God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Meta Self-Improving AI Code, IQ Selected Embryos, AI Enhanced IQ, Chuck Schumer Bailey Family, MAHA RFK Jr., Core Inflation, TX Redistricting, Ken Paxton, Smartmatic LA County, Brennan Clapper Swalwell Schiff Raskin, Democrat Designated Liars, President Trump, Nobel Peace Prize, Nationwide Voter Roll Cleanup, Cannabis Rescheduling, Trump Putin Alaska Meeting, MSNBC Crime Stats Hoax, Joe Scarborough, DC Crime Crisis, Jaime Raskin, Democrat Hoax J6 Promotion, E.J. Antoni, BLS Nominee, VISA Talent Focus, Candace Owens, Brigitte Macron, NYT News Trust, Dumbocrat Beto O'Rourke, Hamas Future, Perplexity Chrome Browser, 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.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization except for all the technologies broken and sucks.
But we'll have a X-only show today.
It will not be appearing on the other platforms until we record this.
I don't even know if that works, but we might be able to load it on the other platforms later.
But how would you like the simultaneous set?
I think you'd like it like it, all you need is a cup or mug or glass effector gels, a style canteen, jugger, 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.
It happens now.
Go.
Hmm.
Alright, now given that I can't tell I see you.
No YouTube.
All right.
Okay.
so i'm going to put a note here on x stop it Today, Bundle Studio is not working.
All right.
That's the best I can do.
Well, did you know that Meta and their AI, they think they've taken the first step towards superintelligence.
And so Zuckerberg says he's not going to release.
any new versions that are their best version because their best version has super intelligence.
Apparently the meta AI has already shown signs of improving itself meaning that they can tell it to upgrade its own code and it will rewrite its own code and make it better.
Now just in small ways but that is the The thing everybody worries about is that the AI will figure out how to do it in big ways and it will happen kind of instantly.
And if you're not ready for it, the whole world.
is in trouble.
I'm going to make a counter prediction.
My prediction is that AI will be able to improve itself, and that'll happen right now, I guess, but that the amount it can improve itself will be severely limited.
It will not be instantly becoming godlike.
It will do stuff like, hey, I can improve the efficiency of my code so that I can answer faster or I can answer more completely.
But I feel like that's all it's going to do.
I just don't feel like the nature of intelligence is that no matter how much you have, you have the ability to improve your own intelligence.
I mean, beyond those small tweaks of your code.
So I'm going to bet against it.
But we already know, according to Lancet, there's some concern that doctors are becoming dumber as they use AI.
I'm not sure I believe this.
This doesn't sound like the data would be reliable necessarily.
But they studied colonoscopies that were used by doctors who were using AI to make sure that they were really getting it right.
And the doctors who used AI allegedly became almost instantly worse at identifying tumors on their own.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that the ones who used AI to help them identify tumors?
that they instantly lost the ability to do it themselves or they're I think they were 20% worse at it almost instantly maybe maybe because if you believe that you don't need to be smart and there's something else is doing the smart part for you.
I believe that you probably turn down your brain power a little bit, so it wouldn't surprise me.
I don't know if that'll make the world worse or not.
As long as the AI's getting the job done, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter, right?
As long as you get the right answer.
Well, there's a new movement.
I don't know how new it is, but Silicon Valley is apparently trying harder to get smart babies.
So there are a couple ways you can do that.
One of the ways is that you can hire a Hire somebody to find you a mate.
So they have all these really expensive dating services where a human being will match you with people that they've vetted.
Now that's for the super rich.
But if you're super rich and you're smart and you want to make sure that any children you have are also smart, you can tell your human matchmaker to only pair you with somebody who's super smart.
So the odds of your baby being super smart, if it's the two of you, are very good.
Very good.
But the other way is that they have new technologies now.
now that can determine the likely smartest egg, I guess.
So if you've got some fertilized eggs, you can check them out to find out what their probable IQ is, and then you can select based on that.
So, but part of this story is the media has trouble acknowledging that IQ matters.
So they actually throw in all these qualifiers like, well, you know, IQ is just one variable.
It's just one variable.
I mean, you also have your.
lifestyle and your upbringing, your parenting and all that.
To which I say, why are we so shy about IQ?
IQ is the single most predictive variable in all of life.
If somebody is super smart, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be rich or successful, but the odds of it are way, way higher than if they're not super smart.
Is it a coincidence that all the heads of our biggest and most impressive companies are also super smart?
You know, Zuckerberg and Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and, you know, I could go on, Bill Gates.
So yeah, the fact that we're struggling with the question of whether IQ matters is sort of a DEI leftover.
Because as soon as you imagine that IQ matters, then genetics comes into the conversation and then it's all racist.
So you can't even have that conversation, really.
However, I think we're getting closer to the point where we can.
In other news, News Nation is reporting that there was an ALS patient, that's somebody who's lost control of their bodily functions, that learned to control an iPad entirely by thought.
