God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Birthrate Decline, Trump Monetizes Bad Behavior, Azerbaijan Armenia Peace, Military Targets Cartels, Ed Martin, Adam Schiff, Leticia James, Pete Buttigieg, Stephen A. Smith, Jimmy Kimmel, Mike Benz, Norm Eisen, RFK Jr., HHS mRNA Vaccine Cancellations, Dr. Steven Hatfill, AI Copyright Issues, High IQ Kids, Trump Putin Alaska Meeting, Ukraine Peace Talks, US Drone Production Crisis, Hamas Child Sacrifice Reframe, 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.
Some of you call it Saturday, but that's because you don't yet have a cat.
But you will.
all right let me get your comments working here on locals and then we we shall begin.
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.
Good morning everyone and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, All you need for that is a copper mugger glass, a tanker and shelves or stein, a canteen, jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite.
liquid.
I like coffee.
Enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens.
Now, go.
Mm, yep.
Stine.
Yep.
That was as good as I hoped.
Well, I wonder if there's any new science that would suggest that drinking coffee is good for your cardiovascular disease.
Yes, there is according to SpotterUp.
It's a groundbreaking new study.
And turns out that people who drink coffee in the morning are way healthier.
Boom.
Take that.
I'll bet you didn't see that coming, even though I have a study about that almost every day.
Well, how about this?
There was a study.
Let's see if you can guess what happened.
There was a study according to Medscape and they want to see if they could treat eating disorders with marijuana and then separately with psychedelics.
What do you think was the result when they tested to see if you could control people's appetites?
Obviously, the marijuana would be increasing their appetite.
And the psychedelics might help them with some other kind of eating disorder.
Do you think it worked?
The answer is yes.
Because every time they do a study that gets published in the popular media about psychedelics, It worked.
So it turns out there may be no mental problems you can't solve with psychedelics.
One or two doses.
Speaking of marijuana, President Trump is allegedly, reportedly, considering reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug.
I don't know about that, but there's some thinking that he talked about that or was willing to consider it.
But I feel like he's been willing to consider that for a long time.
Now, someone is alleging that because the marijuana business is big enough that it can make very large donations to campaigns.
Maybe it's a different situation.
But we'll see.
I would bet, I don't know.
I feel as though if Trump were going to do this, he would have already done it.
why he would wait.
So I'll bet against that.
Well, New York Post is reporting all the important news this summer because remember I told you that this summer has not the most important news.
So they still have to fill all the space.
So the New York Post is reporting that doctors in China say they're baffled over the case of the young woman who experiences uncontrollable orgasms multiple times per day.
She's a 20 year old and she's in a perpetual state of arousal.
Now the article goes on to say that she spends almost her entire day, oh wow, just binge-watching old episodes of Coffee with Scott Adams.
and they can't figure out why she's having non-stop orgasms.
No, I just made up part of that story, the part about watching my show.
But allegedly, 20-year-old woman can't stop having orgasms.
I know what you're thinking.
Not the worst problem in the world, but you wouldn't like it.
I don't think you'd like it at all.
after the first well if it were me um i don't think i would like it to have continuous orgasms?
Oh, sure.
The first 10,000, I'd probably like it plenty.
But eventually, eventually you just get tired of it.
Well, in other related news, according to the Logical Indian, I don't know if that's a publication, I hope it is, mobile phone use and laptops on your lap.
are creating a tenfold rise in male infertility.
So men, I don't like to give, you know, sexual and or medical advice, but I'm going to make an exception.
If you forget to bring your condom and your sexual partner is ready to go, what I recommend is using your phone in your pocket and putting a laptop on your lap.
Probably 15 minutes will cook whatever you got in there and you'll be good to go.
No condom needed.
Just use that laptop.
And I recommend watching...
coffee with Scott Adams because it makes women orgasm and it makes men infertile.
Sorry about that.
Sorry.
I apologize for both of those things.
Anyway, remember how it's such a mystery that the birth rate is dropping?
And I keep saying it's not a mystery.
It's every single thing.
is making it worse.
Everything from economics to health to plastic in your balls to whatever fresh hell this is.
It's everything.
You can't find anything.
You can't find anything from dating apps to body mass index, you name it.
Everything is making sex and reproduction less likely.
So there's that.
Trump administration is trying to get a billion dollar settlement at UCLA because Trump has, they say he's weaponized government, but that's not the impressive part.
