God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, COVID Loans Fraud, AI Agents, AI Agent Manus, Resume AI Skills, Canada PM Mark Carney, Rep. Thomas Massie, Congress CR Restores USAID, DOJ Egg Price Investigation, Floundering Democrat Strategies, Teachers Union, Konstantin Kisin, Alexander Dugin, Russian Influence Strategy, Israel Gaza Strategy, Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Crisis Fatigue, Mike Benz, EU Overthrows Romanian Election, NATO Weapons Scam, Unvaccinated Groups Autism, Amish Lifestyle, RFK Jr., Life Complexity Brain Health, 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.
All right, good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tiger shells, a stein, a canteen, jug, a 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, and darn it, it's happening right now.
Go.
Yeah, we don't have access to YouTube or Rumble today.
The Rumble studio has got a little difficulty.
Sort of a Monday problem.
But I will upload the content from locals to the other platforms.
But we're good on locals, and we're sort of almost good on X. So we're going to do it.
By the way, there was a French study that says that coffee has astonishing powers to protect your memory.
It might even be good against Alzheimer's.
That's right.
So the odds of you remembering this live stream?
Very good.
If you had new coffee.
That's a study by Rolling Out.
Khalil Best is writing about that.
Well, are you all waiting for the Epstein files?
And the JFK files?
And the MLK files?
All waiting for those?
Good luck.
I don't think there's really any chance we're going to see anything we don't know or anything shocking.
If we see anything.
Maybe we'll never say anything.
But lower your expectations to zero.
Zero would be the right place.
According to SciPost, Eric Nolan is writing about this.
Have you ever seen these online quizzes where you can decide who you should vote for?
So you say things like, are you in favor of this policy or this policy?
And then you fill it out.
And then it says, oh, you're a Democrat.
You should vote for this person, or you're a Republican.
Well, according to a study, I think that the person involved with this, you may have heard of, Robert Epstein.
So he's done studies of Google and Google's influence.
But he finds that these online surveys are more than just casual online surveys.
Apparently they bias you toward one direction or another.
So they can sort of turn you into a Democrat voter if you're on the fence.
So, very diabolical.
So watch out.
If you see one of those, let me tell you who you should vote for surveys, they are meant to persuade not to inform.
So just know that that's a trick.
You've been warned.
Well, according to One American News, they're saying that Doge is reporting.
That during the COVID period, this is so bad, it's just funny.
The $312 million in loans that were meant for small businesses during COVID were taken out by children.
So we don't know if they're real children, but they seem to be children.
In other words, fake.
$312 million of fake loans to children.
It seems to me, fairly consistent, that whenever there's a large bunch of money from the government for anything at all, it's gigantic fraud every time because they don't seem to do any kind of auditing or any kind of accounting or any kind of checking to see who gets it.
We should just maybe give no money to anybody.
You know, if this were the only story today, I would be filled with outrage because my tax money went to loans to children.
But I'm having outrage exhaustion.
Anybody else have that?
It's like every time I look at social media, oh, there's another $100 million somebody stole.
Oh, there's another $200 million somebody stole.
And it all starts just looking like baseline after a while.
So I worry that we will stop being outraged by stories that are really outrageous.
Well, there's a new AI that everybody's talking about called Manus.
And it's a Chinese AI. And the people who have tested it and written about it on social media seem to be blown away by how good it is.
So it's not a regular AI. It's an AI agent.
Now, the difference between a regular AI and an AI agent is that regular AI, you can talk to it and ask it questions, and it can give you good answers, and it can tell you how to code something.
But an agent, you can just tell to go do a thing.
And then it'll go do a thing.
Now, I'm not entirely clear about what things it could have access to, which of your other apps or your...
Databases or whatever.
But apparently it's wowing the people who are trying it.
And they think that China is not only not behind the United States in AI, but if you look at DeepSeek and you look at Manus, together they suggest that China might already be ahead.
Now, it could be that the only thing they're ahead in is doing things that we wouldn't do here, such as unleashing an agent.
Because the agent feels like that's a security risk.
You would not be surprised that Tennessee is the first state to already ban it.
So Manus just came within the week.
It's already banned in Tennessee.
And I think there's more efforts by other attorney generals to ban all the Chinese AIs.
To ban DeepSeek and probably more of them want to ban Manus.
Probably a good idea.
I could tell you that there's not a chance I would put that on my computer.
I would never put on my computer something that's not only a Chinese AI, but it's an agent.
Isn't that just asking for it?
It's even called an agent.
It just sounds like the most dangerous thing you could put on your computer.
Meanwhile, according to the Wall Street Journal, one in four new U.S. jobs posted, I can ask for AI skills.
