God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, AI Robots Anticipation, Apple Health Monitoring, MAHA Kids Health, DEA Arrests 600 Cartel, Heathrow Airport Evacuation, Glowing Orb UFO, Iryna Zarutska Murder, Racial Bluntness, Epstein Birthday Card Hoax, Qatar Hamas Leaders Bombing, President Trump, 2024 Job Numbers Revised, Vaccinations Study, RFK Jr., Attorney Aaron Siri, UK France Nuclear Weapons, Michigan 15 Accused Electors, Poland Drone Attack, CA ICE Masking, 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.
I will uh check on the stock market for you while you're finding a seat.
Grab a beverage.
It's almost time for your favorite thing.
Alright, Tesla's up a little bit.
SP's up a little bit.
Bitcoin's up a little bit.
Hmm.
Alright.
We'll take it.
But I think I know why.
I'll tell you in a minute.
Hey everybody.
Alright.
Soon as I have your comments working perfectly.
Which is now.
We'll get going.
We'll get going.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called coffee with Scott Adams, and you never had a better time in your whole life.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is uh copper margora glass, a tanker chalice stein, a canteen joker flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Alright, well done.
Let me let me just say you're so good at sipping.
Impressive.
Alright, what's the news?
Oh, here's why the stock market might be looking good.
Um there's a new inflation report.
Inflation is uh well below what was expected and estimated.
So 2.8 the uh core inflation, um, versus they thought it might have been 3.5 because it had been 3.4.
So do you believe that?
Or do you think there'll be some kind of adjustment later?
Remember, all data is fake or out of context, or short term is different from long term, or there's some kind of an anomaly in it.
So don't get too excited, but if this were real, it would uh convince the Fed to lower interest rates, right?
Maybe.
Well, here's an update on uh what happens if you have a piece of content that uh Elon Musk boosts.
Now, unfortunately, it was not in my ex account.
It was someone else that made a clip of uh something I did on the show, and Elon liked it enough to uh repost it, and it's up to 20 million views.
So that's what happens when Elon hits two buttons.
Um speaking of Elon, he was at uh appearing by video at the all-in summit.
Um, and uh had a few things to say that were were pretty interesting.
Um he said that if AI and robots don't solve our national debt, we're toast.
Now, do you feel comfortable knowing that the only way we're gonna survive is if AI and robots somehow can figure out how to solve our national debt?
Is that something you'd bet on?
Hmm.
I think the AI and the robots will solve our national debt.
I you know, I can't tell if he believes that's you know, like a likely scenario, because in theory it could boost our you know economic everything by amounts we can't imagine right now.
So you know you could follow the argument, but Would you bet on it?
The AI and robots would somehow create enough economic whatever that we wouldn't just spend more if we made more.
If the government got, let's say, greater tax income.
Do you think they'd pay down the debt?
I don't know.
So maybe.
Um but uh I don't want to bum you out, but I'm getting more and more worried that uh AI will never be sufficient to run a general purpose robot, that there'll always be lots of robots, but they'll be doing one thing, like vacuuming your floor or you know, being on an assembly line or making coffee.
Yeah, there's gonna be there'll be a ping pong robot, there already is there's a badman robot, there's there might be maybe a shirt folding robot, but I don't think we're ever gonna get to a general robot where you could,
for example, just show how to do something, and it could it could work out you know the things that you didn't show it directly, they could just figure out well, you know, probably I'd have to do this to get this done.
I I'm starting to think that it's not gonna happen.
Here's why.
If weren't we weren't we talking about the uh the robots that would be introduced right now, you know, within the next couple of months, uh a year a year back, or a year and a half back, were we not saying that the end of 2025 we'd have what we need for you know the robots,
but I don't really see the general purpose robots, and still, whenever there's a demonstration, the damn robots doing exactly one thing for 25 or 30 years.
I've been seeing news reports about somebody built a robot that would do exactly one thing.
It doesn't really look like we've made gigantic progress.
Now, uh the physical body of the robot looks like there's a lot of progress, progress, but I don't think I'm seeing anything in our current versions of AI, or even the way we do AI or the way we train it.
I don't see anything that would create a robot quality AI, even if we kept training it and trading it.
And there's some indication that we're hitting some kind of a training plateau already.
So is there some unlimited amount of new training material that our current models could get us to a robot that could just sort of live with you and figure stuff out, same as you?
It doesn't look like it.
It doesn't look like it.
And don't you believe that if we were going to have that in another year, which is, I think, the current estimate, If we were gonna have that, you know, the real general robot, don't you think that we would already see demos that would just blow your mind, right?
