All Episodes
March 20, 2025 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:01:17
Episode 2784 CWSA 03/20/25

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Civilian Drone Evolvement, Space Satellite Dogfighting, Coal Energy Policy, JFK Files, Jaime Raskin, Creative Lies & Designated Liars, Dean Phillips, Tim Walz, mRNA Side-Effects Study, Climate Change Democrats, DEI Democrats, Jimmy Dore, Obama Beachfront Property, Owen Shroyer Swatting, Federal Swatting Investigations, Sub-Pyramid Structures, Scott Alexander Skepticism Rule, LA Fires Update, State Farm Insurance, Trump Zelensky Negotiation, New Iran Sanctions, USAID Budget Cuts Legality, Kash Patel, Russian Recruits Strategy, Alan Cooperman Ukraine Analysis, Head Injury Risk Takers, 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.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and damn it, it happens right now.
Go!
Delightful.
One of the best ever.
Well, did you know that according to Frontiers in Nutrition, The regular coffee and tea assumption lowers your risk of osteoporosis.
Did you notice when you sipped that your osteoporosis seemed a little bit better?
Yeah.
Good science.
Well, Elon Musk has raised almost a billion dollars in new equity for X. And here's the fun part.
That would value X at about...
$32 billion.
And that would be close to what he bought it for.
So basically, the outrageous price that he paid for X has already paid for itself.
Do you remember when the biggest thing you could say against Elon Musk?
Well, he's not such a genius.
He overpaid for X. And those of us who are a little bit smarter said, you know, just wait.
I'd wait a little bit on that.
So based on the amount you just raised, which means he has plans for X, I think.
I assume that's not just to retire some debt.
It's probably also to make sure he can do some new stuff.
It looks like his purchase of X was a good investment.
Of all the things in the world, it was one of the very few things his critics had to cling to.
Oh, yeah, well, okay, maybe SpaceX is kind of cool.
Yeah, Tesla was doing all right, but okay, Starlink was good, and Neuralink seems like it's changing the world, but...
He definitely overpaid for X. Can't say that anymore.
All right, that's fun.
Apparently a bunch of Hollywood celebrities, according to Breitbart News, they got together and wrote a letter to the president begging him to help with their copyright protection.
So the same people were the biggest critics of Trump.
Are now begging for help to protect them from AI.
I don't think this is going to work too well, but here's what I think.
So, do you remember when AI could first make pictures and little, very short videos, you know, like just a few seconds?
And then you thought, "Ooh, if it can do that."
I could maybe make a movie just by saying, okay, start with that, change this, add another character.
But it could never do anything that took off from where the last image ended.
It would just be a brand new image, so you couldn't do anything with continuity.
But the continuity has been fixed recently, at least by a few apps.
So I'm going to guess that we're one year away from anybody being able to create a feature-length movie.
By just talking to the app.
Now, you'd still have to be good at it, so the app isn't going to do all the work for you.
But if you were good at it, I think you could do it.
And I'm pretty sure I could feed my books, at least my one book that's fiction, I'll bet I could just feed it to the AI and say, "Make a movie out of this."
Now, the problem would be that the AI wouldn't want to violate my copyright.
So I'd have to somehow convince it that I had the rights to the book.
So that hasn't been solved yet.
But I think we're really close to here's a book, turn it into a movie.
Boom.
We're very close.
Well, speaking of books, according to Wired magazine, Lily Hay Newman is writing that now you can buy these low-cost drones from big Chinese companies like Timu and AliExpress.
That you can add add-ons to the drone to turn them into terrorist weapons.
Let me say that again.
China is now selling, just commercially to anybody who wants to buy it, drones that will take add-ons that will turn them into terrorist devices.
And I don't think that there's any doubt about why they're doing this.
Because I don't think these are going to be available in China.
So it looks like they're setting up the United States to be destroyed by drones.
Now, one of the things that you can add is the ability to avoid...
First of all, it'll carry a payload.
So if you want to carry a bomb or some poison or something, they'll sell you that.
You can just buy it off the shelf now.
I mean, through the mail, but it's off the shelf-ish.
And you can even get the kind that if it gets jammed, it can turn to visual.
So as long as it knows what's supposed to be on the ground, it can thwart the jamming.
Yeah, this is really happening.
Now, you might know that about 20-some years ago, I wrote a book in which I predicted this very time.
You've seen the book.
It's God's Debris.
So God's Debris, the complete work, has three different books in it.
But the middle one, The Religion War, is about this exact time.
So 20-some years ago, I said, you know, terrorists are going to be able to buy a little drone.
They're going to be able to weaponize it.
And they're going to be able to launch it.
And you won't know where it came from.
And it will be able to snake through your city and attack anything it wants.
And then we're going to be in big trouble.
So that's where that is.
By the way, some of you have asked, but now this is an audiobook.
So you can buy God's Debris, The Complete Works as an audiobook.