So it's not just that they want you to be an AI expert, but that whatever your job is, you should have a little capability with AI. Now, if I could give you any job advice whatsoever, it would be learn AI. You know, you don't have to learn how to create it.
You know, that's for other people.
But you should know which AIs do what.
And you should know generally how to make it do some stuff.
And you should know how to ask questions and how to query things.
You should know AI. It's not really optional if you're going to be a job seeker, especially.
So make sure you know AI. Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau is out.
And Mark Carney.
He's got the new leadership position, and it looks like he'll be the next prime minister as soon as they call it for a vote.
I guess that's how their system works.
So he's not officially the prime minister, but there's nothing that would stop him from being one as soon as they go through the process.
But here are some of the things we know about him.
He was a banker, and apparently he spent a lot of time in the UK because he was not only a...
Former central banker for Canada, but he was a former central banker for the UK. Interesting.
Now, here's what one critic on social media said.
So this is not representative of anything but one critic's opinion.
Somebody named John Paul Berg said about Carney, the new head of Canada, that he doesn't hold elected office.
Meaning that he's never won an election by the public at large, I guess.
And nor has he lived here in over a decade, meaning Canada.
So he hasn't lived in Canada for a decade.
He must have moved back recently.
And he's a self-described globalist and elitist.
I doubt he called himself an elitist, but maybe a globalist.
And he's a central banker with a World Economic Forum membership.
So, that's a lot of red flags, but if that's what Canada wants, alright.
So here's my take, my American take, which is worth basically nothing.
I think the Canadians felt they needed a banker.
Because if you put Justin Trudeau up against Trump, doesn't it look like a mismatch?
Like there's one serious business person, Trump?
And then there's Trudeau, who's worried about his pronouns and such.
So I think they needed to get a serious business person.
So, you know, banker fits that.
But here's what he did on his first day so far.
Carney said, quote, my government will keep our tariffs on until the Americans show us respect.
Okay, first day of work, not so good.
Do you think respect is the problem here?
When the United States is trying to get rid of fentanyl, is the problem that we don't respect you enough?
When Trump says he wants Canada to be a 51st state, is it because we don't respect it?
Or it just seems like it'd be a good idea?
Now, he definitely didn't respect Trudeau.
But did Trudeau earn his respect?
I would say maybe no.
So if he's focusing on tariffs or related to Americans showing him respect, not the best first day, because that doesn't seem like anything that's going to work out for him.
We're not really operating on the respect basis.
It's pretty much our interests and their interests, and that's about it.
Secretary of State Rubio has announced that he's cut 83% of the USAID budget.
83%.
The rest would be absorbed into the State Department.
And he's slashed 5,200 of the USAID contracts.
Now, that's all good news, right?
Yay!
This big pot of money.
That we thought was being used in ways that maybe we didn't agree with, and there was a lot of it, and it got cut.
Yay!
Except none of it's true.
It's just not true.
This is what Thomas Massey explains.
The Congress is putting together a continuing resolution, which is what they do when they can't decide on a budget.
They just say, I guess the budget will just remain the same.
So the budget they're going to pass will fully fund USAID. None of this is real.
It's not fucking real.
According to Thomas Massey, and Massey points out that the Supreme Court ruled last week that it requires an act of Congress to defund these programs.
So not only is there no legal way to defund them, But the continuing resolution that Congress does every time, because they can't do their job of making a budget, will just fully fund it.
Now, I don't know if you can fire all the people, so even if they have a budget, they can't spend it?
Is there some workaround?
But my head just exploded.
And Thomas Massey's the only one who's on this, the whole continuing resolution problem.
Literally, the continuing resolution is when the Congress says, oh, we don't know how to do our basic job.
We don't know how to do our fucking basic job, which is make a budget that works.
So we're not going to do it.
So we're just going to kick the can down the road and bankrupt the country with, you know, unworkable debt.
And then when we finally make some what looks like progress with Doge, They just bulldoze it like it didn't even matter.
Now, I suppose there are some surprises ahead.
You know, I don't think Doge is going to roll over.
I don't think Trump's going to roll over.
But it kind of looks like it didn't work.
I mean, tentatively speaking, that's not my final opinion.
I'd like to be wrong about it.
I'd love to be wrong about it.
But when was the last time Massey was wrong about something like this?
Never.
This is his domain.
If he says this isn't real, I'm going to take his word for it over Rubio.
And I hate it.
Absolutely hate it.
But we'll see where this goes.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice under Trump is launching an investigation into the price of eggs.
The Department of Justice?
What do they think they're going to find?
So I guess there's some concern that maybe the big egg producers are artificially keeping the price high, which means artificially keeping the supply low.
