we need it.
What are the odds of that?
That in the history of humankind, the immense increase of energy that we need is matched with Exactly the time we know how to do it, and we've got extra stuff sitting around to make it out of.
It's almost too on the nose, isn't it?
It almost seems too good.
So it's not easy to build these new nuclear power plants.
It's not like we can snap these together tomorrow.
But we do have a path.
It's not impossible to 100x our energy system, and we almost certainly have to do it.
Meanwhile, RFK Jr. wants to ban drug pharma ads on TV. That would take about 40% of the income away from the fake news.
Now, it might not be enough for them to shut down, but they wouldn't be able to operate the way they are if you took that much away from them.
Do you think that in our land of free speech that the government should ban one kind of advertiser who's selling a totally legal product?
There's nothing illegal about advertising and there's nothing illegal.
You could argue there should be.
But there's nothing illegal about pharma selling the products that have gone through testing and the government approved.
So my feeling about free speech says maybe we should live with it because I don't want to be on the party that's limiting free speech.
On the other hand, It might make a big difference.
It might help somehow.
I guess I wouldn't want to be in favor of it just to cripple the fake news, because the fake news is already crippled.
And I don't know.
I have a problem with this one.
I completely understand why you'd want to ban it.
I get it completely.
Because people say that they're not really advertising their drug.
They're just essentially making sure that the news can't say bad things about them.
So, oh, actually, here's an argument.
I may talk myself out of my position here.
So, if you think that the real reason that pharma advertises on the news programs especially is that It keeps the news from saying bad things about them because they're advertisers.
So that would be a case of censorship.
So that would be a case of pharma using the threat of pulling their advertisement as a censorship of the news industry.
See what I did there?
So I just turned it from, it is in fact censorship to say one industry can't advertise.
That's just censorship.
But What if the thing you're doing is preventing them from blocking the news from telling the truth about pharma?
Because that's censorship too.
There is an argument for this that is pro-free speech, and it's pro-free speech for the news business.
Oh, and I was going to use that orb joke myself, but if you follow the news, you know that Nancy Mace gets a lot of, what would you call it, sexual innuendo kind of social media reaction.
And I suppose if it were not an ongoing problem, which she's talked about publicly, then that would be a better joke.
I would have said it myself.
But she's literally in the middle of trying to convince people to stop saying stuff about her looks, which is fair.
I think she should, you know, she's cursed with good looks, and it's hard not to notice.
But Yeah, I decided to pull back on the orb, a joke.
According to Science Alert, a single one-hour daily walk that has six hours to your lifespan, according to Science Alert.
But it only works for people who are not already exercising.
So if you're already a regular exerciser, adding an hour of walking won't make much difference.
But if you're in the bottom 25% of active people, A one-hour walk a day could really make a difference in your life.
Now, I will use this study to reiterate what I would love to see from, I don't know who, maybe Trump, maybe from RFK Jr., maybe somebody else in the government.
I would love the government just to tell the lazy people to take a walk after dinner.
Now, most of you don't need to be told that.
But if 25% of the public needs to be told to take a walk, It could make a difference.
It could really make a difference.
Because people kind of do whatever's in the air, right?
We don't wake up every day and say, well, there are a million possible things I can do today.
I'd better look at my list of a million things and pick one.
We don't do that.
We wake up and we think, well, there are like three or four things I could do today.
Then you pick one of the three or four.
So if you simply made it easier for people to To get taking a walk after dinner into their top three or four, like just put it in their mind, the odds that people would do it are way up.
You just have to make them think about it every time they're eating.
Imagine if every time you sat down to dinner, the thought was in your mind, I really should take a walk after I'm done.
It's a big difference.
If you didn't even think of it while you're eating dinner, you're not going to do it because you only do the things you think of.
So simply Making it connected to your dinner activity.
Do two things.
Eat dinner with your family, and then go for a walk with them, or at least one of them.
It would change a lot.
Life would be much better.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk posted a picture of himself in a Santa outfit, but he looked skinnier than the Santa from that movie Red One, which is skinny Santa.
And when I looked at it, I thought, I think people are saying this is Elon Musk, but it's obviously not, because this is a rail-thin Santa Claus outfit.
And then he reposted it, and he labeled it Ozempic Santa.
So it is him, and he was joking about he had taken Ozempic.
He did not, but he took one of the drugs in that class.
So one like Ozempic, but a different one, because I guess Ozempic gave him some digestion problems or something.
But...
Now, on one hand, you might say to me, Scott, why is it a story that one person in the world lost weight?
There are probably a billion people who lost weight recently in the world, and why did I pick one?
Well, again, because people are influenced by what's in the air.
So if you heard that some people in your town took a Zempick and got a good result, that might make you think about doing it yourself.
But if you watch Elon Musk, who all of us know what he looks like, and then suddenly you see a picture where fairly effortlessly he became as thin as I imagine he wants to be, that is really influential.
It's sort of like JFK not wearing hats.
So as soon as we got a president who didn't wear hats and he was cool, nobody wanted to wear a hat anymore.
It killed hats.
Well, If your neighbor takes Ozempic and it works, you might be interested in trying it.
But if Elon Musk takes one of these drugs in that class and it works, that changes how you see it.
You just need one famous person and then that person's stuck in your head.
So attaching this, what I think is a health improvement, I hope, to the most famous person in the world at the moment, besides Trump, Probably will make a big difference to the health of Americans.
Just think about that.
Just think about the fact that he's simply just posting a picture of it working.
I'll bet that the stock price of all the companies that make whatever he took, I'll bet they're looking good today.