So a bunch of you are asking, when's the audiobook going to be available?
It's available now.
So it's not me, but I picked the reader of the book.
The reason I couldn't do it is I have too much...
I'm just too dyslexic.
You know, I think I'm worse than I used to be.
I tried to do the audiobook myself, spend some time at the studio, but I can't really read sentences anymore because I can't read them in the order they're written, even if I wrote the sentence, weirdly.
So I was unable to do it just from mental disability.
But also, you were asking me about the audiobook for my other book.
Had it failed almost everything, this is the second edition, not the first edition.
This is the one you want.
But the audiobook for that is also available.
So there's that.
Well, but there's even more danger coming.
Apparently China, according to the register, Chinese satellites are already practicing dogfighting in space, which would be...
Military preparation for a war in space.
So it's not theoretical.
They're already practicing dogfights in space.
But here's the, just sort of slipped into the story.
Apparently they already have a refueling station in space, China does, for refueling satellites.
Now, I don't even know what that means.
How do you refuel a satellite?
What are you refueling it with?
I don't even know what that means.
But apparently, some kind of refueling satellite thing.
So we'll probably be fighting in space before long.
Trump is looking, according to The Hill, Trump is looking to boost the amount of coal energy this country creates.
Now, you may say to yourself, what?
Coal?
That's dirty?
And it's old school, and it's not as good as nuclear, and there are lots of reasons not to use coal.
However, as Trump points out, China is building a ton of coal power plants.
And if there's one thing I can teach you about economics, it's that whoever has the most energy usually wins for economics.
The only way you can have enough energy, and it looks like we're going to have a massive energy squeeze with all the AI and everything else, if the only way you can do it is with coal power, even with all the downsides, the pollution,
etc., probably it's worth doing.
Now, here's the fun part.
I think Trump picked exactly the right week to announce this.
Because it's the week that the left is planning to destroy Tesla as a company, and they're going big on trying to destroy Tesla, which proves they were never serious about climate change.
So at the same week that the left has proven that they were never serious about climate change, Trump comes out with the most anti-climate change policy you could ever even imagine, which is, hey, let's build a whole bunch of coal power plants.
I think Trump says stuff like, you know, clean, beautiful coal.
I don't know how clean you can make a coal plant.
But I do know if your options are making the atmosphere a little dirtier and having enough energy, you're going to want that.
As bad as that is.
I mean, you know, I'm not trying to downplay any of the negatives.
There's a lot of negatives.
But...
The positives are, unfortunately, in a competitive world, it's going to be necessary.
So I'm very grudgingly in favor of this, but I hate it.
I hate it, but I understand it.
Well, the JFK files are not completely out, but the ones that are out, it's mostly out.
But the ones people look through do not seem to have any bombshells.
But let me just give you...
You know, sort of the things that people are saying about it.
So according to Grok, the files so far would be supportive of the single gunman theory.
Is that what you think?
Do you think that the files so far are supportive of the single shooter?
I don't know.
I'm not entirely sure that's what it's telling us.
I am sure that it's not telling us anybody else did it.
So it's not really suggesting somebody else did it, but it's not really supportive of the lone gunman theory.
It's more like it's not ruling it out, I guess.
That would be one of the things.
One of the revelations is that, you already heard this, that one of Kennedy's main trusted advisors is Schlesinger.
You warned that the CIA was running its own foreign policy.
40% of the embassies were CIA.
The deep state already existed, and he was telling Kennedy that he needs to dismantle it.
Otherwise, basically, you've lost your country and that the CIA would be in charge.
And not long after that, Kennedy was assassinated.
We do know there's more information that the CIA had a mafia connection.
The connection seems to be related to Cuba.
You know, maybe efforts to...
Assassinate Castro.
We do know that Oswald was known to be a poor marksman, which sort of suggests he wasn't the shooter.
But I think Russia, the Soviet Union, also had been watching him and said he was a poor marksman.
And I guess we said he's a poor marksman.
So everybody agreed he was a poor marksman.
We know Oswald was being watched by the CIA for some good time before the shooting.
That's a little suspicious.
If you want to go full conspiracy theory, there are a bunch of references to Israeli intelligence that had been, I guess, long redacted in these files, but now they're unredacted.
But they don't say anything that's interesting about Israel.
So the only thing that it tells us about Israel is that the CIA and Israel intelligence I guess they did a lot of work together, which kind of made sense.
Somebody said that in the Middle East at that time, the Soviet Union had a lot of control over the Arab countries, and the only non-Soviet Union controlled entity was Israel, so we had a tight relationship with them with intelligence.
But there's no indication that Israel had anything to do with the assassination.
It's just referenced a bunch of times.
Let's see.
There's some information that there was this telephone call the CIA intercepted when Lee Harvey Oswald was trying to talk to a KGB agent in Mexico City.
I guess Oswald was trying to get to Mexico, to get to Cuba, to get to the Soviet Union.