Because there's a long, you know, cycle lead time before you're actually in the market and you can make them in scale and everything.
So if they were gonna be for sale one year from now, the demos you would already be seeing would be you know fully functional.
So I don't know, maybe, maybe not.
And uh according to Joe Wilkins writing for futurism, there's some data that shows that AI use is actually now declining at large companies.
Now, I don't know if that's really a useful number, because you would expect that there would be something like uh a whole bunch of excitement and people would overbuy it, and then over time they would say, Hmm, it wasn't quite doing what I wanted it to do, and so it'd fall off a little bit, excitement would dry up, and then people would start finding legitimate uses for it, and then it would start growing back.
So, not too surprising that there would be sort of a pullback after the initial stuff.
I don't know if that's telling us anything, or even if the data is real.
Elon Musk thing he said at that all in uh summit, um, that the uh bigger goal than uh the moon is Mars, and you know, he talked about wanting to um make Mars completely self-sustaining in around 30 years.
Now the argument that he makes is that there's there are always natural disasters, and every planet will eventually be destroyed by something, whether it's an asteroid or we we nuke at ourselves, so we have to have at least one other space escape point, and that's what Mars would be.
But it raises one question with me.
Would the easiest place to build a new non-Earth civilization be just in space in orbit around the current Earth?
Because that way you could get back to Earth, you could have supplies from Earth at the same time, building up your you know, 30 years at whatever it takes to be self-sustaining, um, just as a satellite.
And then if you saw something coming, like, oh, there's a meteor heading toward Earth, you might say, uh, it might be time to orbit another planet, you know, orbit some different planet.
But wouldn't it be easier to preserve life in orbit?
Uh, because you could go back and forth so often while you're getting to the point of full self-sufficiency.
No, I don't know.
Maybe there's some reason that Mars is the right answer.
Well, here's some science that I probably could have told you how it was going to turn out.
Emily uh Caldwell's writing for the Ohio State University.
Apparently, a keto diet was linked to a 70% reduction in depression symptoms in college students.
But because it was a kind of study that they didn't do a control group, you know, there was no placebo control group sort of thing.
Wouldn't you imagine that if you said to a bunch of college students, hey, I've got a proposition for you.
What is it?
We're gonna put you in a scientific study, and they'd be like, Oh, no, I you know, that sounds icky.
Okay, wait, you haven't heard of the details.
We're gonna uh fix you delicious food, you won't have to shop, prepare it uh or clean up.
Like we'll just basically deliver you stuff on disposable dishes, and it will be delicious and healthy.
And by the way, keto has lots of good stuff in it, so you don't have to worry about you know not having good stuff, and uh, and then we'll have contact with you and we'll be checking in with you.
Don't you think that that would almost guarantee that people would have less depression?
Because don't you think just being less lonely and having a purpose, just the the being as part of the research, that alone, no matter what they were researching, if they gave you lots of points of contact and you thought you were doing something useful, and then you also had the uh the placebo effect of believing, well, this looks like healthy food is certainly gonna fix many of my problems.
You put all that together, and it wouldn't matter what the nutritional value of the food was.
I would expect people to say they had fewer depression symptoms just because of the way they were treated, you know, basically treated like kings, and they didn't probably didn't have to pay for their own food.
So I'm assuming that the food is free.
So if you got a free food and people fussed over you and asked your opinion, and you weren't as lonely, yeah.
If the food was no more healthy than the other food you had, you'd probably feel a little less depressed.
But I also think eating right is good for your brain.
So I do believe the that it's um healthy.
Well, Apple had some announcements.
They're making a thinner, better phone with better cameras and stuff.
But the uh big news, if you can call it that, is that uh Apple is going harder into health sensing stuff.
So they they got some stuff built into their ear pods now.
Um they can uh it can well basically all of their stuff, their watch, their air air buds, and their phone are all gonna have lots more health-related apps, uh, but also live translation in five languages.
So that's not health related, but how cool is that you got to be alive at the time when humans could actually put a little earbud in an ear, and it would translate in real time five different languages.
I mean, just hold that in your mind for a moment that you're alive when that became just a consumer product, it's not even special, so yeah, you can buy it at the store.
Um, but I guess they can also now measure everything from your sleep to your ovulation to your sleep apnea, your temperature, your vitals, your heartbeat, your uh hypertension, yeah.
So Apple's gonna save your life.
Well, the uh the Maha make America Healthy again.