That would be my guess.
So in Zero Hedge, there was an article that I wish I had written, but it's talking about how people are not focusing on the real invention of Elon Musk.
I can't tell stories without him being either an example or an important part of it.
But apparently one of the things that Musk has brought to American manufacturing is the idea that the factory is the product.
That's one way to look at it.
In other words, instead of having a factory and trying to refine your product, which he also does, he spends as much time or more refining the factory so that the cost of the factory goes down, the efficiency goes up, etc.
And he's done that with his various companies and extremely successfully.
And if it's a skill that could be transferred, If it can be transferred, then maybe we could bring American manufacturing back without having a cost penalty.
And if you add robots to the idea that you should start from first principles when you build your factory, don't just build an ordinary factory, but really, really think what's the efficient way to build the factory for this specific thing.
So I think that's true.
I think that whatever we learn from factory building, that's where the next revolution needs to happen for America to dominate the next generation.
Meanwhile, RFK Jr.'s nomination and the vote to have him confirmed, at least as the public support, 51% of likely US voters think the Senate should confirm RFK Jr.'s nomination.
Good.
And apparently that's up.
So that's his best favorability number that we've seen.
And I would say this.
I have an observation about RFK Jr. that I'd like to make, let's say, a meme.
Or at least something that you think of when you think of him.
I've noticed that the more you learn about him, the more you like.
Has anybody else noticed that?
The more you learn about what his opinion is, the details of it, the more you like him.
And I think that's just what's happened.
When other people get to frame him, and let's say MSNBC says, oh, that vax denier.
And if you liked vaccines for your kids, you'd say, oh, vax denier.
Now, that's not what he is.
He's not a vax denier.
He just wants better testing, etc.
But once you learn what he really wants, And you realize that he dug into this topic, the pharma topic and the health of our food topic, and he has actual practical suggestions for fixing things.
It's hard to dislike that.
If you believe the fake news about what he's about, it's easy to dislike him.
It's easy.
Oh, rich guy is going to come and tell us what to eat, and he's going to destroy the pharma industry, and why is he taking away their free speech?
Let them advertise.
But once you realize how much he knows, and then he explains it to you, you go, oh, I didn't know that.
And then suddenly he looks a lot smarter.
So, my prediction is this, that going forward, the more you learn about Kennedy, and the more you learn about his policies and preferences, the more you're going to like him.
I think that's all it is.
The more exposure, the more you like.
Meanwhile, the poor Democrats are still trying to figure out what went wrong, and their process for figuring out what went wrong involves asking all the people who got everything wrong what they got wrong.
If those same people were capable of knowing what they got wrong now, don't we think some of them would have gotten it right in the first place?
What makes them so smart now?
Just the fact that Trump won?
Is that the only thing they learned?
Trump won?
Kamala lost?
And then from that, the brilliance which they did not have for four years suddenly kicks in.
Is that what we think?
Well...
Ross Dutat, I don't know.
I think he's a Democrat, but he was saying, do you remember Brad Summer?
I remember Brad Summer.
It was genuinely amazing.
One of the most bizarre mass psychological phenomena I've ever seen.
And they said, it turns out that all you have to do is tell Democrat base that they ought to like someone and they'll just start liking her.
Now, here's what they're getting wrong.
They really, really should have talked to, well, first of all, they should have talked to Americans, you know, regular people.
But secondly, they should talk to a hypnotist, not one of the pundits who got everything wrong.
If you talk to a hypnotist, I'm pretty sure we can sort things out.
Maybe not every hypnotist, but I'm pretty sure I could.
I'll tell them exactly what they got wrong.
There was a lot.
And part of the reason it's not easy to figure out what they got wrong is that it was everything.
It was everything.
They got everything wrong.
And then you say to me, no, Scott, they did a really good job of raising money.
And then what happened to it?
They didn't do a good job of handling money.
So raising is impressive, but it's what you do with it that kind of makes a difference, and apparently they didn't do the right thing with it.
They didn't have the messaging right.
They didn't have the candidate right.
They didn't have a process for picking the candidate that even their own side thought was reasonable.
The fake news was lying and getting caught.
She didn't do interviews with the major media because she was incapable.
Can you give me an idea of what they did right?
It was literally everything wrong.
Now, unfortunately for them, Trump ran what is, in my opinion, might go down in history as the best campaign of all time.
His campaign was just freaking awesome.
He got all the messaging right.
He got all the communication right.
He used the alternate, you know, internet right.
He got everything right.
So, you know, the summary is that the strongest persuasive candidate in history was running against the weakest, worst candidate in history.
You don't really need to form any kind of a...
You don't need to have a convention to talk it out.
It was everything.
And as soon as they think, you know, if we just change our messaging so it sounds more like Trump, I think we could win.
It's so weak.
No, you can't win by pretending you're the opposition.
You're the weak version of the other team.
That's going to be your new strategy.
And people are saying that out loud, like they think it's a good idea.
But it's as good an idea as their last ideas, which showed they were wrong about everything, basically, in politics.
Anyway, one of the biggest changes, I think, and the reason that Ross was noting, you just have to tell the Democrats who they like and they'll vote for them, is many of them, of course, were voting against Trump.
So you just had to say, hey, we've got a warm body that's not Trump.
And then people are like, yeah, a warm body that's not Trump?
You had me, a warm body.
No, you had me against Trump, actually.
But it seems to me, here's my take on Trump.
How many times did he toy with running for office before he got serious in 2015?
Twice or three times?
He had at least two kind of flirtations with running for president that people thought, oh, in retrospect, he was just, you know, drumming up publicity.