The impressive part is he's monetized bad behavior by other people.
Oh, I get it.
You're going to be racist and anti-Semitic.
All right, here's the bill.
All right, so you want to have bad trade deals?
Fine.
Here's the bill.
You want to have a war in Europe and never stop?
It's okay with me.
Here's the bill.
Anyway, we'll see if that works out.
I saw a post by the rabbit hole.
account.x good follow the rabbit hole and the rabbit hole says history books should be updated to include affirmative action and DEI as examples of 21st century institutional racism with the impact on Asian and white victims highlighted.
Well, do you think that will happen?
Do you think your history books will be rewritten and the historians will say, you know, now that you mention it, there was horrific discrimination against a couple of groups and that should be part of history.
I don't know.
I feel like all history has at least two versions.
maybe three.
One would be the traditional version, another would be the sort of updated version, and then the third one.
is the one that never gets published, which is the real one.
You never know the real stuff.
You just have some narrative that people agree on.
Well, maybe that'll happen, but probably not.
Well, you might be aware that President Trump presided over the signing of a peace agreement, apparently, between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
who, if you're like me, you did not know they had any warring going on at all, but apparently they want to stop that thing you didn't know was happening and they did so they met with the president and everything was smiles and happiness and then one of them and I'm not going to pretend that I that I can't even pretend that I'm interested enough to learn which one of those men was that of Azerbaijan
versus Armenia because it looks a little bit interchangeable so I'm going to say one of them I don't know which one.
You know, sort of flattered Trump by saying that the two of them, you know, the presidents of both countries should push for the Nobel Prize Committee to award Trump the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now, that's somebody who did their homework before coming to the Oval Office.
Compare that to Zelensky, who was such a turd in the Oval Office, he basically got thrown out of the White House on camera.
Compare that to Azerbaijan and Armenia.
in which they come in and they're like, okay, what would happen if we say we're going to, you know, maybe recommend him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
And what if we needed a little foreign aid or a little bit of assistance?
Don't you think we'd get more of it if we nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize?
So good job, Azerbaijan and Armenia.
You did your homework.
So Trump has apparently secretly signed, but not so secretly that we don't know it, a directive for the Pentagon to start using military force against cartels.
I thought we were sort of already there, but I guess there's something official that had to be signed.
So.
So from this point on, our military can act against the cartels.
Now, what did the president of Mexico say about that?
No way, Jose.
You cannot use your military to invade our country.
To which I say, is it an invasion if our drones bomb a cartel headquarters?
Would that be an invasion?
Number two, question number two, what happens if our military only attacks cartel operations that are already in the United States.
Don't you think that there are cartel, you know, like armed cartel, I don't know, weed farms and armed cartel distribution points and stuff that are in the United States?
Our military probably doesn't even need to leave our borders.
They can fight the cartel all day long, you know, just within our borders.
So we'll see if there are any big news reports about attacks.
It might not take a lot of attacks.
It might be the sort of thing where the drug cartels are businesses as opposed to being like religious and zealots and stuff.
And if you attack a business, their first question will be, oh, how do I make money and stay out of jail and don't get killed?
And that's somebody you can usually negotiate with.
So it might be that Trump can actually make a difference there, you know, bomb maybe a facility or two, just so they know that we're serious.
And then the next thing you know, hey, how about we make money quietly by not bothering your country if you don't bomb us?
So maybe, maybe.
I would bet against it.
So if you're betting that the drug trade will end in coming out of Mexico because of that, I wouldn't bet on that, but it might make a dent.
Well, apparently Attorney General Bondi has authorized a special prosecutor, Ed Martin.
He's going to investigate two...
according to Bill Poulté, she did some shenanigans with claiming her father on one application, and she claimed she had two primary residences, which she didn't, and she claimed her five-unit building was four, all for the purpose of monetary advantage.
Now, what would you, given that we know what the claims are, it's hard to imagine there's any kind of defense against any of that because it's just documented and pretty straightforward what do you think will happen i i feel like people like that who are high enough in the political world i feel like they just don't go to jail now you might say to me but scott what about that story of that ex-retired
senator who recently went to jail it was some democrat to which i say right retired retired and also one you never heard of if they're retired and you never heard of them yeah they might go to jail right but adam schiff seems to be right in the middle of whatever the power, whatever is the seat of power for the Democrats, the shift is right in the middle of it.
