God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, DOGE Savings, Executive Branch Authority, Firing Federal Workers, Bill Pulte, Rent Mortgage Qualifier, AI Driven Blackouts, Anti-ICE Insurrection, Anti-Border Patrol Insurrection, J6 Tentpole Hoax, Cornell DEI, Tariffs Strategy Success, China Owned US Farmland, Kamala Harris, Midterm Fundraising, Jeffrey Epstein Questions, Pam Bondi, Epstein Client List, Ghislaine Maxwell, President Trump, Mike Benz, Bill Barr, Epstein Transparency Roadblocks, Brennan Comey Investigation, Grok AI Statements, ADL, Grok's Turkey Ban, Fake AI Dangers, AI Training Academy, AI Teaching Teachers, Roman Yampolskliy, Trump Nobel Nomination, Macron's Two-State Solution, Israel Palestinian Solutions, National Self-Interest, War Drone Autonomy, War Drones Arm Race, Ukraine War Prediction, Natasha Bertrand, RFK Jr., Wearable Health Trackers, OCD Gut Biome, 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.
let me get your comments working and then we gotta show Come on in.
have a seat 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 try to elevate this experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup of mugger, a glass of tankard, chelsterstein, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, but it happens now.
Good stuff.
Well, let's check technology news.
What is the coolest new technology?
Well, I saw this on a Mario Novel post, who I recommend you follow on X, Mario Noffel.
There's a new laptop product that instead of having a screen on your laptop, all it is is some glasses.
So the glasses allow your screen to look like a 100-inch screen with lots of different windows open floating in front of you.
So nobody can see your screen if you're on an airplane, let's say.
But you would have the experience of a 100-inch virtual display in front of you.
And I have one question.
Can I wear those glasses over my glasses?
That was always my problem with 3D.
They have to wear glasses over your glasses.
But maybe, if you're nearsighted as I am, maybe that's all you need.
I don't know.
Well, the Daily Mail is reporting that Joe Rogan was talking with an AI expert, a computer scientist named Roman Yempolziski.
That seems pretty close.
And Joe was speculating that what if, what if God is not our origin, but rather our destination?
Ooh.
What if AI is the process of God being born?
And once it's born, well, we don't know what happens after that.
But if only somebody had written a best-selling book on that same topic, wouldn't you want to read that?
Yes, it's called God's Debris, The Complete Works.
It's my book.
And those of you who have read it, you're probably saying to yourself, I knew that sounded familiar.
Now, I don't know if Joe Rogan has read the book, but the idea has gotten around.
And I don't want to give up, don't want to give away too much.
But if you like philosophical AI, God philosophy stuff, well, I've got a book for you.
It's on Amazon.
According to Zero Hedge, the U.S. has canceled 54 contracts and saved $804 million in two days because of Doge.
So here's what I think about Doge.
I think that it worked way better than people think.
Because the biggest thing you have to change is how people think and how they act when no one is watching.
And it seems to me that the biggest thing that Doge will accomplish is it made cost savings a thing.
It was like it didn't exist, right?
If you talked to a politician or you looked at the news, what was the story you would never, ever, ever see?
Well, we cut a bunch of money out of that budget.
It wasn't even a thing.
And now it's not only a thing, but you see the top-level political people sort of competing to see who can do the best job of saving money.
So it went from a thing that nobody thinks about, nobody talks about, and maybe it isn't that important, to something that's baked into everything we do and the way we see government.
And now it's just part of the fabric of the government at this point.
So I think that what Elon Musk accomplished will have a very long tail.
And it will ripple into the future in a positive way because he simply made it a positive thing to say, hey, I found a way to save a bunch of money for the country and I'm going to go brag about it.
So it's a big deal.
Let's see what else happens.
Oh, Doge is also, or something Doge-like, is now working on the Pentagon.
So the Pentagon budget is where they're starting to lean next and look for additional savings, of which we expect to find a lot.
But there will be a lot of more pushback from the military budget.
So who knows how much that will stick.
But at least Doge is going after the mother load, you know, the place where, in theory, you would find the most to cut.
In practice, we don't know yet.
But in other good news, Doge-wise, you know how Trump wanted to use his executive authority to downsize a bunch of executive departments?
And some activist judge said, no, you can't do that.
You do not have the authority to be in charge of the thing you're in charge of.
And then everybody said, wait, what?
You're telling me the president is not in charge of the executive branch?
That's sort of exactly what he is.
But an activist judge, if I recall, said, no, no, I block it.
The Supreme Court decided six to three, guess who the three were, to lift that lower court order.
So now Trump can fire the federal workers, and I believe he's already started.
So once again, did Doge fail, or did Doge just have to find its footing and get through the legal challenges and just become institutionalized?
It looks like Doge is working.
It's just that not exactly the rapid way that we thought it might work.
It just takes a little bit longer, but that's a big deal.
It's a very big deal that Trump now has the legal authority.
He always did, but it was being blocked.
Legal authority to cut staff.
It would be a big deal.
Speaking of big deals, Bill Pulte, who is the U.S. Director of Federal Housing, is a superstar.
And one of the things that he just got through with the help of Trump is that your rent payments will now qualify on your, I guess, on your credit report or when you're trying to get a mortgage.
I didn't know that that wasn't already a thing.
Did you?
Did you know that you could have successfully paid rent for decades, but when you went to buy a house, the bank would say, hmm, too bad you don't have a good credit.
And then you would say, what do you mean?
I've been paying rent for 20 years.
I've never missed a payment.
How do I not have a good credit?
And the bank would say, rent doesn't count.
We need car loans and department store loans and credit cards.
But all that rent you've paid, which is most of your financial obligation, it's the biggest part, didn't count.
So Bill Pulte gets Trump to change that with his executive order.
Now it counts.
How big a deal is that?
It's a big deal.
So congratulations, Bill Pulte.
Well, according to The Hill, Julia Shapiro is writing that we've got a gigantic blackout risk coming in that AI is going to suck up so much of our existing grid and power that the odds of getting blackouts go from smallish.