They have a commission that released a big strategy yesterday to approve children's health, because as you know, children have many chronic health problems that we didn't used to have in say my childhood, and they're still trying to figure out why.
Um, but as part of that, they've got more than 120 initiatives, um, including advancing research on autism, more on that in a minute, pesticides, vaccine injury, water quality, and all the other stuff.
120 initiatives.
That's a lot of initiatives.
Is that even manageable?
If I told you that something was happening, and there would be 120 initiatives, would you say to yourself, wow, that's good.
That's a lot of initiatives.
That can only go right with that many initiatives.
I mean, even if a few of them went bad, you still might have 80, 90 great initiatives.
Or do you say to yourself, with the Dilbert filter, uh the hypothetically, the most number of uh initiatives that any entity can handle would be about five, and anything beyond that will just become a cluster, you know.
So, well, I hope.
Um, it but it on the other hand, you know, to be uh less skeptical, on the other hand, there probably are at least 120 environmental risks that are gonna require somebody to work full-time to figure out what's what on just that one risk.
So, yeah, I I can see it under 20.
Um anyway, just the news is reporting on that.
So would you be surprised?
I know this will shock you, I know, that uh judge blocked something that Trump wanted to do.
No, no, really.
No, I'm not making that up.
There was a judge who decided that Trump wasn't allowed to do a thing that was just part of his normal job.
Does it feel like groundhog day?
That just every day you wake up and is there another story about another judge blocking another Trump thing that he just wanted to do, which he totally has a right to do?
Yes, and now the judge is blocking the firing of that Fed governor, Lisa Cook.
Um, I'm not even gonna look into the details of that story, because I imagine it'll get appealed, and I imagine that in the end the president can do the things that are the job of the president.
So um, another probably just uh just a bump of the road, probably.
Well, another one of those uh smuggler boats has been destroyed, but this time the Navy was nice enough to let the humans get off first and the drugs get off.
So they captured a bunch of drugs and then they uh very impressively blew up the bo blew up the uh smuggler boat and sunk it.
And uh in other news, um the post-millennials reporting on some of this, that over uh 600 suspected Sinaloa cartel members were arrested by the DEA in a 23 state sweep, six hundred cartel members now.
What is the first question you ask yourself when you hear that 600 cartel members just from one cartel?
There are more than one cartel, uh but 600 of them were arrested in 23 states.
What's their first question?
Well, my first question is how many are there?
Is 600 uh did we get most of them?
Is that like well, good news?
We got 95% of them, or did they get 2% of them or 1%?
Doesn't it really matter what percent they got?
Have I ever told you too many times that if the only thing they tell you is the number or the percentage, but they don't tell you both, if they only tell you one or the other, somebody's trying to bullshit you.
So it's making me wonder if we're supposed to think that we're much safer now because 600 have been picked up, or if we knew that there were really 20,000 of them, would you feel much safer?
So I feel like we're being managed a little bit.
Uh it's possible that we have no idea how many there are, but uh an estimate would be useful.
Well, apparently uh ice is uh going in to Chicago to uh do its job, arresting people, and uh it's uh it's gonna be called Operation Midway Blitz, and that part apparently is totally legal as far as I know, because it's the Fed's job to do exactly that.
If uh so they're not dealing with crime in general, that's just the uh they're dealing with the immigration problem.
And let's see what else has happened.
According to the Guardian, there was uh uh there was an airport, where was this?
Heathrow, part of the airport Heathrow was evacuated because they thought there was some kind of uh some kind of poison gas or something.
So people were falling ill.
21 people fell ill, but when they looked into it and they analyzed all the air and everything, they determined that there was no hazard whatsoever, and that the best guess is that it was a psychogenic illness, meaning that it was all in their heads.
Now, do you believe that 21 people could be so ill that you know they became a statistic?
They must have reported to somebody or must have been detected somehow.
But 21 people falling ill, do you feel there's any chance that could be just in their heads?
The answer is, yeah, easily.
That's not even hard.
Yeah, you you could reproduce this effect fairly easily.
You would just get a few actors to go into a public, you know, crowded space and say, you know, I can barely breathe.
What is that?
And then everybody would smell it.
Like, I smell something too.
It's got me too.
Yeah, it would be about that easy.
You couldn't get everybody.
So, you know, it would be fewer than 20%, you know, might be affected by something like that.
But that would be enough that you would wonder if some you know major contagion just broke out.
So no, it's really easy for that kind of stuff to be in your head.
So how many of you are following the news about the new whistleblower reports about uh UFOs?