And I would imagine that they would also, the Democrat power base would also protect Letitia James because she was, you know, integral to their lawfare against Trump.
They want to keep her on their side.
The last thing they want is for her to flip.
and say, I'll tell you what, if you let me skate on all this mortgage fraud stuff, I will tell you that the White House was behind the lawfare.
law fair and that they coached me and promised me things if I went ahead with it.
Oh, that would be awesome.
I don't know if that is true, but it'd be awesome if she flipped and that's what happened there.
I don't know if you saw this clip yet of Bill Moore and his show.
He had Stephen A. Smith and Bill Moore asked, why was it that Pete Buttigieg had exactly zero black supporters?
According to a recent poll, zero.
There were zero black Americans who said, oh yeah, we'd back Buddha Judge.
And Stephen A. Smith, he basically said he didn't want to say anything about him being gay, but he goes, let me just say this.
He doesn't move us, us meaning black American voters, I guess.
And do you think there's any other reason he has zero black votes?
what else would it be?
It's not like Pete Buttigieg has done some, you know, horrible thing to somebody Is it literally just they're not going to vote for the gay guy?
Is that all it is?
I don't know.
Maybe Stephen A. Smith has the exact right characterization.
He doesn't move us.
He's not promising anything that would be of value to anybody.
So I get it.
Well, Jimmy Kimmel was on Sarah Silverman's podcast and he admitted that what he called repulsive liberal scolds are driving people away from the Democratic Party.
I feel like maybe there's a self-awareness problem at play here.
Is it possible that Jimmy Kimmel might be one of those repulsive liberal skulls?
Because it might look like that to some people.
But no, Jimmy Kimmel is sure that it's other people who are the problem.
You know, it's probably other people.
Yeah, yeah.
It's not what I'm doing every day.
It's those other people.
And then apparently Kimmel has obtained Italian citizenship just in case he needs to escape the country.
But the funniest part was watching Silverman and Kimmel agree with each other that as bad as they thought it might be to be under a Trump administration, it's much, much worse.
And they never mention anything.
They just don't mention anything.
What is the worst part?
Are you being rounded up?
What exactly is going wrong in your celebrity daily life?
Did your dog walker not show up on time?
What exactly is the nightmare that they're living that I don't even know what they're talking about?
I live in the same country.
I'm in the same state, right?
I think they're in California.
And I don't know what they're talking about.
I have no idea.
Now, I feel like if you push them.
they would say something like well the authoritarian authoritarian things the all authoritarian oligarch and then you say right right right i hear the words but what would be an example well Well, yeah,
they're rounding up and sending the hardworking immigrants back to the country of their origin, to which I would say, are you talking about the main thing he said he would do that's completely legal and hadn't been done and the country by majority wanted it done?
Is that the authoritarian part?
the part where most of the country wanted it.
And that includes a whole lot of people who are Hispanic are also supporting the mass deportations and the Black Americans.
also supporting to a large extent, I don't know if it's a majority, but supporting the deportation.
Is that the part?
That's the hell'scape that they're experiencing.
Is that?
Now, I'm not super in favor of law-abiding people who have been here 20 years and paid their taxes and their kids are in school.
I'm not really in favor of shipping them back.
I know you are.
I get it.
We're not going to argue that point.
And I would argue that how you feel about that situation, the ones who have been here a long time, I really don't care about somebody who came this year.
If there's somebody who came this year and you want to ship them back, you're fine.
Or even anybody who showed up during the Biden administration, I'd probably be okay with shipping all of them back.
But if somebody's been here 20 years and they're literally a Trump supporter and they're...
their kids are doing great in school and everything.
You know, that's, I understand the argument for not making exceptions I get it I get it but from a human empathy standpoint if you have enough contact with that part of the world it's really hard to be in favor of shipping them home because home doesn't exist this this is their home so that's where I'm on where i stand however even though that's my
reference, it is true that Trump promised he would do exactly what he's doing.
He also said he would do the worst first, and that part clearly is just not true.
So if it bothers you that there was a very, very firm promise made often and prominently, and it was a lie, if that bothers you, then that would be perfectly acceptable to be bothered by that.
But it's not and talking the biggest thing in the world either.
You know, you got to put it all in context.
Well, I keep watching I video clips of Mike Benz about things like USAD and all the NGOs and, Now, I want to make sure that I don't get sued.