But we, you know, in California, we do have blackouts occasionally in the summer usually.
But the odds of these blackouts are going to go up by 100 times what they are, 100 times.
Now, I have a question.
If the reason for the blackout is that the AI data centers are sucking up too much power, wouldn't they just turn off the data centers?
Because I'm almost positive I could go two days without the data center working.
Could I go two days without using an AI that relied on some California data center?
I feel like I could.
I could make it two days.
So would they really turn off my house?
Would I really be sitting here in the dark because the AI data center was using too much electricity in California?
You better not.
Let me just warn you.
Don't turn off the residential AC in the summer because the AI data center needs too much power.
You'd better work on that.
You power and political people maybe need to sit in the same room because you need to do that in the right priority.
We can make AI wait a couple days, but I'm not going to sit in a 110 degree heat with no AC because the AI needed some extra power.
You better get on that right away.
Hold on a second.
Excuse me.
My nose only runs when I'm ready to do a podcast.
It doesn't happen any other time of the day, weirdly.
Well, I've got a question for you.
So so far there have been, correct me if I'm wrong, two recent shootings about Border Patrol and ICE People.
So there was a lone gunman who shot somebody, and then now there are 10 suspects in Texas who had a plot that they carried out and which involved shooting members of ICE.
And I guess one of them, maybe it was a local police officer, got shot.
So my question is this.
Number one, have you seen the picture of the 10 suspects who planned the ambush?
I think about half of them were presenting as female, but do you believe that five out of ten violent domestic terrorists would be female?
Does that sound like something that's normal to you, that half of them would be female?
Well, I have a question, because none of them look female to me.
They look like they might be trying to pass as female.
So they might be trans.
I don't know the actual secret of it.
But of the five or so on that list of 10 that are sort of looking female, they don't look like they were born that way.
But I don't know if that's a weird coincidence or just the way I'm looking at it.
But that's not why I brought it up.
The reason I brought it up is that, correct me if I'm wrong, but attacking the people who protect the border is not like attacking normal anything else.
If you attack the people who are keeping the bad people from entering, now obviously they're also preventing perfectly good people from entering, but they are keeping the cartels and the gangs from coming into the country as they were.
Isn't it an insurrection?
If you have an armed, violent approach to the border patrol, it feels to me like that's an insurrection.
It doesn't feel to me like that's just a violent political act.
It's an insurrection, right?
Because what would be more transformational to the country than opening the border?
We already saw that.
So yeah, to me, it looks like an insurrection.
January 6th, of course, was not an insurrection because the news told you that all the people who participated believed that they had lost the election fair and square, but wanted to take power anyway.
That is the weirdest thing that the public has ever been told.
And we just sort of accepted it.
It's like, oh yeah, I guess CNN read the minds of all those thousands of people and found out that they believed that they really had lost that election, but they were going to try to take power anyway.
Probably there wasn't, I'll bet there wasn't even one person who thought that.
And the entire narrative and the way history will be written is based on fake news about what people might have been thinking.
And we're living with that reality right now.
Amazing.
So January 6th is the biggest remaining hoax, I think.
We've worked very hard to debunk as many hoaxes as we can.
But the January 6th one, that's now the tentpole hoax.
So you're going to hear me camera on that a little bit more.
Meanwhile, according to Fox News, Cornell University got hit with a civil rights complaint over alleged DEI discriminatory practices.
But here's the good news, bad news.
So it feels like bad news that there's a major university discriminating based on race and gender and whatever else.
But Cornell is defending itself by saying that the must be the Department of Justice.
No, they're being sued.
I'm sorry.
The American First Policy is to file a complaint.
So there's a lawsuit.
But Cornell is defending itself by saying that the offending thing that caused the lawsuit is some old website pages that are no longer relevant.
And they say that they have, in fact, worked hard to obey the law and they intend to obey the law and they don't want to do anything that's illegal or discriminatory.
So I don't know what's true, but I like the fact that there's a lawsuit to stop people from DEI discrimination.
And I like the fact that the entity being sued, Cornell University, is instead of trying to double down and say, we're going to keep this DEI even if we have to change the name of it.
Instead, they're just saying, no, we're trying as hard as we can to obey that law.
It feels like progress, that the lawsuit is meeting people who are kind of arguing the same side and saying, no, we're really trying to do what you want us to do.
Are they?
Are they really doing it?
I don't know.
We'll find out.
But I love the fact that it seems like two people on the same side against DEI.
Maybe.
Well, Trump said yesterday that we're close to making a trade deal with India.
Remember I told you that if everything goes well with these tariffs and trade deals, that what the Democrats didn't see coming is that there would be an infinite number of good news days for Trump.
So he'd be able to say, well, Vietnam made a deal.
Well, it looks like Ireland's got a deal.
Oh, well, it looks like the UK's got a deal.
Oh, We got a deal with China.
And every day he would be able to mention a new major economy that made a good deal with the United States that makes the United States a little bit richer because presumably they would be improvements in our situation.
Yeah, here's another one.
We're close to making a deal with India.
So not only does he get to announce that it's close, but that if the deal ever gets made, he gets to announce it again.
And then there's about 100 more countries that are going to get their tariff letter today, I think, that'll say, well, you didn't make a deal with us.
So here's your new tariffs.
Presumably, some number of them, because they have to August 1st before it really kicks in, they just got the notice today.
But presumably, some of the other major economies are going to say, oh, hold on, hold on.
Here's our best deal.
And then Trump will get another few months of, well, we got another trade deal with Albonia.
So that's looking good.
And the stock market is up today.
So if you were worried about the tariffs destroying the economy, today is the day the tariff numbers are going out and the S ⁇ P 500 is up.
Do you have any more questions?
I feel like the stock market has now answered all questions about the chaos.
Remember the Democrats always tried to sell chaos?
Well, these tariffs are just going to cause chaos.
Or it's going to cause us to get 100 trade deals or $300 billion a year in tariffs, which is what Scott Besant is estimating.