And then this third time, I think it was the third time, he runs, and what did everybody say?
They said, oh, he's not serious.
He's just drumming up publicity.
He's just a clown trying to get some attention.
Maybe.
Here's what I think happened.
I think in all three cases, Trump did not expect to be a serious player.
I think in all cases, he said, I'm going to walk up to the door, but I'm not going to walk through it.
Because walking up to the door gets me all the attention I need.
It's good for business, good for my brand.
So I'll get all the good stuff, but I don't need to go through the door and actually be elected.
I just need to walk right up to it.
And here's what I feel like happened.
He walked right up to the door, not really expecting he needed to go through it or would go through it, and all of a sudden, about 10 million Republican arms reached down from the door, grabbed him by the fucking lapel, and just yanked him inside and said, no, you're doing this.
You're our only hope, Obi-Wan Kenobi.
You are our only hope.
Everything is going to shit.
You're probably the only person that has the balls to fix this thing.
We've been watching you.
You're smart enough.
You're brave enough.
You know how to do this.
Please, please be our president.
That's what I think happened.
And if you look at the individual contributions of Steve Bannon, Mike Cernovich, me, Jack Posobiec, you can list 50 more.
But I believe that we, and I'm speaking for a larger body of Republican-oriented people, I think we just decided he's our guy.
Nobody told us to do that.
In fact, everybody in charge told us not to do it.
And what did we all say?
If you're in charge, why is everything fucked up?
Right?
So the first thing that the base said to the Republicans is, you guys are not cutting it.
You are not doing what we need you to do and it doesn't look like you're going to fix it.
So we're going to bring in a draft pick and it's going to be our pick.
It's not your pick.
They very much did not want that to be their pick.
So again, Democrats are a top-down brainwashing organization.
Republicans are a bottom-up meritocracy because it didn't matter if all the people I mentioned were We wanted Trump, but we weren't good at making it happen.
Both of those had to be true.
We had to want him, and we had to collectively, you know, cumulatively, We had to have the skill to make it happen.
That's the part nobody saw coming.
Nobody saw coming the amount of natural skill that just sort of appeared around 2015. Like people that weren't in politics before, myself and a number of others, who suddenly just seemed to have some skill that you weren't expecting and they brought it to the process and it made a difference.
And then I would argue that in 2024, that that level of that skill, it just went through the roof.
I mean, by then you had Vivek, and you had J.D. Vance, and you had Elon Musk, and everybody started getting on board.
But still, it was bottom-up.
We dragged him through the door, and I don't think he was expecting to be here.
But he took the moment.
He's real good at reading the room.
And knowing when a moment is happening.
So he was the right pick in my opinion, and the golden age is coming on.
Chuck Todd, at the same event where they were trying to figure out what went wrong, he was talking about losing the Hispanic vote, or at least a decrease in the Hispanic vote.
And he disclosed that in a 2022 memo that he only recently saw, It warned against the Democrats losing the Hispanic vote because Biden-Harris targeted them as a community of color, whereas Trump targeted them as a working class.
Do you know who could have fixed that for them?
Me.
Because they act like they'd never met anybody Hispanic before.
Have you ever met anybody from the Hispanic community?
Do they sit around bitching about race?
No.
No, they don't.
They want to work.
They like their religion, their family, and they like America, and they want to work.
No.
You can't get the Hispanics with identity politics.
They're just not inclined to go in that direction.
And I knew that because I have enough contact with them.
But if you didn't know that, and you said, well, we'll make them feel like they're some kind of demographic that everybody's against, they'll fight back.
Didn't work.
I could have told them that.
And Chuck Dodd also said that whole democracy at risk thing wasn't working.
And I could have told you that.
If you compare these two things from a persuasion perspective.
All right.
In ways that we can't quite summarize, something about democracy will be decreased because you're like, okay, uh-huh.
All right.
Well, I'm vaguely worried about that a little bit, but it's not really connecting.
How does that happen?
How does the democracy get stolen, exactly?
And then Trump says, they're sending rapists across the border.
Did you hear that story about some victim who was raped by an illegal immigrant?
The right number of that is zero.
These are not equal.
Now, even though I rail against using anecdotes for persuasion, I do note that it works.
And the reason I don't use it is because it works.
And if you do it too well, I think it's a little bit too much.
Yeah.
If you focus on the anecdotal, it ends up feeling like the entire community is somehow painted with the same brush, and I resist that.
We don't need to do that.
Statistics should get to the same place.
Rasmussen Reports says that 65% of voters, likely voters, said the feds were likely provoked to the January 6th Capitol riot.
So roughly two-thirds of Americans think this January 6th thing was an op.
How did we get all the way to two-thirds?
Is it because they've learned more since then?
And they trust the government less?
This surprises me.
I would have thought that the number who would have said the Feds likely provoked the January 6th Capitol riot, I would have said that would be mid-30% if I'd never seen any polling.
But 65% think this is sketchy?
Maybe America's just wising up.
64% believe the FBI is politically weaponized.
Yes.
And 53% say the FBI is used as, quote, Biden's personal Gestapo.
53%.
Now, that obviously is mostly Republicans, but it still picked up some independents.
Wall Street Mav is reporting that the government's revising their economic numbers that made Biden look so good, but it turns out they're all fake.
So the government initially reported in second quarter of 2024 that they had gained 653,000 jobs, but actually they lost jobs.
Now, that's what I call a revision.
From up 653,000 jobs to...
It was actually negative.
Did we say it was positive?
It was actually negative?