Now, if that sounds like Neuralink, you'd be right to say it sounds like it, but it's a competing company.
So I guess Neuralink now has a established competitor called Syngron.
SYNCHRON, Syngron.
And they've developed a sensor that must be really good.
So it's compet what's going to happen.
IQ in humans only matters so much because if you've got AI to augment your IQ, how would you measure the IQ of someone who knew how to use AI and had access to it?
See how hard that is?
If you took a person who has an IQ of 100 and they didn't have AI, you'd say, oh, that's a person that has so much capability.
But if you took a person with an IQ of 100, taught them how to use AI and then make sure that they really did use it, Wouldn't their functional IQ be, it wouldn't be as high as the AI's IQ, but wouldn't it be some blend between the humans 100 IQ and the AI's nearly infinite?
How would you even measure that?
And then you go to the next layer, which is these neural link or synchronous chips.
How would you measure the IQ of a cyborg?
who had a human brain but could access automatically the infinite intelligence of the internet.
I don't know.
Would that be an IQ of 100 plus a machine parts?
Or would it be an infinite IQ?
What happens if the AI does more than just answer questions?
What if you've got a chip in your head and it's making suggestions?
If it's making suggestions, sort of like the voice that's in your head naturally, I feel like you would have almost an infinite IQ as long as you took the suggestions.
you know if you were overruling the suggestions it might be a hot mess anyway iq i predict will be a much, much bigger part of the conversation, especially because China is trying to raise super IQ warriors and babies and stuff.
So a lot more on that is coming.
So there's a story in the news, I saw it on social media.
I think it might be true, but it's so fun that I'm going to treat it like it's true even if it's not.
Everybody okay with that?
We're all going to say we're going to suspend our critical functions because it might be true.
By the way, I don't know if it's true.
But the story is that Chuck Schumer has been telling the story about a fake family for decades.
And apparently he always gets away with it.
Now the story is allegedly that the family doesn't exist.
And there's somebody called the Baileys.
And that over time Schumer uses them to show that he knows some middle-class family that has a set of problems.
that he has all the solutions for.
So he's added like the names of the children and their ages and what kind of job he has.
And allegedly, it's all made up.
There's no Bailey family.
Now, I hope it's true that it's all made up, because that would be a good summer news story.
It seems slightly more likely that there was a Bailey family, but maybe he exaggerated a little bit or something.
But for now, I'm going to accept that he made it all up, because it's just funnier.
All right.
That's not good.
A little bit or something.
But for now, all right.
Looks like our technology's working on X. Well, the Make America Healthy Again Commission was supposed to send over the recommendation yesterday to the White House on how to combat childhood chronic diseases.
So I believe that they have the report at the White House, but they're still looking over it and there will be some probably some tweaks to it before we see it.
But part of it was addressing school lunches.
Apparently school lunches are filled with ultra-processed food and so we're sending kids to school to make them dumber and more mentally ill and sicker with the food that they have to eat.
Now, one thing that if you have any teenagers especially, have you noticed that the teenagers often will skip lunch because they use it for a social time instead of eating?
So there's a whole lot of teenagers who don't eat anything during the day or might get a snack or something.
That's it.
So that's also a problem.
But RFK Jr. apparently wants to improve these school lunches, but that's no easy thing because it's cheap to give them frozen highly processed food and it would be expensive to give them freshly prepared meals which would require hiring more people to make them etc.
So I don't know what we're going to do, because we don't want to raise the budget of schools all over the country so much.
But on the other hand, we don't want to poison our children.
So pick one.
Well, in the usual way that every single story becomes two movies on one screen, inflation is either really under control and it's good news, or it's high and it's bad news.
both of those stories are active today.
But apparently energy prices went down a little bit in the past month.
Food was flat, didn't go up or down.
And shelter was a little bit up, 0.2%.
Now, but the core inflation, that would be the stuff that's not energy, food, or shelter.
I think that's what core inflation is.
That had a 3.1% inflation, which would be high.
So your major categories were good, but some of the other ones were not.
So you could find whatever story you want in the inflation numbers.
It's either too high or it's not.
But to make things even more fun, the Federal Reserve, if the inflation looked high, would be highly inclined to lower the interest rates, which would be really good for markets, which is why the stocks are way up this morning.
So we can't even tell if inflation is good news or bad news, because if the inflation is high, the stock market goes up because that means that the interest rates will probably be artificially driven down a little bit to battle the inflation and that's good for stocks so I can say with certainty that inflation is either up or down and that the net effect of that inflation being either up or
down is that it'll be either good or bad and the cause will either be the tariffs or no effect from the tariffs so all of those movies are playing at the same time big one Well, in the most predictable news, the Texas Democrats who went awall so that there would be no vote on redistricting in Texas because they didn't like that with the map.
was being drawn.