But we don't know how that's related to any shooting.
Let's see.
There's a story about this CIA agent, Gary Underhill.
So he was a CIA guy who said that he knew that the shooting was done by a small group of CIA agents.
But somebody else said that the only information about that guy was in a communist publication.
So I would put the credibility of that one guy pretty low.
I don't think that means anything.
And let's see.
And then that guy was allegedly found shot to death, and there was ruled a suicide, but that seems low credibility.
So here's my take.
Do you remember my prediction about the JFK files?
Well, what were my predictions?
My prediction was there'd be nothing new.
There's a little bit new about Schlesinger saying that the CIA was out of control, but we kind of knew that.
I mean, I feel like we knew that, right?
I knew it.
We knew that Kennedy wanted to get rid of the CIA.
So that's not really new.
So you remember that, allegedly, Trump said that if you saw what I saw, you would not have released the JFK files?
Is there anything in these documents that would have scared Trump and told him not to release them?
Answer?
No.
So do you believe that there's more documents that maybe we've yet to see that's the good stuff, or do you think that the good stuff was simply removed and we're just given a bunch of not interesting stuff to just keep us diverted and make us think we saw something?
I think it's the dumbest question in the world, because if it's true...
If it's true that there was something horrible in the files, wouldn't the most obvious thing to do just remove those few documents and then try to sell the rest as complete?
It's the most obvious thing you would do.
If you were in that situation and there was something you really wanted to cover up, would you say, well, I'm not going to release anything because then you look pretty guilty?
Or would you say, here's 80,000 pages.
Is anything left out?
No.
No, it's all in there, totally.
Believe us.
Trust us.
It's all in there.
And I also think, what are the odds that if it were that damning, that it would be kept in a file?
Do you believe that somebody would have taken a file that was so damning it would have changed the entire nature of our understanding of America to something terrible?
And it would just be a document?
It would just be in a file somewhere.
That so stretches the imagination.
Now, there wasn't any damning document that they kept in a file just in case somebody wanted it.
No.
Anyway, Doge has discovered $4.7 trillion that the Treasury Department didn't put any tracking codes on, meaning that there was no way to audit.
Or to find out after the fact where $4.7 trillion went?
There was no way to find out.
Now, my bigger question is, since this seems to be the case with all the government agencies, I think USAID, you couldn't really tell where the money was going, partly because it was going to this vast web of NGOs.
But shouldn't there have been, and didn't you kind of think, That the government was auditing itself as a routine basis?
Didn't you assume that the government was keeping track of where their trillions of dollars were going?
Apparently not.
So don't you think we need some kind of, you know, the auditing department or something?
Because I don't know that Doge is going to create an auditing fix.
And how in the world?
Did we not know this until now?
Just amazing.
Anyway, so Doge is at it.
Meanwhile, Trump is expected to sign an executive order to abolish the Department of Education.
I feel like this is one of those Groundhog Day stories.
How many times have we been told that Trump is going to abolish the Department of Education and then it doesn't happen?
Maybe this time it will.
I'll be optimistic.
But I'd be a little cautious of this one.
It just feels like we always go right to the edge.
It's like, oh, yeah, we're going to ban this thing.
Is it banned yet?
No, no, any minute, any minute, later.
Well, how about now?
No, no, not now, but later.
Later we're going to ban this.
Totally ban it.
How about now?
No.
So we'll see.
Meanwhile, designated liar Jamie Raskin, he's one of the Democrat designated liars.
And when I say designated liars, there's a small group of Democrats who apparently are willing to say absolutely anything, you know, just any outrageous lie.
Whereas the more normal Democrats, you know, the ones you don't see on TV too much, they would be embarrassed.
Like, okay, you know, I can't say that in public.
But Jamie Raskin?
Nothing will stop him from any lie in public.
I guess he went on MSNBC yesterday and he claimed that Trump fired the director of the FAA and that's what caused the American airline collision in D.C. Can you believe they even tried to get away with that?
So it turns out that the FAA director was not even fired by Trump, but did resign, but was not fired.
And there doesn't seem to be any connection between any of that and why the American Airlines collision happened.
But just think about that from an ignorant Democrat viewer of MSNBC, because you'd have to be pretty dumb to be watching MSNBC and think you're seeing news.
So you're already filtered to be dumb.
And then this allegedly credible guy comes on.
And he tells you, yeah, the reason for the accident was Trump fired the only guy who could have prevented it.
It's sort of a dumb lie, but the MSNBC audience is dumb enough to say, huh, huh, I guess Trump keeps firing people and the planes are going to fall out of the air.
Yeah, that's not happening.
So, speaking of lying Democrats, the Washington Examiner has a scoop, an exclusive, that apparently the Democrats put up billboards in some of the areas where the Republican representatives were weak,
you know, the places that they want to win and get a Democrat in there.
And the billboards said that the Republicans want to cut Medicaid.