Not negative 653, but it was negative.
They also revised the 800,000 jobs that allegedly were gained last year.
And Wall Street Mavs says they falsified the data to help Biden-Harris.
And Elon Musk responded to that post and he said, quote, how can the data systems be so bad?
How can the data systems be so bad?
So, you know me, I've been saying that all data is fake if it matters.
If it's random data that nobody cares about, there's no stakes involved, it might be right.
It might be.
But if it's important data, such as the number of jobs created so you can determine what president you want to pick, like really important stuff like climate change and The economy and the climate and immigration numbers, those are all fake.
And I've never done a good job of explaining why all the data that matters is fake.
It's not a coincidence.
Here's why.
Because if data matters, it matters to somebody's money, or it matters to their power, or both.
So data that doesn't matter doesn't need to be falsified because why would you do that?
It might be wrong accidentally, but you're not going to falsify it intentionally.
No point.
It's not even important.
But if it's the difference between your party winning and you having a job and getting rich versus getting nothing, oh yeah, you'll fake the data.
And you will reliably do it pretty much every time.
And all you have to do is fiddle with the assumptions and the data follows.
So design is destiny.
If you create a system in which you don't get punished for lying with data, this is the important, the key.
So remember this part?
If the system doesn't punish anyone for wrong data, And there are gigantic advantages to intentionally creating wrong data, which you can always hide your intention by saying, I just made some different assumptions than other people, but I can defend my assumption.
Because you can defend a lot of assumptions.
The system, as it's designed, is guaranteed to make all the data that matters fake.
The system guarantees it in every domain, Not just healthcare, not just finance, not just climate change.
The current system guarantees that all important data is fake.
Now, there's one exception.
The one exception would be if it's internal company data and the people who created the data did it to make more money.
If using accurate data helped you make more money and get more power, then you would do that.
So if it's all within a company and you're an engineer and you're collecting some data, you want the right answer.
Right.
The right answer is what's going to help your career that the company itself might want to lie.
But as an engineer, you just want the right answer.
So in those cases, the data is correct, but it's localized to the company.
As soon as the CEO starts talking, he might say something that's a little different from the engineer.
And if the CEO said something that's not true, and people invested because of it, and he just said, oops, I guess I had some data wrong.
Does the CEO get fired?
No.
Does the CEO go to jail?
No.
No.
Do any of the people who were involved in these revisions of numbers, somebody had to make a mistake, and do any of them get punished?
No.
So why would they ever stop doing it?
If it works and nobody ever gets punished, you should expect it would be universally applied eventually.
So I don't know how many ways I can say this, If the data matters, it also matters to people's money and their power.
And under those situations, you can expect them to lie about the data every time, as long as they knew they wouldn't be punished.
And that's the case.
They won't be punished.
I would go further and say that if the government was lying about jobs, and it was part of a coordinated effort to keep Trump out of office, It feels like it contributes to a RICO case.
You know, if I look at the way the Democrats operated over the last several years, it just looks like a criminal organization.
And I don't see the same thing on the Republican side, nor is anybody even accusing them, as far as I know.
On the Republican side, I can name some names.
I probably won't.
No, I will.
Mitch McConnell and what's his name?
Lindsey Graham.
So if Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham say something that sounds sketchy to me or they come up with some data, I'm not really going to believe either one of them because I don't know what's going on with those two guys.
They seem a little too connected to, I don't know, the military-industrial complex or something.
But I can think of two people who are just individuals who I don't trust on the Republican side.
But I don't think there's a RICO thing.
I think they just know what is in their self-interest and they're operating mostly for themselves, is my guess.
If I had to guess, and that's just a guess.
So the Republicans don't seem to have any kind of RICO organized crime thing.
They seem to be just doing the best work they can to try to make something work.
But the Democrats literally look like a RICO organized from the top I mean, how many ops did they run that involve the intelligence people, the fake news, and the entire Democratic Party?
Quite a few.
That's a big group.
And that sure screams RICO to me.
So we'll see.
Meanwhile...
If you're believing data.
A Harvard professor, according to Natural News, was found guilty of fraudulent research to promote critical race theory.
Tenured professor.
He fabricated data to prove his point about critical race theory.
Now, is critical race theory data that is important?
Well, it was important to this professional because it was his career and he wanted it to look bad, so he changed it until it did.
This is what I'm talking about.
This is a tenured Harvard professor who just completely lied, allegedly.
Allegedly completely lied.
This is normal.
All data that matters is fake.
Now, again, there might be special cases where there's something that's checked by so many people and it's just really objective.
You know, maybe.
Maybe there's some, like, random exceptions.
But the exceptions maybe probably just prove the rule.
If you just say, hey, your pay depends on the data coming out this way, and you're pushing CRT, the data's going to come your way every time.
All right, let's talk about the brouhaha about hiring foreign tech workers.
It's a good thing you waited for me to sort this out because the online conversation about it is pathetically misinformed and confused.
I think I can sort this out.
So I've got just enough contact with the topic and I looked into it enough.
I think I know what's going on now.
All right.
So the idea is that people like Elon Musk and people like me say that we should be hiring the best and brightest engineers, even from other countries.
Now, the pushback on that is, hold on.
Why did we even hire Trump?
We didn't hire Trump so we can be bringing in people from other countries to take our jobs.
Why don't you let the underemployed Americans...
Maybe they need some training, but give them the training, and maybe fix our school so we're producing more engineers, and then we wouldn't have to do any of this bringing in engineers from other countries.
Does that make sense to you?
Do you think that we'd be fine if we don't bring in engineers from other countries?