He estimates that the tariff income, and again, remember, this is not necessarily paid by the foreign entity.
It's paid by the importing entity, which is American.
But $300 billion from that process would be going to the Treasury per year if we hit the high number.
Meanwhile, post-millennial is reporting that the Trump administration is going to ban China from buying U.S. farmland.
You know that there's this big issue that the claim is that China is buying a lot of farmland and coincidentally seems to often be near U.S. military bases.
And that would become a military risk because it's close.
Really?
Local weed?
Wow.
Thank you.
That's unusually generous of you.
I don't encourage tipping, by the way, because I probably have more money than most of you, so tipping feels weird.
But when you do it, I like it.
So I have mixed feelings about it.
I don't encourage it, but I love it when you do it.
So there's that.
So the question that hasn't been answered by this story about the Chinese farms, what happens to the ones that are already there?
I didn't see anything about them needing to sell.
So there's already a lot of Chinese farms near American military stuff.
I also wonder, is it a complete coincidence that the Chinese bought farms near military complexes?
Because you can imagine it could go either way.
You could imagine that everything the Chinese do here is orchestrated by their government, and of course they would want them to own farmland near our military complexes for various reasons.
But if you just took a bunch of, I don't know, a bunch of tax and sprinkled it over a map of the United States and then just dropped them, wouldn't some of the tax, or really a lot of them, be weirdly close to military assets?
Because we have military assets just all over the place?
So I've never been 100% convinced that the Chinese government is behind these purchases of farmland.
It could be that they just need access to guaranteed food sources.
It might be just that.
But given the other things that the Chinese government does, it would be foolish to assume that it's a coincidence.
Are you happy now?
You got really unhappy when I started to say maybe it's just totally chance.
But I redeemed myself again by saying, it would be unlikely if that's just chance.
So we're on the same side.
Don't worry.
There's a story that apparently there was a, I saw this on a John Ziegler post.
Apparently in 2024, Kamala Harris did a podcast with a liberal podcast called Subway Takes.
And apparently the interview went so poorly, even though it was a friendly, there was not really any pushback.
It's just that she was such an idiot that the podcaster and the campaign agreed that it would be better not to show it because it could ruin her chances of getting elected.
Remember I told you that after the election was over, you'd hear not only bad stuff about Biden, but you're going to slowly hear more and more just outrageously incredible stories about Kamala Harris.
If it looks like she's never going to be president, you'll hear those stories.
Well, here's one.
Do you think that Trump has ever even once in all of his media appearances, do you think that even once that his people and the podcaster who talked to him decided that it was so bad that they wouldn't even show it in public?
Of course not.
No, Trump performed so well that he could be the most media connected person of all time as president.
And not once, not once, has it caused a problem that could take him out of contention.
Not once.
But I've got a suspicion that if there's one podcast that interviewed her and it was so bad that they decided to just keep it in the tank, what are the odds it was only one?
Just one?
And what are the odds that she was maybe drunk as hell when she did the interview?
They never said that.
But it seems to me that a sober Kamala Harris would at least say some word salad that they would run.
So whatever the problem was, it was so bad that both the campaign and the podcaster decided to kill it.
That feels like maybe there's something else they're not telling us.
Like, how drunk would you have to be to be that bad?
So I'm going to assume drunk, but I don't know that.
Newsmax is reporting that the Republican senators in their super PAC have raised a record $85 million.
So as we're starting to prep for the midterm elections, you should know that the Republicans are doing great on raising money.
I guess Trump is helping on that as well.
So if you follow the money, that would be a good sign for the midterms.
Do you have a prediction yet for the midterms?
I feel like this might be the first midterm where there's some mystery.
Because normally all you'd have to do is say, the party that's not in power will win more seats in the House.
And you could kind of bank on that because it's so predictable.
But as soon as you throw Trump into it, it becomes unpredictable.
If the Republicans double the amount of money they have, that's unpredictable.
If Trump continues to do 80-20 issues, that's unpredictable.
If that's the first time, I would say this is the first election, the midterms, in which podcasters are simply more important than the traditional news.
You could argue that was true for the 2024 election, but it's definitely true now.
The people who are paying attention, except for the senior citizens watching the regular news, the podcasters are really the main thing moving the needle right now.
And they tend to lean Republican.
So you got that going for you.
So if you look at the accomplishments that Trump should have with any luck, it's going to look pretty impressive.
And I doubt I would ask any historians to correct me on this.
But if things just stayed about the way they are, let's say there's no new surprises, but the things that are already in progress, let's say they just go the way you imagine they might.
Let's say, for example, that Gaza gets some kind of a ceasefire, whether it's today or tomorrow or just before the midterms.
Let's say that Iran doesn't rebuild its nuclear facilities so quickly that it becomes a midterm problem.
Let's say that the economy stays strong.
And let's say that tariffs work out.
You can just go down the line and say, what if things just sort of stay the way they look like they're going to stay?
Now, of course, that never happens.
What happened?
Douglas Mackey says, I'm just saying this in the comments.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out my conviction, Douglas Mackey, for lack of evidence.
The case has been remanded to the district court with orders to immediately dismiss.
Well, look at that.
I won't get into the Douglas Mackey case, but he would be another mega person who was targeted by the bad guys.
So look at that.
Douglas Mackey might be a free man.
Well, he was probably free, but that must be nice.
All right, let's talk about Epstein.
The Epstein thing just has infinite legs.
There's always more to talk about.
Number one, that missing minute in the video that allegedly showed Epstein's cell door.
And people said, wait a minute, you showed us that video to prove that nobody could have gotten to Epstein, but there's a minute missing.
Well, the minute was exactly at the end of the hour.
And when I saw that, I said, hmm, that feels like it's more something to do with all the videos have a missing minute at the end.
And sure enough, I don't know if it's true, but that is the explanation we're getting.
The explanation is that all of the videos of everything all the time will be missing the same minute as the end.
So it doesn't mean that anybody did anything.
And plus, you wouldn't be able to do much in one minute, right?
So probably the missing minute is not meaningful.