And use the money to give tax breaks to Elon Musk.
So they put that on six different billboards in six different locations.
And it looks like they're being threatened by the Republicans to take that down because it's defamation.
So they've already sent a cease and desist letter.
I don't know how that works.
So correct me if I'm wrong.
Politicians are allowed to lie and you can't sue them, right?
So Jamie Raskin can literally just say anything.
And you can't say, oh, that's defamation because he's an elected official.
But maybe the billboard company, since the billboard company are not elected officials, then if they say something that's patently untrue...
I think they can be sued for defamation.
Now, the truth is that there is talk about the need to decrease the overall budget in stuff like Medicaid.
But they're looking at like a 10% cut that maybe we can get entirely from fraud and abuse.
And apparently there's no Republican who's ever said we're going to cut benefits.
So you could argue...
That if there's an idea that it needs to be cut to meet our targets for the deficit, that it sort of is going to lead to that.
But it does sound like the Republicans are holding tight.
They don't want to change the benefits to the actual individual user.
So they would only go after their waste, fraud, and abuse, and maybe a little overhead kind of stuff.
So we'll see if that's enough.
But the Democrats have gone to just complete lying as their defense.
Do you remember when Democrats had ideas about policies?
And they'd say, hey, we get a better idea.
They don't have that.
The only thing they have is they sit in a room and they come up with creative lies.
And then they figure out who's going to say them.
Hey, I've got an idea.
Let's just make up some shit about Medicaid.
And we'll have Jamie Raskin go out and say it and, you know, the other designated liars.
We can get Adam Schiff to say anything.
Swalwell, he'll say anything.
Designated liar.
Anyway.
So Dean Phillips, who's a Democrat, who, you know, remember he ran for president against Biden because he refused to be a stupid liar, even though he was in the stupid liar party.
So he tries to position himself as the last reasonable person who's also a Democrat.
He does a pretty good job.
Pretty good job.
Which also means he has no chance of being elected.
He can't get elected as a Democrat because he's sort of common sense centrist.
But he said that he was appalled at how Tim Walsh was sort of laughing about the destruction of Tesla.
And he said, you know, I really don't recognize my party.
I don't recognize its principles.
What I saw my governor and my friend, Tim Wall, say today was appalling.
And I'm just shocked that someone who should know better read the room so poorly.
And I'm going to give him a little bit of credit.
I know sometimes some of you hate it when I give any Democrat any credit.
But he didn't look like he was acting.
That's a big deal.
The other Democrats, they look like they know they're lying, and they look like they know they're acting.
He's either the best actor I've ever seen, and I don't think that's the case, or he really meant that.
He really meant that he was appalled by his own party.
I think he meant it.
And I don't know.
I think he's too reasonable to really make it.
To the top of the party.
You need to be a little bit crazy, I think, to get even nominated to run for president.
Well, there's some gigantic study about the safety or lack of it for the COVID-19 shots.
And there's some appalling outcomes.
So here are some of the things they found that these shots would cause.
Just assume that there are gigantic percentages of increase that are in the three-digit category.
So 610% increased risk of myocarditis following the mRNA injection.
378% more chance of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis.
323% increased risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.
249% extra risk of Guillain-Barre.
Is that how you say it?
Guillain-Barre syndrome.
Now, is that what...
Who's the singer, the young male singer, whose face had a little problem?
Didn't he have that Guillain-Barre thing after a shot?
So, that's pretty awful.
I did check with Grok to see if there was anything in terms of cancer.
But so far, the shots are not confirmed, not confirmed, to have any impact on cancer rates.
But I don't know that that's been studied as much as it could be.
But no indication of extra cancer, but these other things are pretty awful.
Secretary Marco Rubio says that DEI is gone forever, but he means in the State Department.
And he said, this divisive and discriminatory practice has no place in our country or our diplomacy.
So good for you, Secretary Marco Rubio.
Get rid of DEI.
I like that.
So I posted on X, and I think I need to explain it a little bit.
I said that it feels like this week is the end of the Democrat Party as a political force that can win elections.
Now, what I mean is national.
So obviously the Democrats will still be dominant in a lot of cities and a lot of states.
But I feel like they've so destroyed their reputation at this point that I don't know how they can recover.
It could be the end of them as a national party.
And if you look at sort of what's happening at the moment, the Tesla stuff, I don't think they've calculated that this just...
Completely took away their biggest issue.
One of the few things that Democrats had left to tell other Democrats that they should vote for Democrats is that the Republicans didn't take climate change seriously, but Democrats did.
And now we see with the Tesla protests, they never meant that.
That was all fake.
So the biggest thing they had left...
Has been debunked.
Now, I'm not saying I know what is the answer of climate change.
I'm just saying that as a political point, it's completely dead.
It's dead as it could be.
Nobody's going to complain about Trump's coal plants this week because it just makes you look like an idiot.