We'll just train the people that we have.
Does that work for you?
First of all, do you accept, as Elon Musk does, that we have a shortage of the very best, the very top 1% of engineers?
So according to Musk, he thinks the greatest or one of the greatest things holding back our progress is that Silicon Valley is way under-engineered.
But we're talking about the top ones.
Now, the arguments that I hear are I'm a white guy and I'm an engineer and I can tell you I've been looking for work and I can't get to work.
And then you hear that and you go, whoa, all right, Elon Musk, I think you've gone too far this time.
You know, you're okay on this electric cars and rocket ship stuff, but when you talk about foreign workers, you know, I think you're missing something, because we have multiple stories of trained engineers in America who can't even get a job, and they're being filled by, you know, let's say Indian engineers with H-1B visas and stuff.
So, How can it be true, because it is true, that there are American-born engineers who can't get jobs, but we also have a shortage of engineers?
How can both of those things be true?
We've got unemployed engineers, and they're telling us.
You can look them up on social media.
They're real people.
Here's the answer.
They're all white.
That's it.
They're all white.
There aren't any unemployed top 1% black American engineers.
Find me one.
Find me one.
And then I'll shut the fuck up.
You just find me one.
They can't get a job.
A top 1% black engineer.
How about a top 1% LGBTQ engineer?
Any trouble getting a job?
No.
How about a top 1% woman engineer?
Any trouble getting a job?
No.
This is just fucking racism that we're confusing with the question of engineers.
So yes, there are white engineers who can't get a job because they're fucking white.
That's the reason.
And you all know that.
I'm not telling you something you don't know.
But is it true that we're leaving untapped, as a number of people said this morning?
They said, you look at the whole middle of the country.
And you have all these bright people who score high on tests, but they're not getting into the pipeline and being trained properly to become top engineers.
To which I say, that's great for a different topic.
When Elon Musk says we need engineers, he doesn't mean we need to spend 20 years building one.
He means we need the ones who are right here right now, and we better fucking hurry.
Because AI and robots is not waiting for people.
If we're not doing it, China's doing it and Japan's doing it.
So we need right away the top 1% engineers and we don't have enough.
Now you might say, but what about those white people?
Well, probably not top 1%.
My guess is that even the top 1% of white people are completely employed in engineering.
Only the engineers I'm talking about.
Now, the people who are programmers, which we often lump into the same category, the programmers have a different problem.
Because AI is making existing programmers five to ten times more productive.
So that industry has a problem.
But that's not what's happening with engineers.
And here's the next thing you need to know.
I'm going to call this the my dog theory.
You've heard this before.
My dog, I think she suspects that I'm smarter than her because I can produce food out of nowhere and she can't.
I can open doors.
I can drive a car.
Like even the dog has some sense that I'm the smart one in the relationship, right?
Right.
But here's the thing.
As the smart one in the relationship, I have a really clear idea of how smart my dog is.
My dog only knows that I'm smarter than her.
She doesn't know how much smarter.
She doesn't know that I can write and draw comics.
That would be like a mind-blowing thing for the dog if she could even understand what those things are.
So the situation with the dog and the owner is the same with people.
You think that Elon Musk is smarter than you.
I do.
I think he's smarter than me.
But do you know how much?
No, you don't.
You have no way of knowing how much smarter he is.
And I think this is where everything's going wrong.
When we're talking about these top 1% engineers, this is not a job I could get.
I was a valedictorian of my school.
I went to a good college to get an MBA. Could I be a top 1% engineer?
No, not even close.
Not even close.
And here, more to the point, I don't even know how much smarter they are.
If you've ever met somebody who is just way smarter than you, the only thing you knew is that they're smarter than you and maybe a few topics they know more.
You don't really know how much smarter they are.
You really don't.
So if you're saying, we've got plenty of Americans who can do these jobs, you have a blind spot.
The blind spot is we can't get them in time because, you know, you'd have to develop people from birth, basically.
And getting people who are just good enough to be engineers, that's not what anybody's talking about.
We're not talking about somebody who went to the third best school and finished at the bottom of their class, but they got a degree.
They're engineers, too.
We're not talking about them.
We're talking about the top 1% who you almost can't even imagine.
You can't even imagine how smart they are.
So that's why we need to be competitive.
The other thing is, this is an existential threat to the country.
If we don't lead in AI and robots, we're in real trouble.
I mean, real trouble and fast.
Yeah.
We've got to be the quantum computer leaders.
Otherwise, somebody builds a quantum computer and hacks everything in the United States and we're all dead.
All right.
So we don't really have options.
We've got to press as hard as we can and get every top 1% no matter where they came from.
Now, that's not really going to cost any Americans any jobs if you do that.
But people conflate it with the fact that although Google and Microsoft and Apple, big companies, if they want a top 1% engineer, they have the resources to really, really check To make sure they got one.
It might require having a leg in another country where you can actually talk to people and really spend time with them and find out what's real and what isn't.
But if you're a medium-sized company, you might find, let's say, an agency that finds people to go to your country and work.
You'd say, hey, I want some top 1% engineers.
But I can't visit and I can't talk to myself.
So I want you to find me some top engineers that can work over here.
Top 1%.
And then whoever you're talking to says, Top 1%?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, we got plenty of them.
And then they send you somebody who can barely do anything.
And it's too late for you to say anything, and they have already made their money.
And by the time you cancel the project, you realize that you can't talk to an agency and hire good people in India.
It almost doesn't work.
It's basically closer to fraud than it is to a working system.
You find out that the system of hiring foreign workers is mostly fraud.