So the Democrats did their usual theater kid thing and they made a big deal about it and they made some cringy social media posts and then Texas got tough and acted like they were going to have them all hunted down and arrested and I don't know fired and their pay would be cut and all kinds of threats.
But the one thing that we could all be sure of is that it wouldn't last.
It's not as if the Democrats were never coming back.
Because if they never came back, they would get removed from office.
So they didn't really have any play.
The only play they had was getting some attention like they're fighting.
Now this is very consistent.
And by the way, they're already back.
And Texas has already voted in the new redistricting map.
So everything they did was a waste of time.
But it fell into the Democratic strategy of cursing more and fighting.
Fighting hard.
So it was a fake fight.
They wanted to pretend that they were really serious and they're fighting hard.
But they had no fight.
They had no play whatsoever.
In the end, Texas was definitely going to get what the majority wanted, and they did.
So pathetic, very pathetic.
Apparently, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has threatened to lock up Beto O'Rourke because Beto was raising money to help the Democrats be awall and keep them in food and transportation while they're gone.
And apparently, Paxton has filed a motion for contempt in court against O'Rourke as a maximum sentence a $500 fine and or six months in jail.
That's a weird law, isn't it?
That the maximum sentence is either.
Well, it could be both, but it could be $500 or it could be six months in jail.
Do you think Beto O'Rourke is going to get six months in jail?
I don't think so.
But Paxton says, quote, I'm working to put him behind bars.
So there's another video of Beto O'Rourke cursing more and saying that they got to fight more.
That's all they got.
Cursing and pretending to fight.
Well, there's a new wrinkle in the story of SmartMatic and Fox News.
You may know that SmartMatic, the voting machine company, do they do only software or do they do hardware?
I can't remember.
But they're They've got a lawsuit against Fox News for defamation.
I guess Fox News must have claimed that there were some irregularities with their technology and they didn't like it, so they're suing them.
But now we have learned, according to Fox News, that for SmartMatic to get the contract for LA, they may have been giving some, let's say, gifts to the local officials.
Apparently they reportedly they they funneled dollars into quote a slush fund and that it provided the register recorder and clerk Dean Logan with quote business class travel, expensive entertainment, expensive entertainment, you say, and other personal benefits.
Oh, personal, you say.
That could be anything.
And that it was not disclosed, which I guess would have made it legal.
And so the belief is that Smurbadak may have tried to bribe some local government people so they could get that contract, to which I say, have I mentioned that all local government is a criminal activity?
You cannot have a local government in charge of very large contracts, that's it.
That's the whole statement.
You can't have a local government that's in charge of distributing who gets contracts because it's too much power and they're going to steal it.
They're going to give it to their friends and their friends are going to find some indirect, hidden way to reward them for giving them the contract.
And I feel like that's going to happen every time in every city.
And whenever they look for it, they seem to find it.
Like you could throw a dart at the United States and hit any city and then say, all right, we're going to do a deep audit and find out if the people who got all of the contracts that the city gives out, how many of them are friends of the people who were in elected office?
And you would find out most of them, that the whole system is not just corrupt, but is designed in a way that guarantees it.
It's a guaranteed corrupt system.
It's going to be that way every time.
Now, not every contract.
every time, but over time, you know, over the length of time that we're alive, you can guarantee that every one of these local entities will be staffed with corrupt politicians who are just making tons of money, allocating money to contractors.
Well, there's some new declassified documents from the FBI.
Cash Patel continues to feed us little stuff.
And this one says that Comey ordered the FBI to assist the New York Times.
in writing one of their articles.
And there's also information that Comey had some kind of a PR professional that was working just to feed news to the media that would make Comey look good.
And as part of the FBI's assistance to the New York Times, they made available Peter Strauch and Lisa Page to be interviewed by the New York Times.
And then what else we know?
According to some new documents also, Eric Swalwell is...
Now, are you having the same impression I have about the Democrats?
I remember at the very beginning when the Russia collusion hoax was being hatched, and I would watch Brennan and Clapper talk about it on TV, and I would say to myself, huh, I'm no body language expert, but it seems to me very obvious by their demeanor and the choice of words and their body language that they're completely lying about all of this.
But I didn't know.
I mean, it was just my impression when I looked at it.
I was like, huh.
You know, I don't think that every single person who goes on television is lying, even if they're on what I would consider the other team.
Sometimes there's just different opinions and, you know, different.
and different facts and there's two movies on one screen and all that.
But Brennan and Clapper look like they literally were just making shit up.
And it turns out, it looks like that's what they were doing.
They're just making shit up.
When I see Swalwell go on TV frequently and make ridiculous claims, I do not tell myself, huh.
He looks like he might be mistaken or have bad information.
I never say that.
He looks like he's lying.
When Adam Schiff goes on TV, he doesn't look like he's misinformed, he looks like he's lying.
And it just, it seems really obvious.
And again, I don't say that about every member of Congress, you know, or every Democrat.
It's not about them being Democrats.
They are the designated liars.