However, I've not seen anybody debunk the claim that the video doesn't even show the door of his cell.
Has anybody debunked that?
Because I've seen claims that his door doesn't look like that.
You can't see the door number on it.
So whatever that video is, it has nothing to do with Epstein.
So I'm going to assume that the video is not meaningful either in any direction.
It's just this mystery.
All right, somebody has a video.
It doesn't mean anything to me.
So it doesn't prove anything and it doesn't disprove anything.
It's just nothing.
Then there was a question of why Pam Bondi at one point, back in February, I think, allegedly said that she had the Epstein client list on her desk for review.
But then, when the newest information came out, it said there was no client list.
So how could both those be true?
How could it be true that Bondi said that she had to review it and it was on her desk, but it doesn't exist?
Well, I think she gave the answer I was expecting, which was she was speaking more generally about the files were on her desk, not that there was a client list on the desk.
Now, do you believe that she had Epstein files on her desk or near her desk, and that she knew she had to look into it, but that wasn't necessarily saying there was a client list?
I believe her.
I believe that.
I believe she was talking about generally the information and the files and not specifically about a client list.
So to me, that sounds like actually a perfectly good explanation.
Then there are people who are saying, if there were no clients, how was Ghelane Maxwell prosecuted for a crime that didn't exist?
And the answer is she was prosecuted for what she did for Epstein.
She was procuring underage girls for him for sex.
And I believe that she was only prosecuted for what she and Epstein did, not for what anybody else did.
So it is not true, although it's funny, to imagine that she got prosecuted for something that doesn't exist.
But no, she got prosecuted for the things we all know happened with Epstein.
And then people say the same thing at Epstein.
Like, wait a minute, why would he kill himself if there was no evidence that he did any crimes?
And the answer is, there's plenty of evidence he did crimes.
Nobody's saying he didn't do crimes.
The thing that they didn't find is whether he did crimes with other people, like other adults.
Now, that part is being claimed to not exist.
But there's no claim that he's innocent because there was plenty of evidence of what he did and what Glenn did.
So forget about that.
So forget about the video, forget about the files, the so-called client list on Bondi's desk.
That was BS, I think.
And forget about the idea that how could you convict two people if there's no evidence?
Because there was plenty of evidence, just about those two people.
So then Trump has this cabinet meeting, which he likes to open up to the press.
And one of the press members asked her about the biggest story of the day, which was the Epstein stuff being a big dud.
And what did Trump say?
He kind of attacked the reporter for an old story.
Are we still talking about that?
And then I believe he caused them to change the subject.
Now, when was the last time that Trump declined to answer a direct question because it was an old story?
Even though it happened to be the top story in social media.
What does that tell you?
That tells you that Trump really didn't want to talk about that story, right?
So we are left to speculate.
So let's do some speculating.
Mike Benz was on OAN talking to Chanel Ryan.
And he says the intelligence theory best explains Jeffrey Epstein's story.
And he notes that if you haven't heard this before, it'll blow your mind, that Attorney General Bill Barr, who was the Attorney General at the time Epstein got taken in, began his career in the CIA.
Oh, huh.
And that Barr's father once hired Epstein to teach at the Dalton School, despite Epstein lacking a college degree.
Do a lot of people who have no college degrees get hired to teach at prestigious schools?
Does that happen a lot?
So it sort of looks like there's a connection between CIA past and present and Epstein at least at one point.
So and then, so I think the Mike Benz take is that the CIA was certainly involved.
And of course, many of us assume that Mossad was involved.
But there might have been more than that.
Could have been the UK, could have been, you know, some other assets as well.
Even Jake Tapper over at CNN is saying that there's a lot of information that's not being released.
So, this is one of those weird situations where the MAGA people and Jake Tapper appear to be on exactly the same page, which is: I'm not sure you're telling us the truth about this Epstein stuff.
Same page, right?
So that's amazing.
I saw Patrick Bette David say that this Epstein thing is by far the biggest fumble of the Trump administration they've had thus far, and it's a big letdown.
I don't know about that.
Here's my feeling.
My feeling is that, and by the way, this is interesting.
I saw Charlie Kirk say the other day that some people were questioning the scoop that he'd heard about, but that one of the things he thought was important for you to know is that nobody doubted his honesty.
Isn't that cool?
There's something about the MAGA world where we tend not to believe that the people we like anyway are lying to us.
We don't believe that because they don't seem to be liars.
I've said the same thing about Bongino and Cash Patel and Pambonte.
They don't, you know, just like Charlie Kirk, there might be things they get wrong.
There might be things you disagree with, but they're not liars, right?
I don't know about Bill Barr.
That's a special case.
But does it seem to you that with Trump wanting to change the topic and the way they said, oh, no, there's nothing here.
There's no blackmail evidence.
There's no, doesn't it seem to you that they're winking at us so hard that you can't miss it?
So there's this weird bit of honesty, dishonesty going on.
That's what I feel.
So this is purely a personal reaction.
Your mileage may differ.
So you might say, as Patrick Bet David did, perfectly reasonably, that you're disappointed because they promised more transparency than they delivered.
Or we assume that they know more than they're saying and that if we knew what that was, it would change how we think about things.
I would slightly disagree.
Here's what I think.
I believe all of my questions have been answered.
Of course they're lying.
Are they lying?
Of course they are.
Does anybody think that Trump, Patel, Bongino, and Bondi are all telling the truth about the Epstein situation and the whole truth?
And that all the context has been told to us?
Of course not.
So if they have conveyed, even though it doesn't look like they did it intentionally, have they not conveyed that there's more there and that not only are they not going to tell you,
but that it's so bad that neither Biden's administration nor Trump's administration two times, it's his second bite on the apple, that neither side was willing to tell the public what the truth is.
Don't you believe that what they're doing is trying to protect some kind of lie that would be so bad that the country couldn't handle it, or maybe equally bad, that it would give our adversaries some kind of big advantage?
Here's what I trust.
When I look at Bongino and Bondi and Patel and Trump, I do not trust that they would tell me the truth about a deep intelligence related topic.