That's what I learned recently.
So when people say, but Scott, in the real world, we're getting all these Indian engineers that are not as good as engineers who can't get a job.
That might be true.
That might be true.
But that has to do with the broken system.
If you could identify the top 1%, like Elon Musk can, like the big companies can, then you really need to be able to get them.
But if you're a small company and you're depending on somebody in another country to tell you who their top 1% are, they're going to send whoever they have.
And they're going to charge you.
And if it goes wrong, they'll just have another customer who doesn't know the difference next time.
So, the...
Apparently 71% of Trump voters want to increase high-skilled immigration, but of course they don't want to, you know, bring in people that take American jobs.
And Musk says there's a permanent shortage of excellent engineering talent.
It's their biggest problem.
And then I saw somebody arguing with him, somebody whose account is I Am Yes You Are No, that's the name of the account, and said to Elon, there are over 330 million people in America.
Surely there must be enough among them to build your ultimate team.
Why would you deny real Americans that opportunity by bringing foreigners here?
Now, I'll tell you what Elon said, but I kind of already made this argument.
He said, your understanding of the situation is upside down and backwards.
Of course, my companies and I would prefer to hire Americans, and we do!
That is much easier than going through the incredible, painful, and slow work of a visa process.
However, there's a dire shortage of extremely talented and motivated engineers in America.
He said, it's not about handing out opportunities from some magical hat.
You don't get it.
This is blindingly obvious when looking at NBA teams as the physical differences are so obvious to see.
However, the mental differences between humans are far bigger than the physical differences.
So he's saying what I said, which is, you don't understand.
I'm talking about the top 1%.
There's not a bunch of Americans waiting around to be hired that are in the top 1% of engineering.
That's just not a thing.
And if you tried to train them, and then I saw other people saying, but we have plenty of people who are not top engineers, but you could train them, the companies should train their own employees to become top engineers.
Oh man, you really don't understand how the world works if you think that works.
What, you're going to take the person who can write code and you're going to turn them into a top 1% engineer with what your company affords?
Never.
It would be the rarest thing if that could ever work.
No.
The top engineers probably from the first day of school had some kind of advantage.
They were brilliant, but also their parents probably were a certain kind of parents and sent them to a certain kind of school.
They were identified.
They got the best training over years and years and years in the best environment.
No, you can't take the janitor.
And turn them into an engineer because you've got a good training program.
That's not a thing.
It's just not a thing.
And then there's a huge amount of what I would say is overt, very obvious racism that entered into the conversation.
There's way more racism against Indians and Indian Americans than I was expecting.
Like when it all comes out in a conversation like this, it's a little bit horrifying, honestly.
And I'm going to tell you something again.
Have you ever spent time with a top 1% Indian or Indian American technical person?
I have.
It's incredible.
It's incredible.
I don't want to name names, but you know some people I would name probably, right?
Not necessarily engineers, but definitely top one percenters.
And if you're thinking, oh, I don't want those Indians in here because they're going to change my culture, again, this would be a huge blind spot.
Do you know what the Indians living in America want to do?
Assimilate like crazy.
I'm not going to tell you who says this, but there's some prominent Indian American who jokes about just trying to be as white as he could possibly be.
I mean, he says it jokingly, but he has no interest in taking Indian culture to America.
I don't think you'll meet an Indian in America who says, you know what?
America has some advantages, but I really like I'd really like to bring more of the Indian stuff over here.
Now, they might want to wear the clothes for one generation.
They certainly want to eat their own food, which, by the way, is awesome.
Indian food.
It's not for everybody, but personally, I think it's amazing.
You don't understand.
Everything is an assumption that doesn't hold.
If you're talking about the top 1%, If I dropped into your conversation any top 1% Indian or Indian American, you wouldn't even know you were talking to an Indian.
You wouldn't even know.
You would just think, wow, this guy or this gal are like super smart.
And you would be fascinated and you would want to hire them for your company.
You're thinking about the not 1%.
If we brought in a bunch of people in the bottom half of capabilities, well, yeah, that's a big problem.
And maybe you've met some people who are not at the top 1% and you said to yourself, hmm, we don't really need more of these, do we?
Well, maybe you're right.
But that's not what anybody's talking about.
We're talking about the top 1%.
You set a room with any of the top one percenters and you will just walk away impressed.
That's it.
That's the whole story.
All right.
I saw somebody say to that conversation online, somebody with the title, Unfiltered Truth.
That's the name of their X handle.
And after Elon said what I just read to you, he said, I used to have some faith in Elon, but after this post, I'm done.
The mask is off.
Elon supports erasing the culture and ethnic identity of America to help grow his bank account.
He's parasitic and destructive.
I don't think you could understand less what's going on here.
Again, The Indian engineers, they assimilate so fast, and they want to, and they do it really well.
So, no, that's a ridiculous comment.
I would also like to describe the alternative.
So let's say we just close it to all engineers.
Game that out for me.
What's the future look like, in your view, if we just closed all immigration and didn't hire anybody from India or any other country?
What would that look like?
What's plan B? Well, plan B is the end of America, as far as I can tell.
If you're not hiring the best engineers, somebody else is.
And eventually they'll catch up to you.
And whoever has the most economic clout will have the best military.
They'll start using it.
America's dominance in the world would be fairly quickly disappeared, maybe in one generation.
So it's sort of a one generation in the toilet for America if we don't really, really try hard to get the top 1% engineers from other countries.
All right.
Apparently Indiana University is teaching a course that says that the white people are inherently oppressors because of their race and sex and religion.