I don't know.
Maybe.
But it seems like it's simpler than that.
It seems like there's just not enough eggs.
Now, maybe there's something else there.
They wouldn't launch this investigation unless they meant it.
So the Wall Street Journal is reporting on that.
But apparently eggs are expected to rise by more than 40% in 2025. Another 40% for eggs?
Wow.
Anyway, I guess we'll find out what's up with eggs, but I think that's just a very narrow look.
They're just going to look at whether there's gouging, basically.
That sounds like Biden.
Now, here's my take on it.
You know, I've looked into this whole chicken problem, and I think where everything went wrong is where they allowed the chickens to work from home.
Yeah, that's all I had.
That's all I had.
They shouldn't let the chickens work from home.
The remote-working chickens, I don't think they're laying as many eggs.
I think they're goofing off.
Yeah?
Don't let them work from home.
Anyway, Howard Lutnick is talking about Trump's tariffs, and specifically the ones on China and Mexico and Canada.
And he says, if fentanyl ends, meaning those countries stay up and out and keep it from coming into the U.S., I think these will come off, meaning tariffs.
But if fentanyl does not end, or Trump is uncertain about it, they will stay this way until he's comfortable.
He said that and meet the press.
Now, I hate to be negative Nelly, but I don't really think there's much chance that the tariffs are going to affect in the long term fentanyl.
But I also don't have a better idea.
It's the only idea that looks serious.
There's maybe some chance of it working.
But I would bet against it, unfortunately.
Now, if I had a better idea, I'd say, don't do this.
Get rid of those tariffs.
It's a waste of time.
We should do this much smarter idea that's different.
But I don't have a smarter idea.
So if leaning on these countries hard, so hard that it crashes their economy, is the only play we have, I'm in favor of it.
I just wouldn't bet my life savings it's going to work.
But we don't have any better idea.
And, you know, even if we went in militarily and took out a bunch of labs, wouldn't they just rebuild them in a week?
I don't know how you could possibly stop this problem.
It just seems unstoppable.
But, again, given the size of the problem, if we have to crash a couple of economies just to find out if this works, I'm in.
I'm in.
It's a drastic situation.
Calls for drastic steps, and it's the only one I can think of.
Well, Trump has indicated that things might get worse before they get better, and I guess that got turned into a headline that he is not going to rule out a recession.
Now, the stock market seemed to shake that off, because just before I got on, the markets were up after he admitted.
So here's what he said to, I guess, to Maria Bartiroma.
He said, there'll be a period of transition because what we're doing is very big.
Now, a period of transition means things will look a little worse before they look a lot better.
And I think I've always known that.
The things he's doing very clearly have a, you know...
Let's say a destabilizing effect in the short term because people don't know what's going to happen with tariffs, etc.
But in the long term, it could work out just great.
There's a whole bunch of stuff that Trump's doing that are directionally.
It's all great.
So if you could fast forward five years, we might be in an amazing situation.
It's very possible.
So I'm very optimistic about the future.
But how are the Democrats doing?
Let's see.
Let's check in with Van Jones.
So Van Jones was on CNN. He was talking about the prospects for the Democrats to come back and become a serious party.
And things are so bad that he actually was laughing at how pathetic the Democrat Party is.
And the host was laughing.
It's actually become laughable.
But here's how he summarized it.
He said this is what the Democrats did.
He goes, defending a broken status quo that nobody likes because they thought that Donald Trump was going to make it worse.
Well, I guess that didn't work out.
So the reflex to be against Trump, no matter what, had them supporting the status quo that everybody thought was a bad idea.
So that's part of it.
And then Van Jones said that offending most people in the country and calling everybody sexist and racist and transphobic and every other name and then saying, please follow us.
That's not a good strategy, folks.
So every time I hear somebody who actually does understand what's going on, and I think Van Jones, you know, he's obviously playing for one team.
Well, he understands.
This is a very clear statement of the problem.
But it doesn't look solvable.
That's the funny thing.
They've created a situation where there's just no way back.
They have too many people who want to be woke and a bunch of people who don't, and you can't reconcile that.
The people who are just all down on wokeness, they're not going to give it up.
What do you do?
Well, let me tell you what the other Democrats are doing to try to right the ship.
According to Politico, this sounds like I'm just making it up, but according to Politico, a lot of Democrats have started cursing in public.
So they give a whole bunch of examples of Democrats using the F word and the S word and the GD word.
And apparently it's sort of a big trend.
And I'm thinking to myself, they are so out of ideas that they're really doubling down on this.
If we can get the messaging right, if we could just get the messaging right, and then they look at Trump, and they'll see that every now and then he'll throw an S-word into his speeches and stuff, and they'll go, yes, yes, that's what it is.