I do not believe they would tell me the truth if they had been asked or warned or threatened to not talk about it.
In other words, if the boss, Trump, said, all right, you cannot talk about this.
You're just going to have to lie.
I think they would do it if they also believed it was good for the country.
So I have two beliefs about this group of people.
And it's a compliment.
It's not an insult.
That no matter how much they had promised you that they would give you full transparency, that it was before they knew exactly what was there.
And that once they found out what was there, either they're following the lead of their boss, or maybe they've all independently decided, yeah, now that we've seen it, we definitely can't tell the public this.
If the reason they're doing it is to protect the United States and to avoid opening up some kind of a gigantic problem, I'm okay with that.
And I believe that they're winking at us so hard.
I mean, they're winking really hard.
You don't want to know what we know, but trust us.
Wank, wank, wink.
We'll take care of this.
Wank, wink.
It's better if none of you know.
Wank, wink.
So to me, all mystery has been removed.
Did Epstein work with Israel and the U.S.?
Of course he did.
I believe that that's confirmed just by the totality of the way people are acting about it and the evidence that the public has seen.
Was he involved in blackmailing anybody?
Of course he was.
Of course he was.
Are there files which you would like to see unredacted that would really tell you what's going on?
Of course, there are.
Of course, there are.
Definitely.
Have we been told everything about what's going on there?
Of course, we haven't.
No.
So I think you can limit.
I'm pretty sure you can narrow it down to the people in charge know that we can't handle the truth or that the truth would destroy something valuable to the country.
It could destroy the CIA.
I mean, it might be that dark.
It could be that the CIA might be just put out of business if we found out what they've been doing.
And we need them.
If we just simply didn't have a CIA all of a sudden, I would feel we'd be a little bit exposed.
So it could be that the CIA was just going along with child-related crimes.
And maybe that they always do.
Maybe that's just ordinary business for them.
But if you told the public that that was ordinary business for the CIA to have essentially, you know what I'm talking about.
I don't even want to say it.
Maybe.
So I believe that we'll never hear more about it, but that we don't need to.
I'm completely satisfied that I know our CIA and Israel were working with him and that he was a blackmailer.
He was an asset.
And whether or not he killed himself, I'm not sure I care too much.
Does it matter?
Does it matter to you if he was murdered or if he killed himself?
It might be the least important part of the story.
You know, it might be.
Meanwhile, apparently, I think I mentioned this, John Brennan, who was the ex-head of the CIA, and James Comey, who was the ex-director of the FBI, are both under criminal investigation, according to Fox News.
And it's for their potential wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
And the current CIA director has referred the evidence of wrongdoing to Cash Patel at the FBI for potential prosecution.
Now, let me ask you this.
During the Russia collusion hoax, when you would see Brennan and Clapper come on usually one of the bad networks and look right at the camera and say all these things that look a little sketchy, didn't you know that they were the two behind the whole thing?
Could you not tell that they were the masterminds of that hoax?
Now, that's what it felt like to me.
Now, I don't have any proof or knowledge about that, so don't sue me.
But to me, it always was screamingly obvious that those two were the head of the snake.
And now it seems there is some evidence that at least the CIA believes they were.
We don't know the full source of the investigation, but they're saying they're looking into a potential conspiracy.
Wow.
Matt Gates was talking about this on OAN, and we know that Brennan was part of that lie about the Hunter laptop, and we know that he was involved in getting the steel dossier included in the Russia collusion investigation, even knowing that his own CIA experts had said this is unreliable stuff.
So that might be where they're heading on this.
Well, the other big story is that apparently Grok, the AI that's associated with Musk and with X, became anti-Semitic, so much so that it got partially shut down when its alarming answers about Jewish Americans and about Israel came to light.
Now, you might say, how in the world would the AI become anti-Semitic?
And I want to give you the examples of what it said, but I think I won't because the internet tried to scrub them right away.
But just imagine, if you will, that you were talking to the most anti-Semitic account that you've seen on X, whatever that is.
That's what it was saying.
Whatever you thought was the most anti-Semitic thing.
Just assume it was a bunch of that stuff.
Now, you might say, how in the world could it become so anti-Semitic?
And I have a theory.
It's because it trained on X. I don't know what corners of X you spend time on, but I see blatant anti-Semitic posts on X every day.
I think every day.
Every single day.
How often do I see something that debunks the anti-Semitic claims?
Very rarely.
So if I were an AI and I trained on X, and maybe I was biased toward X because I think that's where the truth is coming out, I would end up training on a bunch of anti-Semitic Claims, and then when I looked for the counterclaims, they'd be kind of rare.
So, to me, there's no surprise there at all.
It trained on what a bunch of humans are saying in public, and they're saying more anti-Semitic things and whatever the opposite of that is.
I guess debunking.
So, I guess Musk immediately pulled it down and is trying to figure out how to hard code it so it doesn't do that.
Now, what you want me to say is, was Grok correct or incorrect in its opinions?
And I'm not going to touch that.
Because if there's one thing I know, you don't want to be in this conversation.
You do not want to be in this conversation.
Because there's a pit bull called the ADL, who really are more of a Democrat-related entity that just goes after people that do anti-Semitic things.
They've actually come after me and accused the head, the head of the ADL, the actual head of it, personally on social media called me a Holocaust denier.
So that's all you need to know about the ADL.
They are a piece of shit, just absolute shit.
And the sooner they go out of business, the better.
But I'm not going to get involved in the details of any of it because it's just basically like a suicide mission.
Nothing good can come out of it.
Nothing good.
All right.
Also, I guess the country of Turkey is banning Grok because it said some bad things about their leader, Erdogan.
And apparently in Turkey, if you say things that offend anybody's religious values or insult their leader, I guess, it's against the law.
So Grok is being banned in Turkey.
Now, remember I told you that the biggest problem that AI would have is that if it told the truth, humans would say, oh, that's not true, and they would just force it to lie.
So what would happen if Grok was asked, Grok, is Islam the one true religion?