Because if you're still in favor of the Tesla protests, you can't really say you're all in on climate change.
Nobody's going to believe that.
So that just sort of went away.
Remember when abortion was the biggest question in national politics?
Well, one of the smartest things the Republicans did is they knew that they would take a hit by moving it to the states, but it got there.
So now that time has passed, that's very much a state issue.
And there's Justin Bieber, yes.
He's the one who got his face out of a little droopiness for a while.
I think it wasn't permanent, right?
So they lost abortion as an issue.
They lost climate change as an issue.
They certainly lost border as an issue because the border policy is very clearly in favor of Trump.
They might lose inflation as an issue because eggs are down and gas is down.
Trump's going to meet with the big oil companies today, I think.
And he's going to...
Oh, is it Bell's palsy?
Is that what Justin Bieber had?
Okay.
I guess I'm not up to my pop star health issues.
But in the comments, I'm seeing people say Bell's palsy.
I think that the Doge stuff...
That is now currently the Democrats' biggest thing.
The only thing they really have is the scalpel versus the chainsaw.
And if Doge works, which we will know for sure, let's say by the third year of Trump's presidency, if it works, nobody's going to remember the scalpel versus the chainsaw.
It just has to work.
If you can make it work, everybody's going to say it worked.
And that's how history will record it.
They won't remember the little talking point.
Oh, the scalpel, not the hatchet.
Oh, the scalpel, not the chainsaw.
It'll just completely go away.
What about ending the war in Ukraine?
I think we're not that close to getting that to end.
But I think it'll be done before Trump is done with his term.
So that looks like it might go away.
So there's a whole lot of things that gave you a reason.
Oh, what about DEI?
So DEI is being just crushed by the Republicans, as Marco Rubio said.
Where's all the pushback?
Where are the protests in the street to say, yes, we want more DEI?
Apparently, that was never very important to Democrats.
It was important to the people who were grifting off it.
It was important as a talking point.
But apparently it wasn't very important.
And that people, pretty much everybody understands that you'd rather have capability and skill rather than identity.
So that went away.
So what do they have left?
They're going to fight against common sense?
That's all they have left.
The fight against common sense.
How can that possibly work except, you know, locally and maybe at the state level?
So we'll see.
I can be very wrong on that.
You know, here's the alternate argument.
The alternate argument is that it's always a pendulum.
It doesn't matter what one is doing.
You could just say, all right, who's winning this 10 years?
Okay, 10 years from now, the other ones will be winning.
And after that, we'll go back to the other one winning.
And I think there's something to that because, you know, each side adjusts.
And they come up with new lies and new plans.
Anyway, so this was the week we learned that Democrats were never serious about climate change.
Do you remember there was the undercover video?
And I wish I could remember if it was OMG or O 'Keefe's old group.
I can't remember which got that video.
I'm going to say OMG because I like O 'Keefe.
So I'll just say it was his.
Where it showed the CNN producer saying, oh yeah, the next big thing we're going to be hitting on is climate change.
And once you see that they're treating it as content and they're trying to frame how people think about it, it's hard to say that you can take seriously that they care about it.
I mean, they talked about it as a thing to put on the news.
They didn't really talk about it as, we're going to have to save the world by...
Telling everybody that climate change is bad.
And by the way, I just saw Greta Thunberg's name go by in the comments.
And one of my comments was, don't you think if climate change were real, that Greta Thunberg would have already come out and said, guys, guys, take this seriously.
Tesla's not your enemy.
I get how you're mad.
I get it.
I get it.
But don't...
Don't destroy the climate because you're mad at one individual for one reason that has nothing to do with Tesla.
So the fact that Greta Thunberg is quiet and all the other grifters seem to be quiet, that tells you a lot.
I saw a clip of Jimmy Dore, you know, I guess podcast comedian Jimmy Dore.
He says he's now doubting climate science.
Because of his COVID experience, learning that the government will lie about literally anything and maybe everything.
So he was talking to Matt Taibbi.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but both Matt Taibbi and Jimmy Dore either were or are registered Democrats, right?
But both of them got a little red-pilled just by recent events.
But it's funny to see Jimmy Dore.
He's like the canary in the coal mine, since he would be one of the ones who would go first, because he's already got a foot in each world.
But yeah, Dore was even saying that you can't really believe anybody about anything anymore.
And he talked about all the projections that are not coming true, the coral reefs and all that.
But here's the argument, the worst argument.
And I want to convince you all not to make this argument.
The argument goes, if this were real, Obama never would have bought beachfront property.
That's a terrible argument.
Do you want to know why?
Because rich people don't give a flying fig about maybe I'll lose one of my many houses.
Once you reach a certain level of wealth, You can kind of put your beach house there and say, well, if in 20 years the water starts rising, I could either sell it, or by then I'm dead, or I've got five other houses,
or I'll move it up the beach.
They don't make decisions like regular people.