And uh there's a big meeting, I guess a congressional hearing, in which the witnesses came in and had some amazing stories of UFO spotting and encounters.
Uh one of them included a glowing orb thing that they thought was some kind of alien spaceship, or at least nothing we know about, and apparently a they have video which they showed is grainy.
I know you're surprised it's grainy.
But yeah, it's blurry and grainy and black and white.
Can you believe it?
And it's a UFO.
I mean, how how could those two things possibly happen at the same time?
I mean, really, what are the odds that something grainy and blurry and black and white would be the only way that they'd get a picture of a UFO?
Okay, but now they've got a picture of what they call a hellfire missile.
I don't know how they know that.
Um, allegedly intercepting it, but bouncing off it, basically not not affecting it.
So that must be alien, right?
Okay.
Uh I'm not even a little bit persuaded that that that they have a video of an alien that just happens to look like a glowing orb, that for some reason, and I don't know what that reason would be, that we shot a hellfire missile at it.
Do you really believe that we shot a hellfire missile at a glowing orb without knowing what the fuck it was?
Or or were we under attack and somehow the news didn't catch that Earth was in an intergalactic fight with a superior technology from another race, alien race?
Are we just just finding out about it now?
Well, what are the odds that we fired a hellfire missile at it?
Whatever it was.
Pretty low.
So, yes, there's a claim, and there's a grainy video that you've come to expect, uh sort of Loch Ness monster style, bigfoot style.
So, no, I was not convinced by that.
And then there were these uh military other whistleblowers are talking about how uh they had personally witnessed things, and uh they were being quite persecuted in in a whole variety of ways, you know, things things were happening that would be suspicious,
except if you understood them as revenge, to which I said, well, you know, I won't go over everything that the gentleman said, but do you believe that there's one person who saw five major UFOs, like including one that's as you know, big as a house.
Do you believe that one person saw five of them at one military base?
Does that pass your sniff test?
And the rest of the base was just like no, look up, look up, there's another one, third one today.
Okay, no, I don't believe any of that.
And then I don't believe the stories of you know revenge and the reason they can't get jobs and everything.
Uh absolutely none of it sounds credible to me.
So I hate to ruin your fun, but uh I'm gonna say that there was not a hundred-foot triangle flying low over Virginia's Langley Air Force Base.
Maybe I would love to be wrong.
You know, I would love to eat crow and you know apologize for being such an arrogant brick about my disbelief Of the UFOs.
But there but whether or not the UFOs are real, the the way it's being presented just doesn't have any credibility at all, in my opinion.
Yeah.
There's one guy's with five unexplained incidents.
All right.
Um, and then there was a report that the uh the military had been regularly destroying all police records every three years, including these reports.
Yeah, there's people destroying the records everywhere.
Yep.
Yeah, none of that I believe.
Um, uh representative Jasmine Crockett's making a little news.
She was on CNN, and she says she believes that uh 80% of the most violent crime in our country is white supremacy.
Oh, Jasmine, Jasmine, Jasmine.
Uh don't you wonder if she believes what she says?
I don't I don't think she does, but it'd be funny if she did.
Um however, I'll tell I'll tell you what the big news is if you're on social media, if you're in the right-leaning social media, especially, there is a lot of what I'll call racial bluntness happening.
Uh a lot of white people and sometimes black people talking about the uh what they say is uh uh a huge problem of black crime, violent crime against white people.
Now, you've all heard the statistics, and you can decide if you've if you think that that's uh um big crime or not, and uh you know, most of the things that people say about this topic have all been said, but there are a few things that maybe have not been said yet, believe it or not.
So I'd like to add one.
Um apparently I saw a Douglas Mackey post on this.
Apparently, the New York Times had decided that uh there would there was spell black with a capital B as in the black man, but the white woman would be a small W. And I guess they had some um explanation for that for why the uh white would be a small W. But uh I think we can all agree that whatever they say is the reason
that that's okay.
That's not the reason.
Well, whatever's going on here, it's not what they say.
I g that's the one we can rule out.
No, it whatever is your worst suspicion about why they only capitalize black and not white, it's that it's that is whatever is your worst suspicion.
I guarantee it, it's that.
Um, so that's going on.
But then I saw some people weighing in on social media who said what I would consider the most obvious thing you would say, the most NPC thing you would say is that it's not about race, it's about uh income.
And if everybody made the same income, then you wouldn't see this disparity.
So do you buy that?
Here's here's what I'll add to that.
If it were true that income is the you know the direct thing that causes violence, then there wouldn't be any places that are poor and also low violent crime.