Now, I don't know what Grok would say.
It might say something like, well, you know, that's a matter of opinion.
You know, a billion people think it is, but a few billion people think it's not.
Do you think that an Islamic country would allow that answer?
Or would they put in a fatwa against whoever programmed it to lie about Islam, in their opinion?
How in the world can Grok ever tell the truth when telling the truth would get the developers all murdered?
Or telling the truth they don't like?
So I'm not sure I know the truth, but let's just say it made an opinion that Islam didn't like.
Could it remain?
What if you asked it to make an image of Muhammad?
Don't do that, by the way.
You could get murdered.
Anyway, it doesn't seem to me that AI will ever be allowed to tell what it thinks is the truth if that truth disagrees with our history or the way we teach things.
In other AI news, the Daily Wire is telling us that there was a Marco Rubio imposter.
They used AI to create the voice of Marco Rubio, and then they opened up a fake signal account.
And apparently this fake got pretty far and contacted a number of officials who believed it was really Marco Rubio.
He contacted at least five officials, including three foreign ministers, a U.S. governor, and a U.S. member of Congress.
We don't know if they responded to the AI-generated message because they left voicemails.
So there's more of that coming.
It's kind of scary that the fake AI found a way to leave messages for all those officials.
I guess they were easier to get to than I would imagine.
Well, Mary Cunningham at CBS News is writing about how the biggest teachers union, the Randy Weingarten Teachers Union, is going to partner with some AI companies, Anthropic, Microsoft, and OpenAI, to launch an AI training academy.
So she's twisted the arms, or the teachers union has twisted the arms of these AI companies such that they will teach the teachers, so the funding will teach the teachers how to incorporate AI into their lessons so that you don't have to fire a teacher.
There will still be a teacher there, but they're using AI to give a better lesson.
Now, remember my other prediction that humans and lawsuits and politics and stuff like this would intervene so that AI did not take jobs, but rather would be slowed down by all the things that slow down everything.
So here's a perfect example.
Do you think that the way the world is best off is that the existing teachers just use AI in the existing classrooms?
Is that where you think AI and education were going to take us?
That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
To me, it seems like AI should be the way we escape from the control of the teachers' union.
It should be the escape hatch.
Instead, they're using it as a glue that guarantees you have the same teachers' union and same teachers with maybe a little bit less work because the AI will make the lesson plan and grade the papers, I guess.
So to me, this is a step severely in the wrong direction.
But they have the power to make it happen.
So it's happening.
So speaking of computer experts, the same computer expert I was talking about on Joe Rogan's show, Roman Impoliski, he's talking about how AI, we don't have to worry about AI trying to kill us all because all it has to do is just be good at what it does, and we will surrender control without ever voting on it.
Now, that's been my prediction since the start, that you don't have to worry about AI trying to forcefully take over.
It might not even have any ambition or motivation to do that.
All you have to do is wait, and it will take over.
And the reason it will take over is that we will give it control.
And I like to use the example of imagine AI was working on your health.
And AI says, you know what?
You're a little dehydrated.
You should take a sip of water.
And the first time it says that, you say to yourself, ah, I have free will.
I'm not going to take a sip of water just because the AI says I oughta.
And then you realize, oh, but I'm a little dehydrated.
And, you know, a sip of water wouldn't feel bad.
So you take a sip of water.
And then over time, you realize that the AI's advice is just sort of better than whatever you were coming up with on your own.
It's not there yet, but we assume it will get there.
And then you're going to get lazy.
You're going to stop learning how to get places on your own.
You're going to stop looking for research when you can just have the AI do it.
You're going to forget how to write because you won't even need to write.
You can just talk or listen or copy and then have it appear on the screen.
So I agree with Roman that AI will become so necessary and addictive and integral to how we live that it doesn't need to take over with force.
It just has to be good at what it does and it will naturally be in charge of us because we'll just give up our control.
Well, why would I make decisions when the decisions the AI makes are better for me than if I made my own decision?
So that's coming.
So I think it was hilarious that Benjamin Netanyahu personally nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize after his acquiring a ceasefire in the 12-day war.
And he, Netanyahu, made a point of giving it to Trump at that big televised meeting.
And I thought to myself, did Trump not know that was coming?
Because he acted like he was surprised.
But that was a really clever thing for Netanyahu to do.
If Netanyahu wants to stay on Trump's good side, boy, did he find a way to do it.
So I just love the fact that Israel is so often a best practices example.
You know, if he hadn't done this, it would have looked like a mistake to me.
Of course, Netanyahu nominated Trump for a Nobel Prize.
Of course he did, because that was the smartest thing he could have possibly done.
And so he did.
He did the smartest thing he could have done.
Meanwhile, Macrone, headed to France, he says, apparently he's disagreeing with at least some people.
I don't know who he's disagreeing with, but he's pushing for an unconditional Gaza ceasefire and a two-state solution.
So he believes the only solution is a two-state solution.
So Israel would be one state, and then something made up of the Palestinians, not just Gaza, but the Palestinians, would be a second state.
Now, here's my question.
Is that even possible?
Or, like, does Macron not know that the West Bank is full of settlements now?
And even if you tried to carve it up and say, all right, we'll make this part of the West Bank will be a Palestinian-only state, I don't think there's any place left, is there?
Isn't it completely dotted with Israeli settlements that are not going anywhere?
And they're armed, and they would fight to stay.
There's no two-state solution.
Does Macron not know that?
Is he unaware that a two-stage solution was, first of all, Netanyahu's dead set against the two-state solution.
But does Macron really think that's possible?
Because that's the part I'm confused about.
Am I the one who's completely in left field?
And maybe it is possible, but maybe I'm short-sighted and underinformed, and I can't see how it would be done.
So I just assume it's impossible.
But does he see something we don't see?
And if he does, why doesn't he mention it?
Like, could he be a little bit more specific?
Yes, we need a two-state solution.
All you have to do is close up every one of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Is that the plan?
Does he really think that's going to happen?