If they were regular people, and they had most of their net wealth in their house, and then they put it on the beach, well, that would be a pretty good point.
But when you talk about rich people, No, none of those rules apply.
They just want to live by the beach.
That's the whole story.
So stop saying that they don't believe in climate change because they have a beach house.
Those two things just don't connect for rich people.
Well, Owen Schroyer, who was, I think he's still part of Infowars, right?
But he got swatted recently, and he had an update today.
He said that one of the big problems with chasing after the swatters is that if you're in an area with a Soros DA, the Soros DA will just kill it.
So the Soros DA will have no interest whatsoever in going after a swatter of a conservative.
Just think about that.
Now, I'll bet this is real.
I think he heard it from good sources.
That is so awful.
He also said that there have been pizzas that have been ordered in somebody's name that seem somehow associated with the swatting.
Well, the pizzas that were ordered in his name were from the same location that his co-worker at Infowars was murdered recently.
And it's not even the closest pizza place to him.
So somebody...
Intentionally picked the location that was where his co-worker got murdered recently, and that's sending a message.
That's clearly sending a message.
So what Owen says is that he's begging people to keep it in the news and make as much noise as possible.
Don't forget it, because if the public doesn't push it, The Soros DAs can just ignore it.
But if there's enough public pressure, then maybe something can get done.
On the good news, the administration's taking it very seriously.
So Brendan Carr, the head of the FCC, he just said recently that...
The surge in swatting attacks is dangerous form of political violence.
He says, I've been in touch with law enforcement to ensure that they have access to the traceback resources that locate a call's originating point.
And bad actors will face accountability, he says.
Now, I have a technical question.
Maybe some of you know the answer.
Does the government have the ability to trace back the source in every case?
No matter what technology is being used by the swatters.
If it's a burner phone, can they at least find out where it was transmitting from?
That won't tell you necessarily the identity of the person, but it might.
It might be the burner phone was in an apartment.
You don't know if they're smart enough to take the burner phone to...
Someplace public to use it.
So I'd love to know if the bad actors have found a way to avoid this traceback.
My guess is that you can trace a burner phone, but not the identity of the owner.
So we'll see.
But we also have strong statements by Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Kristi Noem.
That they're taking this very seriously and they're going to catch these people and they're going to take them to justice.
So we'll see.
Well, over in Egypt, probably most of you saw this story, there's a claim that scientists using this powerful ground-penetrating radar have discovered that beneath the pyramids in Egypt, or at least one in particular,
There are structures that are maybe twice the height of the tallest building on Earth under the Kafri pyramid in the Giza complex.
Now, I think they're assuming that maybe other pyramids have structures too, but they allegedly have figured out that there's this enormous complicated structure and that the pyramid would just be the top of it.
And if you were to dig down...
Two gigantic buildings worth, you would see this big structure in there.
So how many of you believe that's true?
I want to see in the comments.
How many of you think that's true?
I'm going to remind you of one of my more famous and effective BS filters.
This is what I call the Scott Alexander filter.
So it's not named after me.
It's named after a guy named Scott Alexander, which also was not his real name, by the way.
It was his pseudonym.
And he once wrote an article that just changed me forever.
It just changed me forever.
And here's the rule.
If you ever read a story in the news, and it doesn't have to be about Egyptian pyramids, if you ever read a story in the news where your first reaction is, Oh my God, I can't believe that's true.
It's not true.
Let me say it again.
This is a very reliable indicator.
If your first impression is, holy cow, I can't believe that's true.
It's almost always not true.
What was your first impression when you found out that under the pyramids, First of all, somebody had ground-penetrating radar that could look two gigantic skyscrapers into the ground.
Well, if that technology really exists, holy cow!
I can't believe it!
I guess we'll be spotting all those tunnels on the borders that the cartel's been using, right?
I guess Israel will be really happy about this new technology because Hamas will never be able to build a tunnel that they can't detect.
I mean, wow!
They can look that deep under the ground?
I don't think so.
So I'm going to go on record as saying that I think the Scott Alexander rule fits this one really well.
If I had to make a bet, I'd say 50 to 1, it's not real.
50 to 1. I don't think it's even close to real.
And, you know, they've got pictures and images.
No.
No.
Not even close.
I also don't believe that the Egyptians, the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids and then forgot how to do it.
Do you believe that all over the planet, in different continents, at around the same time, People had independently, without being able to travel, you know, there wasn't that much travel, that they independently figured out how to move gigantic rocks in ways that even in the modern world we wouldn't be able to move.
Do you believe that all over the world they learned it?
And then, even better, every one of those independent societies...
They had learned how to make pyramids with gigantic boulders.
And the pyramids are all over the world.
They're just different kinds.
But they'll have gigantic rocks that we don't know how they moved.
Do you think they all forgot?
They all forgot?
Like, nobody wrote it down.
Nobody made a hieroglyph to show it being done.
It didn't get passed down.
Or they just got tired of doing it.