Am I right?
But there are there are places that are poor and don't have much crime.
So it can't be true that being poor automatically generates violent crime at some higher than normal rate, because it simply doesn't happen everywhere.
So if you know that's not what it is, what is it?
And I know you're gonna say culture, because that's the next thing you say, because it's safer than the alternatives, so you say culture.
I would say I would replace that with design.
So Design.
It might not be intentional design, but but the way some communities are organized, um, they couldn't possibly succeed, even if you just saw it on paper.
It's like, all right, tell me, just give me the facts.
Like, you know, how are you organized?
Oh, okay.
Well, that's not gonna work.
Probably create a lot of crime.
You know, even on paper, it doesn't look like it'd work.
And what I mean by design, if I were gonna give a positive example of good design, I've made this example before, but there's a uh person you should follow on social media called King Randall.
He's a young black guy who's got a school for kids.
Uh, they're mostly but not 100% black, and he's just trying to teach kids um basic life skills.
Now, I would call that good design, because probably he's becoming a role model for people who may not you know have a dad at home, or maybe if they do, he's not the best role model.
So they've got at least one positive role model who cares about him and teaches them useful things and makes them confident, and and he specifically teaches them not to think as victims.
Now that would be a design.
Would you call that a culture?
Well, you could if you want to, but I would say that King Randall has simply designed a situation that affects probably hundreds of people by now.
Um, and on paper, you would know that that would create more successful people.
If you ask me to look, do you would his students who listen, let's say people who spent more than a year with him, would I expect them to have a high violent crime rate?
Nope.
Nope.
I would not expect them to have a high violent crime rate.
So design.
You could design a system that just simply didn't cause as much violent uh crime.
All right, that's not the only variables involved, but it's a lot of them.
And then you also have to ask yourself is there any correlation between what makes somebody poor and what makes them violent?
Because in both cases, isn't there something in common?
Like, you know, the people who can't figure out how to make money may have to resort to what they can figure out in some cases, which might be violence.
So it does seem like uh it's not the poverty per se, it's whatever caused the poverty.
Um according to Dr. Martin Macquarie, is it this is the FTA?
Uh so the government used to uh send out warnings to pharmaceutical companies doing commercials on TV or doing ads, I guess just ads.
And uh they used to do hundreds of notices because that's how many times the pharma ads would be misleading, hundreds of times per year, and that sort of died down until under Biden it went down to zero,
zero times they told the pharma, hey, that's misinformation, but apparently uh Trump administration's gonna crank that back up, and you'll get a little bit more honesty from those commercials.
Do you remember the story about allegedly Trump uh drew a little body birthday card for Epstein?
And allegedly, and there's a debate over whether it's really his work, um, had some weird little message, kind of cryptic, and there was a crude drawing of just the outline of a woman's body, you know, no details, and his signature.
And uh some say the signatures, you know, where the pubic hair would have been.
Um, but I don't know, maybe maybe that's just also just the place he signed it.
You know, maybe had nothing to do with that.
But um, I'll give you my opinion now that I've seen it, because before we were only hearing about it, but now we've seen it.
And um, my take is uh remember how I always say Trump is a great writer, just one of the best writers.
It's just not the way he writes.
And I doubt there's anything about the fact that it was you know X number of years ago that changed him from you know, whatever wrote that to the way he writes now, which I often say is some of the best writing in the world, like it's just world-class writing, his posts on truth and uh anything he writes, basically.
He's an amazing, amazing writer.
So to imagine that the one of the best writers you've ever seen would also have been in that context, where there was quite a bit of writing on the card.
To imagine that he was also the worst writer, I mean it's not even close.
Whoever wrote the card is not a good writer, like not even not even a little bit.
So I guess the White House is denying that it's actually his.
I'm going to say I would back him on that.
You know, anything's possible, right?
Anything's possible.
But I think I'd back him on that.
It doesn't look like his.
I mean, not even a little bit.
So I'll go with that.
But you never know.
Um as you know by now, Israel uh bombed uh, I guess it was five Hamas leaders who were in Qatar because Qatar hosts them and you know, knew knew they were there, and uh explicitly allowed them to be there, um, even though they were you know wanted as terrorists by Israel.
So Israel, um, which I don't think anybody was really expecting, uh bombed them because they were all in the same place for some reason.
And uh Trump just weighed in and he actually sort of criticized Israel.
Wink wink.
Um actually, I don't know, maybe he's really mad, but let me just tell you what he said.