I'm going to blame Mike Benz for all the characterizations of Norm Eisen.
But if I have it correctly, the story is this.
That Norm Eisen is a major Democrat operative and that he's always been a nation coup organizer.
So that he first did this work for presumably USAID and the CIA and applied it to other countries because we know we've done this.
color revolution thing lots of times to other countries and he was part of that and so he's uh steeped in all the technique for overthrowing a country without a military war and the accusation is that he simply turned those skills against the republicans and just used it internally now i'm not aware of any laws being broken So let me be clear.
He is a lawyer, so probably he's pretty smart about making sure he doesn't break any laws but it would sort of suggest that we don't have a real country with like a real system it's it's a competition of things like who can push through the best redistricting uh who can send uh mark elas out to change the the voting laws who can get mark zuckerberg
to give us half a million dollars to you know change things that will be good for one side but not the other who can get um voter id and who can get rid of or or mail-in ballots.
That's all the stuff that determines the election.
It's nothing about policies.
You can pretty much entirely control the election with all this external stuff.
But Norm Eisen would be part of the world of people who, if you asked him, he'd probably say he's saving the country from authoritarianism.
and a descent into chaos.
But if you were on the other side of his preferences, you would say, it looks like you run coups against.
against legally elected people in the United States.
Shouldn't that be sort of illegal, treasonous kind of thing?
Well, no, there are always two versions of every story.
And probably, he hasn't done anything illegal.
Probably.
But just knowing he exists, let me put it this way.
If you don't know who Norm Eisen is and what USAID is and how both of them are connected to our intelligence community and what the intelligence community has done to other countries for decades.
And if you don't see that those same tools were turned inwardly against Trump, you don't really know what's going on.
That story, that whole USAID, CIA, color revolution, Normalizing story, and how it all fits together, that's the story of our country.
is the main narrative that if you didn't understand that you would be dealing with all these just fake fake news narratives and the democrats say this and republicans say that but the real stuff this is all the under the hood stuff that's really driving the real world so I'm so afraid to even bring this up, but gotta do it.
So HHS Secretary, RFK Jr., he's announced that BARTA, I guess that must be a government entity that funds a bunch of medical stuff.
is canceling 22 mRNA vaccine development contracts, saving half a billion dollars.
And RFK Jr. said that mRNA the mrna technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses and um and he he says the reason the mrna is no good for respiratory viruses is that it only takes one mutation which you know is going to come you know viruses mutate reliably it's not like you wonder if they'll mutate they do and
as soon as it mutates by just one thing, the mRNA technology just stops working.
So he says that.
that even if you did the best mRNA job you could ever do it still wouldn't work because there's such a thing as you know the the virus evolving and it just makes it not work and he believes that there are other platforms that are non-mRNA that have more potential now here's the part where I'm trying to understand the story As far as I know,
he has not banned the giving of the existing COVID shot to adults, right?
I feel like they may have pulled the recommendation for young people and for pregnant women.
I don't know the details of that, but I think that's not recommended anymore.
And we've known that for a long time.
But is it true that RFK Jr. has canceled a bunch of vaccine development contracts?
So that would be for stuff that's not rolled out.
but that he's keeping the mRNA-based current vaccination recommendations.
Is that true?
Because there's more to the story and it gets really murky.
So Steve Bannon had on the war room a HHS special advisor, Dr. Stephen Havill.
And he says something RFK Jr. did not say.
So it makes me wonder if he has the right narrative on this.
But he says that RFK Jr. pulled that mRNA funding.
after the data showed that getting vaccinated was more dangerous than COVID itself.
Now, I listened to RFK Jr.'s statement and he didn't say anything like that.
Did you hear him say anything like that?
Now, I'm not saying, let me be careful here, because I know that whenever I talk about this topic, many of you will confuse talking about it with promoting it.
All right, so we're not promoting.
And I'll tell you in advance, I don't know what's true and what's not true about this story or about the science.
I don't know what's true.
So I will neither debunk nor recommend anything medical, which is my way.
All right.
I just don't do that.
So let me go on.
So this guest on Steve Bannon's war room, Dr. Stephen Hafill.
He said that there was a meta-analysis.
Now, what have you learned from me when an expert goes on TV and says there was a meta-analysis?
What have you learned?
What you should have learned is, oh, it's not science.
A meta-analysis is not science.