We need more cursing.
But no, I'm joking.
They didn't just say, we just need more cursing.
They also need more cringe videos.
And then Elon Musk was pointing out that the liberals seem to be getting violent.
They're attacking Tesla locations, etc.
And so they've got cursing.
They've got cringe videos.
They've got random violence.
And then they've got Representative Hank Johnson, Democrat from Georgia.
He just, in public, he actually said this.
He believes that Trump and the MAGA movement want black Americans, quote, confined and back to, quote, picking cotton.
So that should move the ball forward.
And then...
And then...
Jasmine Crockett, who might be the dumbest Democrat of all, so they're giving her the most attention because they're like, oh, I don't know if the cursing and the cringe videos and the violence are enough.
We better have our dumbest, worst spokesperson be the most prominent one.
So Jasmine Crockett went on some show, MSNBC, and said it's not illegal for illegal aliens to come into the country.
It's not a crime.
It's not a crime to come into the country illegally.
They're not sending their best.
Anyway.
As you know, the teachers' unions are destroying America because the foundation of American power is education.
If you get education wrong, which we apparently are doing, you don't really have a future.
There's no chance.
And that's where we're at.
And mostly, I would say that's the fault of the teachers' unions.
And the teachers' unions, of course, would like the kids to have a good education, but their primary concern is the good of the union itself and whatever is good for the Democratic Party.
So if your main criteria is not the well-being of the children, and clearly it's not, you're going to get the result that we see.
Just horrible, horrible outcomes.
But there's apparently a force that has been organizing to give an alternative to the unions.
It's called the Freedom Foundation.
They're just getting started, but what they want to do is promote some kind of alternative for teachers that don't join the union.
So they would give teachers liability coverage, better curricula, Patriotic and pro-capitalist teachings and professional development.
I assume those are things that the union does.
So they're trying to match the benefits without all the bad stuff, which is basically just being a tool of the Democrats.
So, if we could figure out how to break the hold of the teachers' unions, the United States has a chance.
Maybe this is it.
Maybe they just needed an alternative.
Meanwhile, Steve Cortez just put out a documentary that looks fascinating, and he's down in Star County, Texas, which is almost entirely Hispanic, and is pro-Trump.
And you really have to see it.
I've been telling you forever that if you have a lot of contact with the Hispanic community, the recent immigrants, You could have seen it coming that they would be more pro-Trump because they're all about God, family, work.
They're not about woke at all.
And they don't mind seeing deportations because it's a problem to them too.
So I recommend it.
Steve Cortez.
Just look for his account on X and you'll see his documentary.
Very interesting.
I had a little conversation back and forth with Konstantin Kissen.
You would know him from his podcast, Trigonometry, but also a very smart commentator about all things geopolitical.
And he had some things to say that I thought were really interesting, and I felt like I didn't know all the elements of it, so I had some follow-up questions.
But let me tell you where that went.
So it started out by, he was talking about a 1997 book by this guy, Alexander Dugan, who wrote that, among other things, now this is 1997, so it's been around a while, that, quote, Russia should introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity,
encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic and social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements, extremists, racist, and sectarian groups, Thus, destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It also makes sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics.
So that would be one way that Russia could, you know, destroy the United States.
Now, you've probably also seen the work of this guy, a Russian guy, named Yuri Bezmenov, who has a similar message.
And he's been saying that the Soviet Union, at least, had this plan to destabilize American culture by basically amplifying destructive forces.
Now, I asked Konstantin, you know, what would be the evidence that Russia is actually doing this?
Because maybe there is.
Maybe there's a whole bunch of places where we've spotted them doing it.
And he clarified that it wasn't about...
Russia per se, but it might be something that all of our adversaries are doing.
He mentioned China, Qatar, Iran, and Russia.
But the weird thing is, and one of the things he mentioned was the tenant media situation.
Do you remember that?
It turned out that, I guess, Tim Pool and Dave Rubin and some other podcasters were receiving money.
From a group that had some Russian backing, but they didn't know it.
And the group wasn't asking them for any different treatment or any different editorial.
So there was no impact whatsoever on what they did.
They just got free money.
And then it was uncovered that there was this connection to Russia, and I guess that got unwound.
But I've noticed that whenever Russia is trying to interfere with the United States, It looks like a high school project level quality.
Do you remember the troll farm that was allegedly trying to influence the 2016 election?
But if you actually looked at how much they spent, it was basically nothing.
And then you look at the quality of the memes they presented, and they were just ridiculous.
Just so empty of any quality or persuasiveness.
They were just nothing.