He said he was just you know notified that day, and uh he said he did not approve of the bombing of a sovereign nation that is our ally.
So he was taking Qatar's side, saying it was an appropriate bombing.
Uh and he said he's working very hard for peace, meaning uh with uh Gaza, and uh that the bombing did not advance our or Israel's goals.
Um, but then he did say that you know he's happy about Hamas leadership being eliminated, that that's that's a good thing.
So he managed to actually try to keep himself out of it.
Who knows how much conversation, if any, happened before the attack, but he managed to make a story where we're just finding out about it and uh we don't love it, but you know, at least something good came out of it, you know, the getting rid of the five leaders.
So I guess he's trying to have it both ways to get the uh the benefit of having let's say a little more pressure on Hamas for a piece, um, without saying that we were part of it.
So if I were to judge him on skill level, pretty good, pretty pretty good.
Yeah.
I mean, you can't what what would he say?
Would he say, Oh, I didn't know anything about it?
Um, which is sort of what he was saying.
Um it's a good answer, good political answer.
Well, as you know by now, maybe uh the jobs numbers for last year were off by over 900,000, nearly a million, off by a million, um, and that they were downward revised.
So there was a fake impression that we were doing well under Biden, but in fact, we were doing not so well if you count jobs.
You might know that I often say, um, you know, the economy is complicated, but if jobs are good, you can usually depend on figuring out you know everything else out.
But if jobs are bad, then you don't have much to work with.
It's just a much harder deal, especially if you're $36 trillion in debt.
So it's a big big deal that instead of being job positive, we were job negative and we were lied to.
I remind you that all data is fake.
Even things that I relied on the podcast today.
You can't really believe any data.
That's the world you live in.
And the sooner you realize that you can't trust any data, just any.
I mean, you still have to make decisions.
So you have to sometimes act like you trust it or just take a leap because you gotta you gotta choose yes or no, so you gotta do something.
But no, if you trust data, it's a mistake.
I saw a post uh next by uh Chamath, uh Pela Hapatia from the All In podcast, and uh he said, uh, now can we admit it?
Uh I think he's talking about the jobs reports being uh revised.
He said, now can we admit it?
The Fed is woefully ill-equipped to set monetary policy in an economy as dynamic and complicated as the US in 2025, added in the reliance on useless and wrong data, and it's a recipe for disaster.
So he was uh separately.
Chamatha talked about how they only meet every so often so that they you know it's sort of a it's almost like um horse and buggy kind of technology.
Uh so they have a bad process, they're not very fast, and their data may be completely wrong, and they may be too late.
So why do we pay them?
Uh we got questions.
All right, how many of you saw, I guess it was a Sunday hearing on the safety of vaccinations, and they had a lawyer who must uh looks like he has a lot of experience in that suing people over vax injury.
Uh Aaron Seary, S-I-R-I.
That's interesting.
Um, that must be so annoying to have your last name activate digital devices all over the world.
But he was really good.
And one of the things that he claims is that there was a study that 10 years ago found that of unvaccinated kids, 17% of them had chronic health issues, but of vaccinated children, 57% of them had at least one chronic health issue.
Now, do you know why you never saw that study?
It's because they had that result.
So his claim is that they realized whoever did the study realized that they would all be fired or lose their job or you know, never be able to be happy again if they published that because it would be so counter to the entire medical establishment.
So they put it in a drawer.
Uh, but what they found is that um uh within the the vaccinated group, there were 262 people with ADHD.
In the unvaccinated group, there were take a guess, 262 people with ADHD in the vaccinated group.
Now we're not talking about COVID, by the way.
Sorry, I probably confused you.
This is not about COVID.
It's about childhood vaccinations, where there are as many as 70 of them the kid gets.
And so they were looking at, I think they looked at the combination of them.
So you could just look at kids who got all their vaccinations, like all of them, versus the ones that didn't get any.
And 262 of the vaccinated ones had ADHD, and the number of unvaccinated people who had ADHD was zero.
Zero.
Yep.
Zero.
Now, remember, all data is fake.
So why would you believe what you've been told so far?
You know, you've been told all your life vaccinations were healthy and good and they've been tested, and don't worry about it.
Um, but if you don't believe that now, why would you believe the new thing?
Well, why would you think the new study's accurate?
Well, it does have that feeling of accuracy, doesn't it?
Because there's nobody who could make money by that study, and it was shut down, which is exactly what you would have expected.
So I'm not saying I know it's accurate, because remember, I don't want to be a sucker and assume that some data is accurate and some isn't when we live in a world where mostly it's an all-inaccurate.