And they are so susceptible to misuse or being done wrong, a meta-analysis, for reasons I've described many times that as soon as your so-called expert says we've done a meta analysis that's when you should stop believing what they say they could be right because the meta analysis will either say something worked or it didn't work you know only two possibilities so
even if it's wrong it might be wrong in the right direction because there are only two directions right it's a coin flip so even the wrong analysis could half the time get you the right answer it's only two possibilities yes or no so So do you believe that the meta-analysis concluded,
as Dr. Hatfield said, that, quote, it was more dangerous to take a vaccine than it was to get COVID and be hospitalized with it?
And that, yeah, so the idea was that getting the vaccine.
made you have worse hospitalization outcomes than if you had not been vaccinated at all.
Now remember, I gave you the warning.
I'm not saying that's true.
I'm just reporting to you what other people say is true.
Now, I want to do a little test of your reasoning ability.
How many of you said to yourself, those experts who recommended that vaccine, I don't believe any of those experts, you know, they've got their own.
their own motivations, et cetera.
So that you rejected the experts when they first told you to get the shot.
And you said to yourself, well, I'm glad I, I'm sure glad I didn't trust those experts.
And then when you hear this story.
about the meta-analysis, do you say, aha, finally we know the truth?
How many of you did that?
How many of you said, I was sort of just using my instinct to resist the shot, but now that this meta-analysis is out and people within RFK Jr.'s domain are saying, aha, everything was opposite of what you're told.
And the reason we know it's opposite is because we have all these studies.
Okay, that would be bad analysis.
Here would be the correct analysis.
You ready?
The correct analysis is, on day one, hey, I don't trust all these experts.
They haven't tested it enough, and I don't trust their motivations and or their competence.
Would that have been a reasonable view on day one?
Yes, yes, that would be completely, that was my view.
So it's the reason I didn't get my shots until months had gone by, and I saw who was dying and who was dying.
who wasn't and all that.
But that's another topic.
So it would be totally reasonable, totally reasonable if you that you trust these latest experts?
Why would you trust Dr. Stephen Hatfield?
I'm not saying he's wrong.
I'm saying that if you don't apply the same filter, then you're not being rational.
You're just guessing.
The correct filter is you should not have trusted it when it was first rolled out.
You may remember that I predicted it wouldn't work when it was rolled out.
So that was the correct take.
The correct take was not trusting it.
What is the correct take?
when you have a whole bunch of new science that says the opposite that was really bad for you and they knew it the whole time.
Don't trust it.
One of those is probably closer to true, but you don't have any way of knowing.
You and I have no way of knowing if anybody did the science correctly.
They're just claims.
So to round out the story, I will say that at the moment, the CDC and the World Health Organization and another other other experts are still saying that the mrna technology was a miracle.
and it saved millions of people's lives and the science on it is crystal clear.
Is that true?
I don't know.
It's either true that it worked or it's true that it didn't work.
And you have no way, no way of ever knowing which one was true.
I bet you'll never know in your whole lifetime.
It will never be credible.
because there will be studies on both sides forever.
There will always be studies on both sides.
So I don't know what to believe.
Do you remember Trump talked about so-called freedom cities, about the federal government just before he was elected?
The federal government could make some land available that entrepreneurial developers could build their own little freedom cities and sort of experiment with, you know, low cost, better, you know, better everything.
That idea seems to sort of died away.
I don't hear anybody talking about it.
Trump doesn't talk about it.
But then I started seeing all these stories about gerrymandering.
And I said to myself, how many places are there in the U.S. where if the federal government said, all right, we'll make this little area a freedom city.
And let's say some clever developer said, I'm going to build a freedom city that will really be around Christians who want to go to church.
exclusive So we're not going to discriminate against anybody, but it'll really be optimized for Christians who want to go to church.
Now, in theory., that would bring in more Republicans and Democrats.
You might have a better idea how to do that.
But the idea would be that you could build a freedom city in just the right battleground state where it might tip the election.
Because if you can bring in a quarter million people who are reliably Republican voters, and then give them a good experience of these freedom cities, and then make it really easy to vote in the freedom cities, could you use the freedom cities to rig the election by moving in little pockets of reliably Republican voters into battleground states.
I don't know.
So, you know, it would take somebody's, because the state affected could also, they could probably just circle it and gerrymander it out of existence.
So it might be that they could gerrymander it away even if you pulled it off.
I don't know.