Jamie Raskin, whenever he's talking, I just assume it's a lie, and that he knows it's a lie, not that he's mistaken.
So do...
I mean, I realize that Trump is always in the hyperbole world and he's always exaggerating, you know, his accomplishments, et cetera.
But that doesn't feel the same.
Because you know that Trump knows that we know that he's a salesman.
So it's a little bit like we have an agreement with him.
All right, yeah, okay, you can brag about that a little bit.
It's good for the country.
If Trump can convince the country that the US is now the hottest country and everybody should be making deals with us, it's good for the country.
So I definitely accept that when Trump is exaggerating, it's just part of the process and it works.
And it unambiguously it works.
But the Democrats, they just look like they're really bad liars.
And it just looks completely different, like they're just making stuff up out of an oven.
Let's see what else we got here.
And there's now worldwide calls for President Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
I kind of like the fact that Trump is lobbying directly and indirectly to win a Nobel Peace Prize.
So it makes it more like the Academy Awards, you know, You have to sort of lobby for it, kind of politic for it a little bit.
And I don't know if that was ever the case for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I thought people used to win these prizes without even knowing they were nominated necessarily.
But we do know that the following, according to the White House, they put down a social media post on this, that the following countries and or leaders have recommended the Nobel Peace Prize for Trump.
You got the Prime Minister of Armenia, President of Azerbaijan, Prime Minister of Cambodia, the President of Gabon.
Is it Gabon?
Gabon, Gabon.
There's a word I've never said I love.
Then there's Israel and Nanyahu and there's the government of Pakistan and there's the Foreign Minister of Rwanda.
Now it's funny that it's the government of Pakistan but not the government of India.
when Trump allegedly was instrumental in getting Pakistan and India to stand down from their little conflict.
But I think India's story is that Trump didn't really make a difference and Pakistan is saying that he did.
So once again, does it matter if Trump is exaggerating the calls for him to get a Nobel Peace Prize?
No, no.
That's an exaggeration that works for him if, you know, he gets a Nobel Peace Prize, but it also works for us.
Because when he goes into the next negotiation, I want the people that he's negotiated with to say, oh, here's that guy who always makes a piece of the work.
And then he has more chance of making it work because everybody just believes it will work.
That will be extra important this week, probably.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
According to, I saw Chanel Ryan on OAN talking to Harmeet Dillon, Assistant Attorney General.
And apparently the Trump Department of Justice is going to review all the 50 states in Michigan.
make them clean up their voter rolls and restore public confidence in elections.
How much difference do you think that will make?
I'm a little undecided if cleaning up the voter rolls is going to just wildly change the outcome of elections.
It might.
It might wildly change the outcome because we believe, but I have no evidence to support this, it's just a belief, that Democrats are more likely to game the system with names they should not be on the election voter rolls.
Now, I don't know if that's true, but if they clean up the voter rolls, we might find out.
So I love that.
There's also some mystery going around Trump's view of marijuana.
Axios is reporting that it might be another one of those situations where the Republicans can steal a topic that normally you'd expect the Democrats would be more progressive on, like marijuana legalization and or decriminalization.
And Axios points out that the Trump administration banned food dies, which you'd sort of expect would be a Democrat thing.
thing, calls for an end to animal lab testing, which you'd imagine would be a Democrat thing, and embraced psychedelics for mental health, which again, you would assume would have been a Democrat thing, but they missed all three of them.
I assume RFK Jr. is the reason that Trump is doing some sort of things that you'd expect would have come from Democrats.
There's also some mystery going around Trump's view of marijuana.
Axios is reporting that it might be another one of those situations where the Republicans can steal a topic that normally you'd expect the Democrats would be more progressive on, like marijuana legalization and/or decriminalization.
And Axios points out that the Trump administration banned food dyes, which you'd sort of expect would be a Democratic thing, calls for an end to animal lab testing, which you'd imagine would be a Democratic thing, and embraced psychedelics for mental health, which again, you would assume would have been a Democratic thing, but they missed all three of them.
I assume RFK Jr. is the reason that Trump is doing some sort of things that you'd expect would have come from Democrats.
But the conversation about marijuana is not to make it legal at a federal level, but to reschedule it.
And there's a little ambiguity about what that really means, but if you reschedule it, it will look like you did something, but it won't change the world that much because it's not legalizing it.
It's just rescheduling it.
which would be, it might be officially recognized for medicinal use.
So the federal government could say, well, it's not legal, but if you're using it it for medicinal use and maybe if you've got a prescription from a doctor, then the feds are okay with it.
And that might be enough to allow the weed manufacturers to have a little extra freedom for banking and whatever else that they've been restricted from doing.
But certainly you're probably aware that Republicans are not unified on this.
However, How much of the world is unified on it?
I think 88%, according to a Pew Research Center poll, 88% of people favored medical or recreational use.
88%.
Now, it's medical or recreational use, so my guess is that almost everybody's in favor of medical use because almost everybody knows at this point they almost all know somebody who used it medically and it worked.