And apparently you're divided into teams in one of the required classes.
And if you're a white Christian or male, you're automatically labeled an oppressor.
All right.
Don't send your kids to Indiana University.
Apparently it's just a garbage university.
It must be populated with idiots and racists.
Don't go there.
Just don't go to Indiana University.
Sounds like they are just lost.
And racist, of course.
You saw that there was a plane crash the other day in the Azerbaijani plane.
And you may have seen the video where it seemed to be going up before it went down and then it crashed.
And then they showed pictures of it with strange holes in the hull.
And I looked at the strange holes based on the pictures and I said, oh, it's obvious that there was shrapnel and that the shrapnel was on the inside.
And you could tell from the holes that something from the outside pushed to the inside because they looked like bullet holes that indented.
If the explosion had come from the inside, the holes would be opposite.
So I'm no aviation expert, but as soon as they showed it to me, I said, oh, it looks like some military asset exploded near them.
And further...
I assumed that there was not a direct hit, because a direct hit would have, you know, blown it apart in the sky and there'd be a bigger hole in smoke before it went down.
So it looks like, and one of the reports suggested, that maybe there was a anti-Russian missile attack against possibly a drone, That they thought was criminal or they thought was the other side.
And maybe there was an explosion in the air and some of the shrapnel hit this plane and it had to do an emergency landing.
So I think that's what's happened.
But why didn't the experts say what I said on day one?
Because the holes were very obviously an external explosion that created random shrapnel that was from the outside in.
I mean, if I could tell, and I have no experience in this field whatsoever, if I could tell, how many of you could tell?
You saw the same thing I saw, right?
Most of you?
When you looked at it, you knew that that was shrapnel, right?
And you knew it was from the outside in.
So why did it take like a day for us to have some expert tell us that?
I don't know.
Meanwhile, you know that border wall that Biden was trying to sell off the pieces before Trump got in office?
But apparently that's taken care of now.
Because the auctioneer already agreed, and maybe he was going to do it anyway.
But when Trump and everybody started complaining about it, the person whose job it was to sell them Maybe I'll hold these until Trump gets in office.
I assume the auctioneer is a Republican.
Don't know that.
But citizen.
So you're all worried about the government, you know, Biden trying to sell these things for nothing.
And then you're like, oh, I hope the new government can stop the old government.
It turns out all you needed was one auctioneer with common sense.
Remember, I keep telling you common sense is like our unifying theme for at least people on the right and people who agree with the right on some things.
Common sense.
The auctioneer made the only smart decision.
He said, well, if I've got a new administration and they might not want to sell it, I shouldn't sell it today.
I should just put it in a pile and sell other things and wait a few weeks and see what happens.
So thank you.
Thank you, auctioneer.
So there was a citizen who stepped up, looked at the situation, and said, huh, doesn't seem to make much sense that I would sell them, you know, instead of waiting until next month, and if they still want to sell them.
Because remember, part of the story is that they might be damaged, and they're not the good parts of the wall.
So it could be that nobody actually wants them.
But he's still smart to wait for the incoming administration to say, what do you want to do with these?
So good on you, auctioneer.
So the Ukrainians are bragging about their new model for building lots of drones, which involves a capitalist approach.
So they're letting their drone makers compete and make money, and that apparently is causing their drone industry, small as it was, to grow quickly.
And they think that they can make more drones than Russia because Russia has that, you know, crappy, you know, constipated economy and it's sort of central, a little more central planning and stuff.
So the Ukrainians think that they can out-compete using the free market within Ukraine.
It's not really a free market because probably American money buys all the drones.
I'm guessing it's American money that buys them all.
But it's still, from their point of view, it's still just a competitive free market.
But here's the numbers.
So they think they can make 200,000 drones in the coming year.
There are roughly 500,000 Russian soldiers.
200,000 drones would kill how many soldiers?
Well, it depends what kind they are.
Some of them might be surveillance and stuff.
But in general, it's about one to one now.
So the most updated information is that one well-designed drone, even the small ones, little hobby-sized drones, it can locate one soldier and it can pretty accurately just dive bomb and explode and kill that one person.
Sometimes it can kill more than one person.
Let's say they're in some kind of vehicle or something.
And so on average, you know, sometimes they'll get knocked down by anti-drone stuff.
Sometimes something goes wrong.
But on average, 200,000 drones is going to kill about 200,000 soldiers.
Now, even if you cut that in half...
Can Russia lose 100,000 soldiers just to drones next year?
Well, probably they can, because Putin's really dug in and he doesn't want to lose.
But how many drones are they going to make the year after?
Because if it doubles every year, the year after, maybe they make 400,000 drones.
Maybe the United States and other countries and NATO... Are also making drones like crazy and using what they've learned in the Ukraine war to make sure these are really good killer drones.
So what happens if in 18 months or two years, let's say worst case scenario, the war continues for two more years?
I think they would have enough drones to kill every Russian soldier.
And the Russians would have enough to kill maybe half or two thirds of the Ukrainian forces.
But if you're Putin and you feel like you're winning, you're in the catbird seat and you're going to negotiate hard.
But suppose, I said this before, suppose President Trump sat down with Putin and he said, here's the deal.
One drone kills one of your soldiers.
If we don't make a deal that works for us, I'm going to make sure Ukraine has one million killer drones in 18 months.
And your army is just going to disappear.
We're going to evaporate them.
Now, he'll say, well, if you did that, I would have to use nuclear weapons.
And then Trump says to him, no, you won't.
Because if you do, we will.