Anyway, the AI industry is still having copyright class action problems from authors.
I thought that was kind of settled, but apparently not.
Arstechnica is writing about it.
Anthropic is being sued by some class action group of authors.
And the issue here is that if it turns out that the authors went and the class action goes well for the authors, then it would destroy the AI industry totally because they don't really have a way to avoid the knowledge from books, I guess, because that's what they trained on.
So it's possible that we will destroy our own AI industry through the courts.
But if I had to bet on it, I would follow the money and I would say we would be talking about like $50 trillion of value in the future of the country.
So I would say there's so much money involved.
that the courts would be under so much pressure and there would be counter suits.
And I feel like the people who have $50 trillion at risk are going to win that battle every time because there's just so much, so much at risk.
Anyway, according to PsyPost, Vladimir Henry is writing that the brightest children from low-income homes are very competitive with the brightest kids from rich places up until the age of about 11.
And then for reasons that are not clear, but you probably have your own theories, when that bright kid reaches age 11, if they're in a poor situation, their academic results just go to hell between 11 and 14.
But the rich kids, who were just as bright as the poor kids when they were five and six years old, they apparently have a better support system in every way.
And so they go on to become bright adults.
So there is something in the process of poverty that makes a bright kid turn off.
And I don't know what exactly it is.
It could be that they don't want to look like the nerd, and they don't want to be teased for being the brainiac or stuff like that.
Remember, I keep telling you that being immune to embarrassment is the greatest superpower ever?
Well, here's a good example.
When I was in school, I eventually graduated as a valedictorian of of my tiny school.
Not very impressive because the entire school was very small.
But early on in my grade school, it was obvious I was going to be a student and I was trying to make something of myself.
And can you imagine that I got teased for being a brainiac, a nerd, et cetera?
And the answer is, of course I did.
Of course I did.
And you're probably saying, oh my God, how did you handle all that?
humiliation and the teasing to which I say why humiliation why humiliation are you telling me I was supposed to feel bad when the dumb people called me smart.
Where was the part where I was supposed to feel bad?
I missed the entire part where their cutting insults were slicing through my psyche and leaving me in tatters.
The whole time I was just thinking, yeah, you got that right.
Yeah, I am going someplace.
Too bad you're not.
Yep, I'm a nerd.
That's right.
I did do my homework.
Yeah, I did get a day on that test.
I did.
Thanks for noticing.
So I don't know if I was mentally deficient or just some kind of weird narcissist, but I recall that I was teased, but I don't recall any damage whatsoever, like ever.
It just felt like I was winning the whole time.
And that's how I played it.
Anyway.
I don't know if that advice will help your low-income kid survive the brutal situation.
But it's also true that the town I grew up in was a little closer to goodwill hunting than it was to like an inner city.
Yeah, I would say that the the citizens of my town were rooting for me from the time I was very young.
And it was obvious they were rooting for me and helped.
Helped me escape just like goodwill hunting.
So I don't know if having a complete immunity to humiliation would help anybody else, but it helped me.
Okay, here's a story that I don't know if this is tru a story about the agreement that Trump and Putin are going to meet in Alaska and talk about maybe ending the war in Ukraine.
And you're probably telling yourself that they wouldn't have this meeting unless they thought there was pretty good chance of something positive coming out of it.
And then what we hear, somewhat surprisingly, is that Putin would be willing to simply take some of the, but not all of the territory that he's conquered and just say, all right, I'll keep this and we'll, you know, we'll just part company.
Now, you probably said to yourself, really?
Really?
Because it didn't seem like Putin had ever offered that before.
And it didn't seem like he was losing so badly that he'd have to change what his position is.
So why would Putin suddenly go from, nope, there's no real reason to talk to, oh yeah, let's talk next week.
Now, You may say, well, it's because Trump threatened those sanctions on the Indians buying Russian oil or something else.
There is a report in a German publication, BILD.
Now, I don't know if it's true, but this is their version of what's going on, that Steve Whitkopf, quote, misunderstood Putin.
and where Putin said something about those occupied territories, the ones that Putin's already conquered, that Steve Whitkopf misunderstood Putin's willingness to negotiate a deal.
And so that what you're seeing is a whole bunch of people operating under a misunderstanding of how close they are to an agreement.
Now, I'm not going to say that's true because it's just some German publication.
You know, it's not being widely reported that way in our press.
So probably not true.
But it does explain everything.