So after hundreds of years or whatever it was, I'm going to say that the evidence is strongly suggestive of some culture that came before,
that was teaching all of them how to move big rocks.
So I'm sure that there was somebody who did have the ability to go from one continent to another.
Did have the technology to move these big rocks, because somebody did.
And it wasn't just whipping the slaves harder.
We know that all the ways we can think of wouldn't work for the largest ones.
Some of the smaller rocks you could imagine was just sliding on sand or something like that.
But the biggest ones?
No, there's no way that the existing population made any of that stuff.
So, I don't believe any of the Egyptology stuff.
Well, here's an update on the LA fires, the Palisades fires.
Heard from Joel Pollack, he was posting about this on X, that he had insurance with, or does have insurance, with State Farm.
And he says, State Farm may be the worst insurer in the history of the industry.
I just received their laughable estimate for repairs to my home and the contents after the Palisades fire.
He says it is charitably one-tenth of the actual cost.
And he says that, I guess this is who's in charge of the insurance industry, should shut it down, but he's too busy in Bermuda.
Now, are other people having the same experience?
Because I'll bet they are.
Can you imagine having insurance, having fully paid up insurance, and then when you have the disaster, they're only willing to give you about 10% of what it would cost to fix your house?
Yeah, his house survived, but it needs substantial work to make it livable.
10%.
So a state firm has some explaining to do.
And I feel like somebody in the government needs to...
Drag their asses into a room and say, all right, you know, what's going on here?
So this is completely unacceptable.
So State Farm, you need to fix that.
You need to fix that.
I guess Trump had a call with Zelensky yesterday, and it was a fantastic conversation.
Fantastic.
And one of the ideas was that instead of doing a mineral deal, so I guess the U.S. has moved away from we'll take your minerals as payment, to we'll run your nuclear power plants because we have expertise.
I don't know how much expertise we have, but it sounds like a good idea.
And I think the idea would be similar to the mineral deal in the sense that it would give the U.S. an important presence.
And some of the more important assets, nuclear power.
So that might be a disincentive for Russia to attack if they knew that America was running the power plants.
I don't know if that's enough of a reason for Russia not to attack.
I don't know.
Meanwhile, the U.S. announced sanctions on Iran.
So I always think, how many sanctions could there be left?
Like, do we have infinite sanctions?
And you could just do more of them all the time?
So some of them are about targeting Iran's oil minister and its shadow fleet of tankers.
So I guess the shadow fleet would be ships that Iran has control of, but they're not branded as Iranian ships, so they can sneak by the sanctions.
So somehow, I guess we can figure out what the shadow fleet is, and I don't know how we're going to stop them.
Unless militarily.
But maybe if they're registered to some private company, we could sanction that private company.
I don't know.
But we'll see if that makes any difference.
In other news, a federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration dismantling the USAID.
And the question is whether Elon Musk...
In his advisory capacity, exceeded his authority.
To which I say, was there really some point where Elon Musk was making that kind of decision without checking it with the boss?
Couldn't Trump do that if he wanted?
Wouldn't Trump be able to cut the budget on USAID?
Because if Trump could cut the budget and Musk was talking to him every day, About, you know, what the big stuff is.
He was definitely talking to them about USAID, right?
So, at what point, if you're in continuous conversation with the boss, can you really say that it wasn't the boss who authorized it?
It's not like he had a conversation with Trump, and Trump said, well, whatever you do, don't cut USAID, and then Elon Musk went and cut it?
That didn't happen.
No matter what those conversations looked like, they were clearly on the same side.
So I don't know how the courts can stop that, but we'll see.
We'll see.
Meanwhile, Kash Patel, you've heard this story before, says he's going to shield his staff at the FBI from any retribution from Trump.
So the retribution would be if there were any FBI agents who were involved in any of that lawfare against Trump or any of the dirty tricks against Trump.
But I kind of like this.
You know, I like that Kash Patel is willing to publicly say, you know, this is a line we're not going to cross, and he's the one who will decide if somebody has done something worthy of firing.
So I kind of like a little bit of pushback.
A little bit.
That makes sense to me.
So that would be more...
I would put this in the scalpel, not the chainsaw category.
So if he wants to shield some of them because he thinks they're more valuable than the power of retribution, I'm okay with that.
Well, according to Mario Knopfel, he's talking about there's a new UK defense intelligence report.
Estimating that Russia has suffered around 900,000 casualties in the Ukraine war so far, and up to a quarter million soldiers killed.
And that's the highest Russian losses since World War II.
But I guess Putin, quite cleverly, is doing most of his recruiting not from Moscow.
So if you lived in the more populated parts of Russia, more metropolitan areas, You might not be feeling the war because they're not running out of money in Moscow, and that's not where most of the recruits are coming from.
So they're getting the recruits from minorities and places that are further away.
But my question is, how do you kill and wound that many people without eventually everybody in the country saying, what did we get out of this?