And I thought to myself, is that the best that Russia can do to disturb our internal politics?
There's some memes that nobody saw, and then giving free money to people to do what they were going to do anyway?
That's the best they could do?
And then there was the story about the one hacker who got into, what was it, the Democrats or Hillary's email or something.
And then we're told by our own intelligence, People that it was Russia and we know it?
Well, maybe.
But I'm not so sure.
So it seems to me there would be a lot more evidence of Russia doing something like that.
And then the other context is that it's what everybody does to all of their adversaries anyway.
So the idea is that if you're just boosting, you're not creating.
You're not creating from scratch.
But you're just boosting.
Those elements within our society that are the most destructive, that's all it takes.
And I'm thinking, isn't that exactly what we do to overthrow other countries?
Don't we routinely fund their most divisive elements, specifically to weaken them and stage a coup?
Maybe everybody's just doing it to everybody.
But the bigger context, the thing that to me seems the most salient, is that there's nothing these other countries could possibly do to boost the most corrosive parts of our society that isn't already being done by Democrats, and specifically Soros.
So, is Soros working for one of our adversaries?
Because he seems to be more tightly wound around our Democrats, and it feels like that we're being torn apart from the inside.
I don't see the impact from other countries.
And my own view of this Yuri Bezmenov, who is sort of the OG of saying that Russia's got this plan to destroy our civilization with their clever shenanigans.
I've never trusted him to be real.
I have a theory that he's the op.
He's not the person telling us the op.
I think he's the op.
Because if you thought that it was coming from the outside, you would not be able to fix it.
So I think he's just looking at the fact that we're naturally divisive.
And that if we're naturally divisive, you're going to see all these examples that...
You can say, wait a minute.
Did Russia fund Antifa?
Well, no evidence of it.
Wait a minute.
Is Russia behind the teachers' unions?
Well, not that I know of.
We have these wildly divisive elements in the U.S. I feel like this Yuri Bezmenov was either just monetizing what was going to happen anyway by acting like he had this theory about why it's all happening.
I don't trust that guy at all.
I feel like he's the op, but that's just a feeling.
I don't have proof of that.
Anyway, so if all these countries are influencing us by boosting the worst, most corrosive parts of our society, they don't have a chance compared to the boosting that the Democrats are doing to those exact same entities, and Soros in particular.
Anyway, I don't really know how to think about that other than it doesn't look like it's the biggest problem in the world compared to what we're doing to ourselves.
The stuff coming from inside the tent.
Meanwhile, Israel announced yesterday that it's going to be cutting off electricity to Gaza, which would have the effect of cutting off water because the desalbinization plant there would require that electricity.
And I guess they're going to cut off humanitarian aid.
I believe they have food that would last them maybe weeks or months, but no more humanitarian aid.
Now, this, of course, is trying to squeeze them to give up or to give up the hostages.
But according to The Hill, Tara Suter is writing, that there's the Trump hostage envoy.
He thinks that we might have a deal with Hamas, or that we could have a deal soon, to free all of the hostages within weeks.
So Adam Bowler is the White House Special Envoy.
And he thinks that every hostage taken by the militant group Hamas could be freed all at the same time in weeks.
Now, that doesn't even seem remotely likely to me.
Do you think there's something we don't know about?
Because if there's no new variables on the table, I don't see how we'd get a different outcome.
So remember Trump said, if you don't release them all, they'll be hell to pay?
Is it possible that we've delivered a threat that they completely feel is real?
Maybe to the leadership?
Maybe to, I don't know, to Iran?
Maybe the threat's on Iran.
If we don't get them back, we're going to take out your nuclear facilities.
So it seems to me that this is one of those cases where we may never understand what the real deal was.
Maybe we offered something of value.
Maybe we offered a better threat.
I don't see how this could just sort of work all of a sudden.
I don't know.
But we'll be optimistic.
Now, the other day, somebody in the comments, Challenged me to do the best I could to describe the Palestinian side of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Now, that would be the ultimate third rail.
So, of course, I said yes.
Because I think I'm attracted to trouble.
So let's see if I can do this and still be in business tomorrow.
All right?
So I'm going to give you the...
The best objective description of the situation.
The first thing I would say, if you're looking at the Palestinian, and here I'm not talking about just Gaza, so we'll talk about the Palestinians more generally.
I don't think you can understand the situation in terms of who's good and who's bad, who has the better long-term claim, who's got the historical...
Let's say the best complaints about what happened and therefore the best narrative of how it should turn out.
As long as you're thinking about who's good or bad or the narratives or the history, you're just lost.
Nothing like that matters.
The only thing that matters in this region is who has the power.
At the moment, Israel has the power.