So I can see why there'd be 88% support.
will say again that my view on marijuana and legalization is it's a lot like guns.
There's no such thing as guns are good or guns are bad.
Guns are good for some people.
It makes them safer.
And it's definitely bad for other people.
So if somebody's in favor of guns and somebody's not in favor of guns, it's not like you can take the average.
The best you can do is hope that there are more people who agree with your take on it.
And then that's where the law goes.
So marijuana is like that.
It would be catastrophic for some people's lives if you make it easier and, you know, let's say less stigmatized.
Almost certainly that would result in just killing some people.
But that would be the same with guns.
It would be the same with having swimming pools.
It's legal to build a swimming pool in your backyard and that's just a death trap.
Sometimes you have to put a gate around it and stuff, but still.
It's still sort of a death trap.
So a swimming pool could be the greatest thing for people who really like it and can afford it and all that.
But also it's a death trap.
reliably.
I mean you can know for sure a certain number of people drowned in swimming pools, most of them children.
So marijuana is neither bad nor good.
It's life-changingly good for some people, and I'm one of them.
I don't know.
I should just admit to you, I wouldn't be able to do my podcast without it.
This morning, as every morning, I'm on some meds right now that give me just insane cramping and stomach aches.
It just pops up maybe three times a day.
But marijuana makes it go away.
And since I'm a chronic user, I don't get all the psychedelic, that's the wrong word, but I don't get strong reactions from the drug.
All it does is calm my stomach.
So I'm very high right now.
Could you tell the difference?
Probably not.
If you had never had marijuana before and you tried doing it right before you did a podcast in front of tens of thousands of people, would that be a good idea?
No.
No, that would be a very bad idea.
But I happen to be a chronic lifetime user.
and it has very predictable benefits to me.
So my stomach right now, perfect.
Completely cured.
Takes about 15 minutes.
So I just give myself the cure, wait about 15 minutes, and a tremendous amount of pain.
I mean, it's a lot of pain.
It just goes away.
So right now I have no pain in my stomach.
So I would like people like me to have access to it, but I acknowledge that in a free world it will cause other people to die.
And that's not ideal.
But it's a way we make decisions about all the stuff that's good for some people and bad for others.
Well, the Ukraine conversation, oh, I shouldn't say conversation, I hate that word.
The Ukraine negotiations, the meeting, looks like it's going to be on Friday in Alaska.
And Trump is wisely making sure that his administration is talking to the Europeans because they were fearing being sidelined and left out of the deal.
And also talking to Zelensky and trying to make sure that they're somewhat on the same page.
Now, I do agree that Trump should meet with Putin without them.
Because if you add too many voices too soon, nothing good happens.
I mean, yet the decision makers are Putin and probably Trump.
Everybody else just has to be browbeat to get on board if they can come up with some kind of deal.
So it does make sense to me that Trump would have this conversation with just Putin.
I feel like that moves the ball ahead a little bit.
I don't think there's really any chance that they'll make a deal on this one meeting.
Do you?
I feel like there's not enough to work with.
It might be important to the process of continuing to talk and working it out and maybe somebody will come up with the idea that works.
But I doubt it.
Here's what I think is going to happen.
Axios is reporting that insiders are saying that Trump is, quote, still pissed off at Putin for yanking him around all these times and not being serious about peace, which is kind of embarrassing for Trump because he made some promises that he could wrap up that war quickly, and nothing like that is happening.
But if it's true that Trump is pissed off at Putin, then I want this meeting to be between Trump and Putin because if we know anything about Trump he's going to say something like this this is also from Axios that there are more ways that basically Trump could close down the Russian economy now that would be a much bigger step than anything that's happened so
far but do you think that Trump will threaten it There's no way that Trump is going to threaten nuclear war because that wouldn't sound believable and it'd be a bad idea.
But we know that Trump likes to threaten.
And I doubt that he's going to have a personal conversation with Putin, who he is pissed off at, and not threaten him.
There's going to be some threats.
Now, how he words the threats, there's a lot of variability.
It might be offensive and it might be polite.
We don't know.
But I feel like Trump is going to sit in the room with Putin and he's going to say, here's the deal.
You just made me look like a chimp.
No good.
I'm going to have to destroy your whole fucking economy unless you give me a peace deal.
Because you made me Putin, you made me look like an idiot.
I promised I would wrap this war up and then you're working on the other side from that.
I'm fucking pissed off at you.
You need to make this right.
Otherwise, if you and I are never right, say goodbye to your fucking little economy.
I'm going to find ten new ways to squeeze you into dust because you fuck with me.
Now, would he be able to say that if the room was full of Zelensky and European leaders?
Not really.
Not really.
He wouldn't be able to say it as clearly as it needs to be said.
But what I suspect is that Trump's leverage is his personal feeling about this.
Let me say that again.
Putin is working with lots of different variables.