What was the point of that?
If you were wounded, if you were a Russian citizen and you were wounded in that, what exactly were you fighting for?
It's not like Ukraine was going to attack you.
So wouldn't you feel like that was sort of your Vietnam?
You know, there wasn't any strong reason to do it, and there certainly wasn't a strong reason to lose a quarter million people.
So we'll see.
I think maybe Putin has enough control over the media and the country that he can just...
You know, come up with a frame that, you know, can keep him in power.
But in the U.S., that'd be a bit of a problem.
All right.
So what else is going on?
So in The Hill, the publication of The Hill, there is an opinion piece on Ukraine from Alan Cooperman.
Now, what makes, David Sachs was pointing this out at X, what makes this unusual is that it starts out with, quote, I rarely agree with President Trump.
So this is not a Trump supporter.
But he's going to go on to say that Trump was right about Ukraine.
So I want to read just some of the opinion of somebody who apparently is a Democrat who's not batshit crazy, who's just saying, okay, I don't agree with Trump.
But he did get this.
Spot on.
So here's what he said.
And by the way, you don't have to agree with this.
It's just interesting what his argument is.
He said about Trump that his latest controversial statements about Ukraine are mostly true.
They only seem preposterous because Western audiences have been fed a steady diet of disinformation about Ukraine for more than a decade.
So he goes on, Alan Cooperman does.
He said it was Ukraine's right-wing militants who started the violence in 2014 that provoked Russia's initial invasion of the country's southeast, including Crimea.
Now, here's where I'm going to say, hmm, maybe.
But it's also possible, the Boris Johnson hypothesis, that Putin had long signaled he was going to take Ukraine.
It's in writing.
He didn't say, I'll take it militarily in writing, but it was well-signaled far in advance, and that maybe Putin was using whatever excuse was available as the justification.
So I'm not sure I agree with him, but he's agreeing with Trump, and that's the news.
And he says, second, Zelensky contributed to a wider war by violating peace deals with Russia, the Minsk I and Minsk II.
And seeking NATO military aid and membership.
Now, I do think there was some violating of the agreements, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a little violating in both directions.
And third, Joe Biden also contributed crucially to the escalation and perpetuation of the fighting.
And Biden raised false hopes that somehow Ukraine could win if he just gave it enough support.
And nothing's really changed since then.
Basically, the borders have changed about 1% in a few years.
And he says, even more tragic, whatever peace deals emerge after the world will be worse for Ukraine than the Minsk Accords.
Now, you could put this in the category of whether or not this interpretation of things is correct.
And I do think the Boris Johnson interpretation...
That Putin was going to do it, and he just needed whatever excuse worked.
And then there were a few excuses that were given to him and made it easy.
So at least easy to make the decision, not easy to do.
So my earlier point was, what do the Democrats have?
If Trump is right about everything in Ukraine, and Biden was really the problem, and Biden destroyed Ukraine, It's really going to be tough for another Democrat to say, but trust me, I'm not going to make that Biden mistake.
Meanwhile, over at the University of Glasgow, they did a study in Scotland, and apparently they found that four out of five men who were in prison in Scotland have a history of head injury.
Four out of five.
Now, do you believe that?
Now, a lot of people ask, but what does the normal male have?
It's not unusual for a normal male to have a head injury.
Anybody who played a sport, anybody who rode a bicycle, you know, head injuries are really common for men, boys especially.
So I don't know if that's way out of line, or it could be that the same people who would not worry about a crime.
Don't worry about doing something dangerous that could hurt your head.
So it could be just that it shows that there's a certain group of people who are not afraid of stuff.
Maybe they should be more afraid, but aren't.
So I'm not sure if it's exactly telling us what we think, but I will tell you my stepson, who is now deceased, he had a serious head injury on a bicycle.
Now, he was wearing a helmet, so he was a very freak.
Situation that the helmet didn't protect him.
But he had a very serious head injury and his personality completely changed.
So he went from the most cautious boy you've ever met, just super cautious about sports, about anything, to having no fear about anything.
And that no fear about anything is eventually what killed him because he wasn't afraid of Taking dangerous drugs.
And so he overdosed.
And he knew it because I talked to him not long before it happened and said, all right, you do understand that this stuff here, you know, these pills likely have fentanyl in them.
And he would tell me, yes, we all know that these have fentanyl in them and that they could kill you.
But he wasn't afraid of anything.
And so I've seen it in my real life.
That somebody's personality goes from cautious in a way that keeps you alive to willing to take risks that I've never even seen before.
I mean, just hard to believe risks.
So I'm willing to believe that this head injury thing has some validity.
I don't know.
Based on anecdote.
One anecdote.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for you today.
That's my show for today.
Thanks for joining.
I'm going to say some private stuff to the local subscribers.
But the rest of you, I'll see you next time.
If you're on X or YouTube or Rumble, thanks for joining.
Export Selection