So your best case scenario is just to negotiate, basically keep what you've already taken, and let's wind this thing down.
No, no, I will use nuclear weapons.
No, you won't.
You're not going to use any nuclear weapons.
That would be dumb.
You've already got most of what you want.
How about we just make a deal?
So when we talk about could Trump make a deal in one day, he can if he puts enough pressure on him.
He would probably also say, we're going to cripple your economy and turn off whatever pipelines you've got left and all that.
But I think a million drones would be the entire story.
Yeah, we've got a million drones, and that's what you're looking at next.
Anyway, Ukraine is apparently taking a tip from the IDF, and they're disguising bombs to kill senior officials, but they're disguising them as sort of ordinary items, like a phone charger, but it'd be really a bomb, and some kind of document folder that's a bomb.
This is probably the New York Post.
So I guess the Ukrainians are trying to do decapitation strikes with the leadership of the Russians.
And That's probably a good strategy for negotiating because, you know, obviously they can replace leadership.
It probably doesn't make much difference as long as it's not Putin.
But if you were in the level that they were targeting and you had an option of settling the war and not be targeted, you know, I think you might say to yourself, you know, you know, Putin...
This might be the time to negotiate an end to this, because my neighbor who's got a job like me just got assassinated.
So, here's a topic which I have not been into, but I found myself horrified when I dug down One Inch, which is RFK Jr.'s book about Fauci.
And I guess he was on Adele Bigtree's podcast talking about it.
And I don't quite understand the fullness of these stories, but I'll read you what I saw.
Maybe you can fact check me if this is accurate or not.
But the claim is that Fauci was somehow involved in testing drugs on children, but he picked foster homes so that the children had no parents.
And there were massive injuries.
And he did it more than once.
Some were in America, some in Africa.
Now, I'm going to call these allegations because, really?
Like, I can't really wrap my head around...
The enormity of how evil this would be if it's true.
So I'm a little skeptical, but I'm mostly skeptical about my own understanding of the story.
So that's where my skepticism is on myself, because I don't know all the details.
I haven't read the book.
I just saw some summary about it.
But now I've heard it before that he was trying to test things in Africa and Bill Gates was trying to test things in Africa.
But I don't think that's necessarily a mistake, is it?
If you knew there was something that would be really good for Africa and really good for the rest of the world, if you could test it, and there was only one place you could legally and practically test it, I can see why you'd talk yourself into testing it in Africa, and if it doesn't go well, there's going to be deaths.
And maybe you knew that you would have less problems if you did it in Africa, and maybe you would have fewer problems if it was kids who didn't have biological parents in their lives.
So I'm willing to believe That this level of evil actually happened for profit, but I'm still skeptical that I understand it well enough and that there's no counterargument to it.
So I'm going to put this in my, oh my God, this looks awful, but maybe there's more to the story.
All right.
Well, I always tell you there's a new battery breakthrough.
Now there's engineers, engineers, top 1%, probably, developed ultra-fast charging battery, according to the cool-down, and Rick Casimir is writing about it, that would make batteries, and in this case, it would be the existing kind of batteries, the lithium, I think.
They just add some simple chemical.
What is it?
Is it betadine?
So you've probably heard of Benidine.
I think that's the brand name.
It's a common thing that might be in your medicine cabinet.
And they just add that to sort of existing technology and it gives us this huge increase in performance.
Such an increase that it might make electric planes practical and 600 mile trips on one charge and charging your phone like right away.
And it doesn't look like it would be super hard to put it into production.
I'm sure they have to do more testing.
But it was such a big and instant change, and it's from a substance which apparently is not hard to manufacture.
You don't have to mine it.
So once again, big breakthrough in potential batteries.
Bright Bar News is reporting, Ian Hinchin is writing, that the Senate Intel Chair, who is Mark Warner, he says that even civilian drones from China are risks because they might be controlled by the CCP. Now, I don't know what kind of a control they would have.
But it does feel like a risk.
I think the risk is we don't know if they're trying to control them or not.
If they are, it's a problem.
And then Frank Bergman of Slay News said that there's a secret Pfizer report that reveals a 40% spike in heart conditions among the COVID vax to use the Pfizer product.
Apparently this report was kept secret and it just recently was revealed.
Study found that the vaccinated cohort had a 23 to 40% higher risk of a heart-related condition.
Do you believe that?
Do you think the data is accurate?
Remember I told you that All data that matters is fake.
And then I also told you, but I'll bet there's some exceptions, like special cases.
This might be one of those special cases.
And the reason I say that is because they tried to conceal it.
If they had not tried to conceal it and Pfizer was touting it, Almost certainly, I wouldn't trust it.
Because if they're touting it, yeah.
But if they're hiding it, why would they hide data that's incorrect?
All they'd have to do is put a memo on it that says, oh, this data can't be trusted because there was a problem in the way we collected it.
Right?
So if they knew it was fake, or anybody knew that the assumptions are what made it fake, if anybody knew that, They would have put notes on it that says, well, we can't trust this, and that's why we're not releasing it.
We can't release it because we don't trust it to be true.
But what if they did trust it to be true, and so they hid it?
I mean, that's the allegation is they hid it.
This might be an obvious exception, where you could trust that it's true because it was bad for the people who were hiding it, who also probably created the data themselves.
So that, ladies and gentlemen, is our corrupt world.
And that's all I had for you today.
I hope your stocks are up.
Oh man, I went long.
I'm going to say hi to the locals people, but we won't stay long.
I'm already taking too much of your time.
Even though I know it's a holiday week and the other podcasters are probably on vacation and you're so glad that I'm here.