There's the military, the economy, there's the personalities and all this.
And most of those things, he has some kind of advantage.
There is one thing he does not have an advantage in, which is how Trump feels about the situation.
If he leaves the meeting, Trump, and he's more pissed off at Putin, Putin loses.
We don't know what he loses.
We don't know if we'll be worse off than Russia will.
There'll still be lots of questions.
But if he pisses off Trump more than Trump is already pissed off, Trump is going to find a way to close down his whole fucking economy.
And he won't really have a choice.
Because you can't let Putin grab you by the nads and swing you around in front of the entire public if you're the United States, and certainly if you're not Trump.
So, well...
Although I don't believe any of this was planned in a clever way, the situation is that if Putin doesn't give Trump something that Trump can take home and say, you know, we got some progress, there's going to be real trouble.
And I think we're at the point where Trump can just squeeze the budgets, the cent of what's left of their economy, and he can do it forever.
And he can just keep making money from Europe buying our weapons.
So if Trump creates a situation where the U.S. keeps profiting selling weapons, and Putin is just losing stuff, you know, he's just spending money on it in the war and he's also having his economy squeezed in all the ways that we can squeeze it.
Trump has some leverage.
So the personal feeling of Trump is his biggest leverage right now.
Putin cannot ignore that because Trump won't.
He won't ignore it and I wouldn't want him to.
So maybe something will happen.
but it will depend how well Trump threatens Putin, whether Putin believes it.
Well, to that point,
Now, do you think that Trump has already sort of approved or authorized or said it's okay with me if Ukraine takes out Russia's energy production capacity?
Because I feel like that's going to happen.
I feel like Trump is going to say to Putin, here's the deal.
The only reason Ukraine hasn't taken out your entire energy infrastructure.
structure is because some of her allies need the energy.
But we're kind of done with that.
And if you don't give me a deal, I'm going to say, look, Ukraine, we'll sell you weapons.
And if you want to take out all of Russia's energy production, that's up to you.
That's between you guys.
And that would scare Putin.
I think it would.
So it could be, it's not a coincidence.
that those energy production things got hit right before the Friday conversation.
Conversation.
Damn it.
Don't use that word.
Well, the National Guard is now deployed in the Washington DC area, 800 guard members and 500 federal agents.
And we'll see how that goes.
MSNBC, of course, is still reporting the hoax crime numbers.
MSNBC doesn't seem to want to admit or tell its viewers that the crime numbers are just complete bullshit.
Because all they have to do is recategorize things and reclassify things and suddenly it looks like crime is going down when it's not.
But even Joe Scarborough is not buying into the Democrat messaging this time, so good for him.
And he read aloud a text he got from a, quote, very liberal person, which is, I guess, if you're on MSNBC and you're disagreeing with the network's narrative, that you don't say that you disagree, you read a text from somebody who is very liberal.
Well, this is not my opinion, but I'm going to read this text from some person you don't know.
And the text apparently said from this very liberal person.
Quote, this may sound controversial, but I'm not totally opposed to Trump's National Guard move in DC.
I know he's doing it for politics, but crime remains rampant.
And the stranger said, the highly liberal stranger said to Joe Scarborough by text, I've had too many friends carjacked, shot at, none of us will walk more than three blocks after 8 p.m. 13-year-olds are committing many of these crimes.
It's quite a change from a decade ago when things were much calmer.
And so Scarborough was talking to Simone Sanders, who used to be Bernie's head of his campaign and then worked for Biden.
And Scarborough says to Simone, you don't think more police makes streets safer?
Now, that's not a real question, right?
Because 100% of the world knows that more police makes your streets safer.
It's not really something you debate.
So Scarborough puts that out there.
You don't think more police makes streets safer?
Simone Sanders says, no, I'm a black woman in America.
So is that an answer to the question, do you don't think more police makes streets safer?
No, I'm a black woman in America.
Okay.
I have nothing to say about that.
But then one of their other regular guests, the guy who looks like has the flaming hair, do you know the guy who's got the gray hair that he's teased so it looks like a gray flame on top of his head?
Anyway, Anand Giraharadaras.
It's tough to pronounce.
And he said on MSNBC, quote, When I go to DC, I'm not afraid of losing my wallet so much as I'm afraid of losing my vote.
He goes on, I'm not afraid of losing my wallet so much as I'm afraid that my children's freedom to breathe will be stolen in a world where climate change policy is non-existent.
Is everybody on MSNBC dumb?
Because they're making Joe Scarborough look like the smartest guy in America just because he's not buying into the crazy part of this narrative.
And then Jamie Raskin was asked about it, about the new emphasis on DC crime.
And he says that Raskin says Trump wants to put the National Guard in the streets of DC because of, quote, graffiti and homeless people.
So Jamie Raskin, one of the designated liars.
I always tell you that there's a small group of people like Swalwell and Raskin whose only job is to say the things that other Democrats would be embarrassed to say because it's just so obviously ridiculous.