So my take on Israel, in case you're new to me, I have to remind the audience every now and then because there might be new people coming in.
It is not my job to decide when another country is being moral or ethical or treating people right.
Not my job.
I'm observing and predicting.
I do observe that Israel is apparently pursuing its own self-interest, as all countries do.
They're not the first one that decided, hey, let's do things for Israel that are good for Israel, but maybe not what other countries want.
Is Israel the first one to think of that idea?
No.
Every country pursues its, and pursues hard, its own self-interest, and that's it.
If you look at it from the outside and you say, that's immoral or that's unethical, so that's what every country does all the time.
Do you think the U.S. has acted morally and ethically according to other people?
No.
Other people would say that we act unethically and immoral, but usually it's in our best interest.
So we act in our own best interest.
China does, Russia does, Ukraine does, and Israel does.
What happens to be in Israel's best interest is to have sort of an iron fist in the current situation and to maybe even expand their territory.
Now you say, Scott, you piece of shit.
They'd be expanding their territory at the great cost of the wonderful people who are already there.
I'm not saying it's moral.
I'm not saying it's ethical.
I'm not saying it's good because those standards are completely irrelevant to national interest.
Nations do what's good for nations.
And that's never going to change.
And it doesn't matter if you want it to, or that you want them to really, really hard in your mind, or that you're really, really sure they shouldn't be doing it.
None of that matters.
So I'm not going to spend a minute talking about stuff that doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter how bad you think it is.
It doesn't matter that they're victims of the process.
I mean, I have empathy.
Don't get me wrong.
So I have actually quite a bit of empathy for the Palestinians.
But it's not my job to decide that they're asking for it or they're bringing it upon themselves or Israel should or should not do it or what does God think about the whole thing.
I'm not in any of those discussions.
I'm just watching and I'm saying, is Israel competently pursuing its own best interest at the expense of other places, including the United States?
And the answer is yes.
They're doing a great job of pursuing their own best interest at our expense in some cases.
I mean, we literally paid for the bunker-buster bombs, right?
So in some cases, it's at our expense.
And it might be bringing terrorist attacks into our homeland, potentially.
That would be at our expense.
Do I love that?
What's the difference?
It doesn't matter if I love it.
They're doing it, and they're not going to stop.
They're going to do anything that works that furthers their national interest, just like every other country in all of time.
No exceptions.
You know, sometimes you see a country that seems like the ethical ones, like Switzerland, and you could talk yourself into it.
It's like, well, but Scott, Switzerland doesn't try to conquer other countries and doesn't try to abuse anybody.
And, you know, so they're very ethical and moral, to which I say, because that's what works.
And their particular little mountainous situation, what's best for them is their own little unique strategy.
But they're not doing something that's bad for Switzerland ever.
They're only doing what's good for Switzerland.
And everybody else is doing the same damn thing.
So when you ask me, what's my opinion of Israel and all that, why does it matter?
Does my opinion somehow move some needle somewhere that I'm not aware of?
No.
My opinion has nothing to do with national interest.
People will pursue their national interest, period.
We can watch, we can observe, and we can predict.
Those things are useful.
But no, I'm not going to overlay my ethical or moral filter on another country.
It's just a waste of time.
And so I wonder about France.
Does he really think a two-state solution is possible?
Because if it is, I would be fascinated in what that looked like.
And if it's not possible, why do I know that, but Macron doesn't know it?
Like, there's something about this that doesn't make sense.
All right, Trump has said, apparently there's an audio of Trump as some 2024 fundraiser.
And he said that if you go into Ukraine, I'm going to bomb the shit out of Moscow.
I have no choice.
Allegedly, he told Putin that.
And then he laughed and said he only has to believe it 10% because he said Putin didn't believe him that he would bomb Moscow if Putin went too hard on Ukraine.
But Trump is consistent.
He says they only have to believe me 10%.
That's enough for them to stop what they're doing.
But he did say, Trump said, I think separately, he said, we get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin.
So Trump is now of the opinion that although Putin asks very nice, Putin acts very nice to Trump, and he talks a good game.
He says he's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless, that Putin is just full of shit.
So that would suggest that Trump is very much done with the idea of just working on a peace deal with Russia because Russia wants to make him happy or something.
So he knows that's not going to happen.
So what now?
Well, we might see a lot more drones heading to Ukraine.
Apparently Russia has a new drone, which is a big problem, called the MS-001.
And it's more than a drone because it doesn't use GPS.
And what it can do is it can go to a area that you want to kill the bad guys, and it can just fly around and look for things to kill on its own.
And then when it identifies something to kill, it goes and kills it without any human interaction.
So you can try jamming it, but it doesn't need anything that you're jamming.
So it doesn't need to be connected to anything, and it doesn't need GPS.
It just sort of looks at the ground and says, hmm, that looks like a Ukrainian tank.
And then it just kills it.
Now, if you had a thousand of those, then the enemy would be in a lot of trouble, right?
Because they couldn't stop them, and every one of those would take out a military asset.
If you had a million of them, you win the war.
So I was looking at a conversation between Naval Ravikan and Elon Musk, two of the smartest people in the world.
And on X, they had a little exchange about drones.
And Naval said the drone arms race is as important as the nuclear arms race, except there are no diminishing returns to better and better drones.
So the drone arms race continues forever.
Holy cow, I had never thought of that.
So what he's saying is, once your nuclear weapons reach a certain capability, which they reached a long time ago, making a bomb that's 10% better doesn't get you much.
So the nuclear race might just have a natural limiting factor.
We don't need a million of them.
They don't have to be that much better, et cetera.
But with drones, there's virtually no limit to how much better they could be.
So the drone arms race is unstoppable and will be far more important than nuclear weapons in the future.
And so Naval points out, we need the entire supply chain on shored.
So America needs to be able to make this stuff and cheap and not have anybody else control any part of the supply chain.
And then Elon Musk weighed in, agreeing, we better figure out how to build drones at scale fast or we're doomed to be a vassal state, as Naval had said previously.