If it were reversed, it would be reversed.
Meaning that the Israelis would be complaining that they were under occupation or worse.
And everything that the Palestinians are saying, hey, you're blocking us from statehood.
You're keeping us suppressed.
They'd say we're in an outdoor prison.
It would just be the other way around.
Because you have two societies, two civilizations that are incompatible.
And they will always be incompatible.
There's no way that they're just going to live next to each other in peace.
So it's a power dynamic, and that's it.
So there's no good guy.
There's no bad guy.
It's just power.
And Israel is doing what would be good for Israel.
What's good for Israel is to increase their land for two reasons.
One is it could give them a little extra buffer against the tax, but also wouldn't it be good to have a bigger country?
Because in the long run, very long run, that will just all be good.
So Israel is doing what is in the best interest of Israel, and they have the power to do it.
As soon as you start overlaying who's good or bad, or who's moral, who's ethical, none of that makes any difference.
The ones with the power are going to get what they want, and it will be at the expense of the other side.
Now, what makes it easy for the Israelis is that the Palestinians apparently have some addiction to violence as at least part of the solution.
We don't know what would happen if the Palestinians suddenly came up with a Martin Luther King character.
Who had, you know, amazingly, I think this would be impossible, but amazingly said, all right, we just want to put our case to the world.
And we want the whole world to watch.
And we're going to say what our complaints are.
And then we're going to say what we want.
And we're going to denounce all violence.
But we think that when we make our case, the world will back us.
Maybe, maybe that would work for them.
But it seems to me...
That the Islamic culture is more about fighting.
And again, I'm not going to say it's right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral.
It just seems to be the reflex.
And it seems to be based on cultural impulses.
And so as long as they're willing, the Palestinians are willing to do a, or at least some of them, are willing to do a non-stop violence kind of opposition.
It just gives Israel a free pass.
They can just say, well, there it is again.
We better take this country.
Well, there it is again.
We better, you know, bomb these people and displace them.
Well, there it is again.
So in terms of strategy, the Palestinians have picked a strategy that sort of will lose forever because it just gives the other side that has more power.
A free pass to use it.
And so they do.
Now, if Israel is doing everything that's good for Israel, that would be every country.
So you could say, oh, those bad people doing everything that's good for them and bad for other people.
No, that's just everybody.
That's everybody throughout time.
Every country does what's good for their country.
And again, this is not supporting it, and it's not criticizing.
Neither of those mean anything.
It's simply an observation.
The ones with the power get what they want.
That's it.
So, you know, of course, there's other elements to this, such as the military-industrial complex in the U.S. We'd like to have another place where we can sell weapons.
We'd like to be able to project our own U.S. interests through a proxy in the Middle East.
You know, Israel being the strongest player in that region.
And so that means Israel will have the power, and they will keep doing what they want.
Now, one of the claims that the Palestinians make is that when the Israelis say, hey, we gave you Gaza, and it was just your own country, and you could have turned it into a paradise, but you turned it into a Hamas terrorist hellhole, and now look what it bought you.
Well, the Palestinians and the people in Gaza would say, that never happened.
It's true that you sort of pulled out, but you didn't stop bombing us.
But of course, they always had reasons.
They were responding to some kind of an attack.
And they didn't have freedom of travel and commerce, because they were sort of surrounded, and again, presumably entirely for...
For security reasons, Israel couldn't let them ship in and out anything they wanted, because that would be dangerous.
Didn't let them travel unrestrictedly for the things that you would normally do for commerce.
And so the Gazans never felt that they really had, let's say, the ability to run their own country.
They felt like they were still under some kind of siege.
Even if there were no boots on the ground within Gaza itself.
Now, that would be their take.
I'm not endorsing it.
I'm not taking a side.
I'm just describing it.
If you ask them, they'd say, yeah, you sort of on paper gave us Gaza, but it was never free in the way that other countries could be free.
You have to deal with everybody.
And then Israel would say, how could we give you that freedom when you're just a boiling...
A stew of terrorists, who if we open the roads or open the sea, you'd be shipping massive weapons and turning it into another attack.
And that, of course, would be exactly the right approach for their self-interest.
I'd also point out that the thought about having two separate countries, where the West Bank and the Palestinians, forget about Gaza for a second, but if you want to have the...
Two-country solution?
You know that that ship already sailed, right?
There are now so many settlements, Israeli settlements, just peppering that entire area, that there's not really any possibility of a two-country solution.
And again, that would be presumably what the Israeli government wants, to not have a two-country solution, even if they use the words that they would.
It looks like they have a long-term plan, Israel, to maximize Israel, which everybody would expect.
Again, it's not good, it's not bad, it's just power.