But I don't know.
Zero, zero ADHD in one group.
Um, I feel as though there's a very good chance that RFK Jr. is gonna have a reputational turnaround like nobody's business.
It might be one for the ages.
Do you do you realize what might be happening?
We might be on the verge of finding out that that nut job, RFK Jr., that crazy bastard who is always spreading that misinformation.
We might be finding out he was right all along.
Maybe not about a hundred percent.
You know, you know, there may be some nuance there that is not a hundred percent right, but that would be true of everybody.
All right.
Um, so this uh Dr. S I R I, his name I will not pronounce.
Um he was a really good lawyer.
So of course he's asked the following question by Democrat Senator Blumenthal.
Uh he said, uh, are you a doctor?
Because he talks like that.
Are you a doctor?
So what would you say if you're a lawyer who specializes, it sounds like has lots of experience in this domain as a lawyer, but not as a doctor.
And so he's gonna try to impugn his expertise by saying, Aren't you a doctor?
Are you a doctor?
And here was his answer.
He goes, No, but I depose them regularly, including the world's leading ones with regards to vaccines, and I have to make my claims based on actual evidence when I go to court with regards to vaccines.
I don't get to rely on titles.
Oh, snap.
I don't get to rely on titles.
I have to prove it with data.
Oh, oh man, I'll buy that lawyer.
Can I can I hire him?
He's good.
You you'd want him defending you or pressing your case.
Yeah.
What I got when I go to court, I gotta bring actual evidence.
I don't get to rely on titles.
Bam.
Bam.
That's the hardest I've ever seen anybody judo flipped on on that accusation about expertise.
Here's another one.
Here's uh RFK Jr.
Again.
Um, you want to hear a good answer to a question?
Listen to this.
So Kennedy is asked by somebody.
Um, if he's so concerned about you know health and um safety, uh, why isn't uh Maha looking at firearms?
Now, my first impression was oh, oh, that's pretty good.
Yeah, that's a pretty good, you know, gotcha question, because he doesn't want to be working for the Trump administration and come out against guns, but on the other hand, you can't really claim that there's no gun problem.
I mean, in the sense that people are dying from from guns.
So you know, is he what's he do with it?
Here's what he says.
He goes, we had comparably the same number of guns when I was a kid.
Nobody was doing uh that walking into buildings or shooting strangers, he meant.
Uh, we had gun clubs in my school.
Kids brought guns to school and were encouraged to do so.
And nobody was walking into school and shooting people.
So then he goes, and this is not happening in other countries.
Switzerland has a comparable number of guns as we do, and the last mass shooting they had was 23 years ago.
We're having mass shootings every 23 hours.
So there's many, many things that's happening in that are happening in the 1990s that could explain these, because that's when you know the curve went up.
And he goes, one is the dependence on psychiatric drugs, which in our country is unlike any other country in the world.
Wow.
Why do you think the US has somebody needs for psychiatric drugs?
I feel like some of it might be that we're lonelier.
Do you ever think that?
Maybe we're just lonelier.
So you get more depressed, you get more of those drugs.
But wasn't uh Kennedy's answer genius?
I'd never even heard that argument that we had a comparable number of guns, but the behavior was different, so we should be looking at something besides the guns as the cause of the problem.
That's pretty solid, pretty solid argument.
I never heard that.
Um here's a post from uh a anonymous economist.
So there's an anonymous economist on X, who has a very provocative uh post.
And if I can get my cat off my notes, I will read it to you.
You can make up your own mind.
All right.
This is uh he goes by the name of Dr. Insensitive Jerk.
And uh he points out that uh in uh apartheid South Africa, uh, it is unique as the only country to have independently uh developed, produced, and then voluntarily dismantled its own nuclear arsenal.
I'm not sure everybody knew that.
I I didn't know that.
Um, and then points out that in uh 1993 the apartheid government destroyed its six nuclear weapons just before it handed the keys of the government over to the uh the black population, and and we should he says we should all thank them for that.
He says, now Britain and France stand where South Africa stood in 1990.
Uh-oh.
About to hand their nuclear arsenals over to the Muslims who supplant them in their own lands.
Great Britain must immediately dismantle its 225 nuclear weapons while it still can.
Uh, likewise, France has 290, and he says, disarming France and Britain must be a U.S. foreign policy priority.
To which I say, You can't say that.
Make your own judgment.