No, I don't think Trump brought in the National Guard to work on the graffiti or the homeless people.
Then Raskin says that Trump knows DC crime well because he quote incited a violent mass insurrection in DC.
So he goes back to January 6.
Now, Raskin will be one of the 10 poll protectors.
Now, as you know, everybody watching this knows, January 6th was a...
And what it was is they probably stole the election.
Now, my belief that 2020 was a stolen election is based on the way they treat the January 6.
Because they have such a pattern of projection, which is blaming the Republicans for the thing that they're actively doing right then, that you can use it to predict.
So I don't have any direct evidence that the 2020 election was stolen.
I don't have direct evidence.
But I do see that they're blaming the Republicans for trying to do an insurrection when clearly that wasn't happening.
So why would they be projecting that?
Because they're doing it.
So their projection about January 6 is for me, as a, let's say, as a jaded observer of politics, to me that's confirmation that they, it wouldn't even occur to them to blame the Republicans of an insurrection unless they had just pulled one off.
And it looks like they had.
So my opinion is that the longer they go with this January 6 hoax, the more certain I am that they have something to cover-up and that they're using projection as they always do as part of the cover-up.
Well, how do you know that it's summer?
Well, one way is that one of the most interesting stories is about the new head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I'm hoping that when the summer is over and the news becomes more meaty that I will no longer be talking about the new person at the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
But apparently this new guy, E.J. Antoni, is getting a lot of pushback from Democrats who say that his resume is kind of weak.
He hasn't, he's not enough of a superstar to be in that job.
But other people like Wall Street Mav on X were saying that he's a huge fan of EJ and Tony, and that he's been on TV a bunch of times.
He's been on Steve Bannon's podcast.
And then I understood, oh, I get it.
He's good on TV.
So his resume is a little bit light, but he's a been on all the right shows and he must be good on TV.
So those are, I think that's enough to put him in the job because his job is to figure out how to fix the numbers.
I don't think he has to make up the numbers.
I don't believe he has to sit at a desk and call upon his economics expertise to just make up numbers.
I believe that the job is how to find better, more reliable and timely sources.
Is he capable of doing that?
Probably.
Most people would be able to do that.
You wouldn't have to be an economist to say, all right, can somebody tell me where we can get good numbers and what's stopping us from using them?
So no, you don't need to be the world's most published economist to figure out that the numbers were bad and they need a better source.
And you'll talk to smart people who know where those numbers can be improved.
And presumably, we'll have better numbers someday.
So there's a topic.
And the reason is that I feel like you have to be pretty close to it to have a smart opinion.
And I've never been close to the topic.
In other words, I've never worked in a business where I had to hire somebody like that or I was working with a lot of people who had H1B visas.
So I don't even have a glancing experience with it.
And so every time I'd read about it, I would say to myself, huh.
I'll bet this story in the news is bullshit.
And the reason I think that is because all the other stories are bullshit.
So I feel like not only do I not know enough about the pros and cons of the H1B, but that I could not learn it by reading the news.
I don't think that I could, you know, use AI to tell me because it looks like it's just a bunch of people lying about stuff.
So here's what I think is true.
What I think is true is that there are some well-meaning people who say let's just use these visas to bring in people from other countries who have very specific skills that for whatever reason Americans can't match.
That might make sense.
But others say, Scott, you fool.
You fool.
Don't you realize that the system will be gamed and it will just turn into a way for big companies to replace American workers who might be too expensive with cheaper labor and then pretend there was no way to hire anybody who could have done that job who was already here as an American.
So I feel like that captures the argument, right?
The argument is if you could do it right, you might get a lot of people to agree with it because it would be a small number of people with specific expertise and we couldn't match it with Americans.
But the reality is you could probably match everything.
The counterpoint would be, there's no such thing as something an American can't do.
There is no such thing.
You might have to try a little harder to hire an American, but there are Americans who could do all those jobs.
So that would be the counterargument, and I don't know which is true.
But we'll probably find out because there will be some changes made.
All right, Zero Hedge is reporting that according to the Financial Times that the Macrons of France secretly hired investigators to dig up dirt on Candace Owens.
Because you might know that Candace Owens is being sued by the Macrons because Candace has done a series of content claiming that Brigitte Macron was born a male and specifically was the person who looks like her little brother in old pictures.
And that she's still a man, basically.
She, of course, would say that's not true, but here's something I noticed today that just Just tells you we live in a simulation If I had to bet on it, I would bet against Brigitte Macron having been born a man And the only reason is because they can make this whole thing go away just by proving she's a woman and that feels like an easy thing to prove doesn't
it?
Could you not release at least the DNA part of the report that said what you were born as?
Couldn't they do that?
You know, maybe they don't want all of her DNA to be in the public domain, but you couldn't have.
somebody just say, all right, the only part we're going to talk about is, yeah, definitely a woman.
Seems like it'd be easy.