And if you just reverse the power instantly, you would have almost the same situation, except the Israelis would be the ones complaining, and the Palestinians would be saying, well, look at you terrorists trying to fight back against our massive power.
I guess we'll just have to...
Press you a little bit harder, because you're still acting like terrorists, because the weaker party doesn't have any tools.
So, they're going to use some terrorism.
That wouldn't surprise anybody.
So let me see what else.
Yeah, I think that pretty much does it.
So, that's my take.
My take is, as long as you're in the who's good, who's bad, who's got the historical claim, whose Bible says what, that's all just bullshit.
It's just power.
And who has the power is going to use it.
Right now it's Israel.
That's sort of the end of the story.
Everything else is just a normal outcome of who had the power.
And I don't see it changing any time in the near future.
Because I don't see them coming up with a Martin Luther King.
Oh, we were wrong the whole time.
Let's just get the international community to back us, and we'll ask for a bunch of peaceful things.
I don't see it happening.
So it'll just be more of the same, I think, for a long time.
Jonathan Turley is writing about crisis fatigue, and he's sort of mocking the legal experts in the country, which, of course, in many cases are leaning left.
And talk about how easy it is to get a thousand legal experts to sign on to any Democrat anything.
And then the news will treat it like it matters.
That you've got a thousand legal experts to say there's a constitutional crisis.
And everything's a constitutional crisis.
Until you're so tired of constitutional crises that don't seem to actually make any difference in your life.
That you see another list of a thousand legal experts saying there's another constitutional crisis, like every week or two, and it just doesn't mean anything.
We're just exhausted by it, and it never has any real effect in the real world, and we figure they're all biased, and it doesn't matter how many people on the list, because you can always get a list.
You can get a thousand people to agree to anything.
As long as you're not talking about the ones who didn't sign it, just say, well...
A thousand people say we're in a constitutional crisis because of Trump.
And it's all getting just stupid.
It's the best the Democrats can do is to try to get basically to reproduce the 51 intelligence people who say the laptop isn't real.
The most debunked method of truth, it's all they have.
Let's put together another easily debunked You know, proof of what's real.
Yeah, we'll get a list of people.
It'll be long.
There'll be a thousand people on the list.
Doesn't mean anything anymore in today's world, and we're smart enough to know it.
Now, I've not been following the situation in Romania, so maybe I got a little of this wrong.
I was seeing Mike Benz talking about it online.
So apparently Romania was having a presidential election.
That the EU, and I guess the US probably was behind a little bit, got the election cancelled because they didn't like who was going to get elected.
Is that roughly what happened?
But the European Union president, this Ursula von der Leyen, she's sort of quiet about it because, as Mike Benz says, and what can she say?
Ben says.
If she says she supports Romania canceling elections, which she does, says Mike, the EU will look like a dictator.
It is, says Mike.
And if she says she doesn't support it, it would throw the very network in Romania the EU leaned on to cancel elections under the bus.
So the EU is basically overthrowing the government of Romania?
Just sort of matter-of-factly?
You're right in front of everybody?
Do I have that even a little bit right?
All right.
So I don't know if I do, but that would be more of the same for the United States anyway, to be influencing other countries' elections.
Anyway, according to Wall Street Journal, American defense companies are having a good time.
They're increasing their dominance of the global arms trade, and the European nations are trying to buy as much as they can to protect themselves.
They're buying U.S. fighter jets and missiles.
Now, how many of you have ever heard this?
I'm going to call it a conspiracy theory, but I think we're all sophisticated enough to know that conspiracy theory doesn't mean it's not true, right?
So I don't know that it's true, so I'll call it a conspiracy theory, but it's certainly not ruled out.
And it goes like this, that the real reason that there's been such a push to increase the number of NATO countries is not to defend against Russia.
It's because as soon as you turn into a NATO country, you have to buy American weapons to be compatible with NATO. Is that true?
That the real reason that there's always a continuous push to add new countries is because the military-industrial complex in the U.S. gets to sell more weapons, because you can't be in NATO unless your weapons are compatible with the rest of NATO. I'd hate to think that that's the whole story, but it could be, right?
It could be part of the story.
It could be just opportunistic stuff.
Like, oh yeah, we want to protect against Russia, but by the way, it's pretty good for business.
That's not the main reason we're doing it, but it's also good for business.
You know, it's a little hard for me to accept that the real reason is protecting the countries from Russia versus the gazillions of dollars that the military-industrial complex would make.
If we just add one more country.
So, I'm a little skeptical there.
Meanwhile, RFK Jr. has asked the CDC to look into the link between vaccines and autism.
Now, that's interesting.
Gateway Pundit is reporting this.