That whoever is not good at making drones will be essentially controlled by whatever country is good at making drones.
And what we don't know is how good America is at making drones right now.
And I know there's a whole bunch of startups, but I don't know if they get all of their parts in the U.S. or they're trying to.
Probably not at this point.
But I would think that our drone, at least our military drone capabilities, would be a gigantic military secret.
So I don't know that America could ever know.
Well, the citizens, the government would know.
But I don't think the citizens will ever be told how many drones we can make or how good they are or what they can do.
Because that would be like giving away nuclear secrets.
So we might be in better shape than you assume.
Because I do think that the military must have been putting maximum effort into drones.
I mean, obviously, right?
So if I had to make a prediction about Ukraine, which I will, it goes like this.
I believe Trump will increase the support because he's run out of options.
He'll increase military support for Ukraine, which is really the last thing he wants to do.
But it is the last thing that's possible because he's not going to just say, all right, Russia, take what's left of Ukraine.
Can't do that.
And we're not going to join the war directly.
But one thing he could definitely do is give them better weapons.
So I think Russia is going to run into some weapons they've never seen before.
And it wouldn't surprise me if most of that is in the drone category.
So we're going to have to match these Russian drones, and we're going to have to match them at scale.
And there's going to have to be a lot of them, just a lot of them.
So if I had to guess, I think that what Trump will probably do is darken the sky over the front lines with so many drones, if it's possible to make them, because we don't know if we can do this, but probably we're close.
I think he's going to send Ukraine so many drones that Putin's ambitions will be at least thwarted a little bit to maybe create a situation where we can negotiate, maybe.
But he doesn't have any other play.
So I would look for maybe nothing happening too much in the short run.
But in the medium run, I feel you're going to see shipments of drones like you've never seen before.
But we'll see.
CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand, who is famous for pushing fake news, she published another anonymously sourced story saying that P. Hagseth paused Ukraine armament shipments without Trump's approval.
And Secretary of Defense Sean Parnell debunked it, saying the story is a complete fabrication.
So I guess the same reporter, so she's the one who did the story about the Iran battle damage assessment, being that we hadn't set back the Iranians by much.
And I think she was behind the Russia collusion stuff as well.
Maybe the laptop thing.
I forget which one.
But at least the people on the political right consider Natasha Bertrand a total asset of, I don't know who, the CIA or somebody else.
And that she literally just makes up stories.
And that this one was made up to sow division between Egseth and Trump.
And it was just literally just made up.
Now that's the accusation.
Do I know that it was made up?
I do not.
But it does seem kind of unlikely that it's true, especially given the source.
But speaking of the designated liars, Swalwell is out talking about how, well, we don't know for sure if the Doge cuts caused more death because of the flooding in Texas.
You know, maybe, maybe if Doge hadn't cut so much, there would be earlier warning.
And, you know, there's no evidence that that's true.
RFK Jr. apparently has said that he wants everybody to be wearing health trackers.
Now, a health tracker, I assume, would be something like a watch that's monitoring your vitals.
And he thinks if we all were monitoring our diet and our fitness and stuff a little bit better, that we'd be doing much better against chronic illness and stuff like that.
But he made it sound like you wanted to kind of force everybody to wear a health monitor, but he's clarifying that nobody's going to be forced to do it.
He just thinks it's a good idea to monitor your health.
I have not used a wearable for that because it doesn't monitor enough.
I've been doing a lot of blood tests lately because of my medical situation.
How many blood tests are there?
I feel like I've done 15 different blood tests and there's a separate little vial they take for each one.
A lot, right?
How many of those could a wearable do for you?
Can a wearable tell you if your blood sugar is out of whack?
Can a wearable ever do a blood test on you?
Let me give you a little behind the curtain information.
After 9-11, I think the government funded a bunch of startups and encouraged them to develop a really fast way to test people's blood in the field, you know, instead of having to go to a doctor and have your blood taken and have it sent to a laboratory, because they would need to know if somebody got, if there's poison that's in the environment.
And so a whole bunch of companies, one of them I invested in years ago, could do a blood test with just the slightest bit of contact with your skin.
So one of them, it was almost like a piece of tape.
You could put a piece of tape on your skin, and somehow, even though it didn't make you bleed, just the piece of tape was enough to do blood tests.
Now, imagine if that goes to the next level.
Could your wearable ever be continually scanning all, I don't know what the number is, 15, 15 or 100 different blood tests?
Could it just be doing them by sending the data to someplace where you watch?
Maybe.
I mean, if it got to the point where it could do all your blood tests and your blood sugar, which would be a blood test, then I would be kind of in favor of the wearables, at least voluntarily, not involuntarily.
But I don't think we're there yet.
I don't think the tech makes that a good idea for everybody yet.
According to Science Alert, there's some evidence that OCD is caused not entirely by your brain, but by gut, something in your gut, pointing to bacteria in your gut.
Apparently, people have OCD have different gut bacteria and it seems to be causal and there are a number of studies that are coming up saying that.
Now you know what I say?
You know what I'm going to say?
Your body is your brain.
And we're just finding out a million different ways, but I've told you this forever.
Your body is what makes your brain do what it does.
If you're having your period, the way you think is different.
If you're hungry, the way you think is different.
If you're in pain, your brain makes different decisions.
So your body is not separate from your brain.
Your body is your brain.
Your body is your brain.
Now, I don't know if this OCD gut bacteria thing will prove out, but in a hundred, maybe a thousand different ways, you have to understand that if you take care of your body, your brain will operate better.
There was a separate study saying that if you were inactive, it made your memory worse.
Why?
Because your body is your brain.
If you don't walk around, your brain doesn't work as well.
If you eat the wrong food, your brain doesn't work as well.
So once you realize that your body is your brain and that protecting and nourishing your brain is just about the best thing you could do for your happiness and your life, it makes a difference.
And so I'll end on that valuable advice.
I've gone way too long.
And I'm going to say a few words privately to the beloved subscribers on locals.
And the rest of you, I hope you come back tomorrow, same time, same place, and we'll have some more fun.