They can make the whole thing go away with a minimal amount of effort.
But instead, they're doing this big legal thing and digging through things, et cetera.
But what I wanted to mention is, here's how you know that we're a simulation.
So Brigitte Macron's husband is Emmanuel Macron.
Did you know that the word man is the middle of the word Emmanuel and that you couldn't spell Macron without M-A-N.
So he's got man in his first name and his last name.
But it gets funnier.
He's married to Brigitte Macron, and if you were to just remove letters from Brigitte, you would have I-T, and then you remove some letters from Macron, and you'd have man.
So it would be it-man.
Now, Is that a weird coincidence that the entire topic is about whether or not she's a man and that both of their names have man right in their name?
What are the odds of that?
Anyway, so I'm going to bet against her being, uh, having been born a man.
But, and let me, let me use the, uh, Candice Owens hypothesis to make a point I made yesterday I told you how if you don't understand the things could be not true and yet there'd be tons of evidence that says it's true this might be one of those it might be that that you know she was born a woman but there's just tons of coincidental things that sort of suggest
she wasn't so I don't know what the truth is there, but I'd go 60, 40, that the evidence is not conclusive.
But we'll see.
Maybe we'll know at some point.
Rasmussen did a poll on whether people trust the New York Times.
What percent of, let's see how good you are at answering this question.
What percent of likely U.S. voters said they had, quote, a lot of trust in news coverage from the New York Times?
What percent said they had a lot of trust in the New York Times?
That's right.
If I could see your comments, I would know that you're saying 25%.
The answer is 23.
But there is another 27 that have some trust.
They've got a little bit.
Some trust.
So that's not good.
That's as close as you can get to having nobody trust you.
If a quarter of the people say they do, that is as close as these polls get to zero.
which I've described to you in the past.
Well, let's do an update on the Democrats, the dumbest Democrats.
And Beto O'Rourke is doubling down on the cursing, because that's what they think is the problem, not enough cursing.
He said at an event, who cares about the effing rules right now?
Throw some punches, win some effing power.
And everybody cheered.
Now, maybe the crowd is the problem, because they shouldn't cheer for that.
He just described a losing strategy.
The losing strategy is to once again ignore policy, and ignore the rules of decorum, and throw some punches and fight harder and swear more.
And everybody's like, yeah, yeah, that's not good advice.
That's a terrible idea.
That's not going to get you anything.
And the things he focuses on are the fight and the...
the winning of power Shouldn't he be focusing on how he's going to help the people who have been ignored, the middle class?
Shouldn't he be telling us how he's going to decrease the national debt or keep us out of wars?
None of that.
No, just some vague fight, fight, fight, and swear a lot.
So that's the Democrat update.
Well, Hamas is trying to broker some kind of a deal before Israel does what it says it's going to do, which is a complete occupation of Gaza City and some other places.
And they're going to destroy every last trace of Hamas before they So Israel says they don't want to own Gaza.
They want to just get rid of Hamas and then have it run by some Arab coalition maybe that doesn't like Hamas either.
So Nanyahu says our goal is not to occupy Gaza.
Our goal is to free Gaza.
That's a good reframe.
The goal is to free Gaza.
He says the goal is to fully root out Hamas everywhere before stabilizing the region and eventually handing leadership off to friendly Arab forces opposed to Hamas.
Well, can you think of anything that would be a different plan from that that might work?
I can't.
You know, you don't have to be in favor of it or against it.
You can simply say, what the hell else are they going to do?
Like, what else would they do?
I can't think of anything.
So as plans go, it looks like the most workable plan of all the plans that aren't workable.
I wouldn't bet it's going to be successful, but it's better than anything else.
Well, India and China are trying to restore their economic links and friendliness.
It's been a problem since the 2020 border clash.
But it looks like Modi might need to put a little pressure on Trump by saying, well, you know, if we don't get everything we want with our tariffs, et cetera, we might have to get a little closer to China.
You wouldn't want that, would you?
So it looks like Modi is playing a...
So we'll see where that goes.
Well, the AI company called Perplexity has offered to buy the Chrome browser from Google because Google's got this antitrust case going on.
And part of the antitrust case is that they might be asked to sell off some of their assets that are non-competitive, like Chrome.
Non-competitive meaning too competitive.
They have too much of the market.
And Perplexity is offering to buy it for about twice the value of all of Perplexity.
So there is some thinking that they could get backing to do that deal.
And then Perplexity would own Chrome.
I wouldn't bet that that's going to happen, but it might happen.
Could be a big deal.
And then you probably know that the golden...
dome is being planned and implemented, and that would protect the United States from incoming missiles and apparently we know a little bit more about the plan it'll have a four-layer defense system and they presented their idea to 3,000
defense contractors so that people can bid on parts of it so I guess it's better to have a golden dome than not to have a golden dome so that's good all right I can't see your comments because I'm broadcasting only on X. I had a little problem with the Rumble studio this morning.