And it would be a Dilbert world kind of thing where they just heard each other wrong.
but you know it's even funnier what if the reason they're having the meeting is because that What if that's the only reason they have the meeting?
And then what if having the meeting leads to them actually ending the war?
There's a non-zero possibility that the meeting was a complete mistake, but once you get there, you know, they know the war can't last forever.
So maybe Putin will say, well, as long as I'm here.
you know it would be too stupid to come here and then just walk home not walk home but you know so there's a non-zero possibility that the most dilberty thing in the world happened, which is they accidentally scheduled a meeting that they should not have, and that once they're there, I'm like, well, I might as well end this war.
Maybe, it's possible.
That's the most optimistic thing I could say.
Because I do not see any way that under normal circumstances, this will lead to any kind of an end to the war, unless there's something we don't know about.
Maybe Russia has a bigger problem in some domain than we're aware.
Maybe, but we haven't heard about it.
And then, of course, Zelensky is trying to be the turd in the punch bowl.
And he's saying that he's ruling out any kind of deal that the U.S. and Russia make for Ukrainian land.
He's ruling it out.
Okay.
But apparently there's also some Ukrainian legal problem that would make it impossible for Zelensky to agree to give away Ukrainian land.
He wouldn't have the power to do it.
There'd have to be some kind of national referendum or something.
But it's doable.
You just have to do it and it wouldn't be instant.
Anyway, according to Breitbart News, Oliver Lane is writing that there was a poll, I guess it was a Gallup poll, of Ukrainians and how many of them want to keep fighting and how many of them don't.
It turns out that, well, maybe you could tell me.
What percentage of Ukrainians want to fight to quote the bitter end?
What percentage want to fight until they're all dead?
Let's see if you can guess the percentage.
25, says Texas Hoghammer.
25, 25.
Excellent guesses.
The answer is 24, but I will accept 25.
Oh, we got a 24.
Ikkiro, good for you.
All right.
So have I demonstrated once again that I have the smartest podcast audience?
They knew the answer to the question.
Just intuitively, 24%.
According to...
to Radio Liberty So Ukraine is expected to make 4 million drones this year.
Almost all of them will be the low-end, you know, inexpensive drones.
Russia is also expected to make millions of similarly low-end drones this year.
So between Ukraine and Russia, you know, maybe, I don't know, 7 to 10 million drones will be created just by their own countries.
That doesn't even count the number that they'll buy.
So the United States, of course, being the powerful superpower that it is.
if those countries can make millions of drones how many do you think the us can make because we now have an estimate of that from the new york times well the answer is maybe a hundred thousand units yeah so while the war-torn poverty-stricken country of ukraine is making four million per year of drones, we might be able to make 100,000.
We've got a problem because whoever makes the best and most drones gets to run the world.
And apparently that's not us.
That's not us.
So we better get going on that, President Trump.
Well, Israel is planning to, as you know, take full control of Gaza.
And they're going to start by taking full control of Gaza City.
But at the same time, the U.S. and Qatar are talking about some kind of grand proposal that they'll have in two weeks.
The grand proposal for, I assume, the grand part is what makes it more than just Gaza.
So maybe the grand part is the Abraham Accords get expanded, but in return, there's a lot of support for the Palestinian people who got relocated, etc.
So I don't know what that'll be, but I would like to offer a reframe for Hamas and all the children who are victims of the war.
It seems to me that the right way to frame Hamas is that they're invol literally sacrificing the lives of their children for some larger religious and military victory.
But Israel is getting blamed for killing them.
Of course they are killing them.
But doesn't it seem to you like Hamas is not just fighting a war and hoping the children do well, but rather it's an organized human child sacrifice.
And Israel, of course, is part of it.
because if Israel decided, oh, you can have everything you want.
Just come on in and take what you need.
Well, then there wouldn't be any children being killed.
But under the normal conditions of war and national defense, et cetera, of course, of course there'll be response and it will result in lots of people dying that you wish wouldn't die.
But human child sacrifice, that's what it looks like to me.
So we got that.
All right.
Usually on Saturday, when I'm done, when Gregorian does say spaces, but he's got something to do today.
So that will happen tomorrow.
So tomorrow is Sunday.
There'll be spaces after the show, but not today.
Not today.
So you can go about your day and get your breakfast and have a wonderful day.
I'm going to take a nap with some cats and play some ping pong later.