Now, apparently, that study would involve using the vaccine safety data link.
Which monitors safety of vaccines and investigates adverse reactions.
I don't believe anything about this story.
Sorry.
I don't believe that there's an existing database that if you just looked at it carefully, you would know if there's a link between vaccines and autism.
Are you kidding me?
There's no way we have a database that if you just looked at it really carefully...
You would know the answer.
No.
Now, I saw in the comments before I came on that all you'd have to do is study, let's say, the Amish or the Mennonites or whoever they are, because there are some groups that are not vaccinated.
So if you check the unvaccinated group and they didn't have any autism, well, then you'd say to yourself, aha!
It must be those darn vaccinations.
But that won't work because there are too many things that are different about the Amish.
Let me give you an example.
One of the hypotheses that I'd heard years ago, but now I don't believe it's true, but it is one of the hypotheses, that what's different about the modern world is that smart people meet other smart people more easily.
So we go to college.
And let's say you go to MIT, you're more likely to meet somebody that you get married to who's also a top engineer or basically a nerd.
And there's some indication that if you take two people who are kind of sort of near the spectrum and they have a child, the odds of them being on the spectrum are way higher.
Now, I can't promise you that's true.
Something that's been around for a long time.
Now, the Amish don't reproduce that way.
So that's not their mating strategy.
Presumably, their mating strategy is old school, where it's like, Jake, looks like you're ready for a wife.
Sally down the road, she'd be a good wife.
All right, she's the only one available.
So it feels like the Amish may just do...
Old school mating.
And it would avoid the nerds hooking up because they both work at Microsoft.
Maybe.
I don't know.
The other thing is that the Amish are not eating the same food.
They're not eating processed food.
The other thing is they're spending more time outdoors.
And you could probably come up with five different things that the Amish do that are just clearly different.
In terms of lifestyle and exposure to things.
I mean, maybe it's something like, you know, I'm just going to make this one up.
Don't take this seriously.
But what if it's like exposure to lead?
Right?
I'm not speculating that.
I'm using it to make the point.
Because the Amish wouldn't have the same exposure.
And so it could be a pollutant that is common to everybody but the Amish.
So I don't think you can study the Amish and know whether vaccines cause autism.
But I'm positive there's no existing database that can tell you that.
I don't believe any of that.
Now, maybe that's just the first thing that RFK Jr. has to do.
Maybe he has to get past, let's look at all our existing databases and see if it tells us anything before he can get to the next level of, is there a better way to start tracking this?
So, I'm in favor of the effort.
I just think maybe it's a little harder than it looks.
At the same time, RFK Jr. is going to meet with the, according to Zero Edge, going to meet with the leaders of the processed food industry.
What is that going to produce?
Because it feels like they're not going to say, oh yes, I will greatly reduce my yields or...
I'll let my food rot faster just so that we have fewer chemicals and seed oils and stuff in them.
I don't know that you can just talk them into it.
But maybe.
Maybe there'll be a few easy wins.
Like, yeah, we can get rid of that one thing.
Or, yeah, we don't need that chemical in there.
So something good could come of that.
I think the RFK Jr. problem is that When you go from concept, you know, I want to do these things and make everything healthier, to bureaucracy, it's probably just like a brick wall.
You're probably just banging your head against a brick wall.
Now, we'll see if RFK Jr.'s got the clout, along with Trump, to make a real difference and penetrate the bureaucracy, but it's super tough, so if he can do it, it'd be amazing.
According to Science Alert, having children makes your brain younger later in life.
Now, that makes complete sense to me.
If you've had any exposure to being around children, the complexity of your life, if you add just one child to your life, and often it's more than that, the complexity of just getting anything done goes through the roof.
And I would think that your brain would be healthier longer If you added any kind of complexity and challenge to it, especially if it's one you really cared about, like your kids.
So that makes sense.
I wouldn't say that I would have necessarily guessed this, but anything that an adult does to challenge their brain and their memory and their thinking, and if it's a continuous pressure, like having a kid, it seems to me that it would make a difference.
Anyway, I do see some things in the comments about the seed oils.
I'm not completely convinced that the seed oils are all bad, but I certainly see a lot of smart people say that they are.
So I'm open to it.
All right.
You feel younger than people your age who have older kids because you started late.
Okay.
All right.
That's all I have for today.
Like I said, the technology was not happy with me today, so the sound on the X feed is a little less than this microphone is not connected to my phone.
But we'll upload the high-quality one from the local's feed onto YouTube and Rumble, and then we'll have it all.
And that's all I've got for today.
So thanks for joining, everybody.
I'm just going to say goodbye to the X feed, and I'll say a few words privately to the people and locals.