Obviously, I don't expect us to try to do that, but if we could, I would definitely want it, because I do think that uh one of those two countries will be the first Muslim country with uh nuclear weapons,
and uh there is uh a little extra risk if your uh understanding of the universe is based on uh one set of assumptions versus another, so there is an extra risk there.
Well, this is funny.
Apparently, so there's gonna be a uh January 6th panel that's gonna look into January 6th from uh let's say from a Trump-friendly point of view, but I guess they have to have some Democrats on the committee too, or the panel.
And so uh Jeffries, Hakim Jeffries, the leader, uh he appointed the people he wants to work on the January 6th panel.
And who do you think he appointed?
He appointed Jasmine Crockett uh and uh uh Jared Moskowitz, and uh did he also do Swalwell?
All right, yeah, I think he also nominated Eric Swalwell.
So how much work are they gonna get done with Jasmine Crockett and Eric Swalwell?
I don't know the other guy.
But it looks like it feels like Kim Jeffries was just playing a prank.
It's like, all right.
How about these two?
Well, do you remember 2020?
And do you remember when the January 6 insurrection hoax was raging?
And there were 15 uh accused false Trump electors.
So one of the things that the Trump um lawyers tried to set up was to get some people to be alternate electors.
And apparently they got indicted and uh went to trial.
And but now a Michigan judge has thrown out the case against the 15 so-called false Trump electors, you know, the ones that were gonna sit in for the uh the electoral college people um if if there's a certain set of things happened.
Uh so that never happened, but it was a plan that they had.
And the reason this is the interesting part, the reason that it was thrown out is because there was no evidence of intent.
In other words, the people who were involved, the only intent that they could discern was that they intended to make the process work better by maybe rescuing what looked like a problem.
Now, don't you think that that same thing that uh lack of intent is going to be the the weakness for the whole January 6th insurrection hoax?
I've been saying it for a while.
The January 6th insurrection hoax is sort of the the last thing that the Democrats have intact that's like a real serious, you know, um, we'll say federal quality uh hoax, and all it would take to get rid of it is any kind of reporting that talks to the people who participated in January 6 and ask them what was their intention,
and that's it, and that's the end of the hoax.
Nobody's ever done it, nobody's ever asked them, well, what did you think would happen?
Like, what was your intention?
Were you trying to overthrow the country and overthrow the election?
Or were you trying to repair the country and make sure the election was not overthrown by somebody else?
Which one were you trying to do?
All you need is one serious report, you know, it could be like a Wall Street Journal, New York Post, um, that just talks to people.
It's not even hard.
You could just say we talked to 25 people who attended that day, and just say, well, what did they say?
And every one of them, I'm positive, would say, Well, how would uh how would we even overthrow the country anyway?
What are you even talking about?
Exactly.
What was our plan?
Did you think?
Did you think we were gonna loiter around in a building and that would overthrow the United States?
Is that what you think we thought?
And uh that's it.
You get rid of the whole hoax.
You only have to ask 20 people and put a big story together.
All right, so that's a pretty big deal.
The fact that the uh there was no intent found in the one time that they looked for it, the people who were presumed to be part of this large conspiracy.
Judge said there's no evidence of intent.
Of course not.
Of course there was no evidence of intent.
Um let's see, what else is happening?
So, for reasons that are not yet clear, it looks like Russia attacked Poland with a number of drones.
So Poland shot down some of them, and at least one got through or a few got through.
And uh when uh when Putin's uh press team was asked about it, they uh declined to comment and they said uh you need to talk to their defense ministry.
So they basically instead of denying it, so Russia's not denying it.
It looks like they attacked Poland.
But it's not a full-scale attack.
So what exactly would be their purpose?
Was it um just to get their attention?
Is Poland doing something that they don't like?
I think Poland's upgrading their weapons, right?
So maybe Russia is just saying, hey, you know, maybe don't upgrade your weapons that much, because we're not gonna like it.
Is that what they're doing?
I mean, it'd be weird.
All right.
Uh Trump has asked the European Union to hit China and India with tariffs of up to a hundred percent for dealing with um Russia.
So do you think that'll happen?
I don't.
That's not gonna happen.
I don't think, but it makes sense to ask.
You should try.
Well, apparently the California, my dumb state.
Um, the assembly passed a bill to make it illegal for the ice officers to wear masks in California.
Now does my government in uh in California is the only thing they do is sit around and say, all right, what's the most fucked up thing we can do?
Does anybody have an idea for something that's be really bad?
We could raise our taxes and then use it to fund NGOs, which our spouses all work at.
And then somebody would say, We're already doing that, Bob.
We're already doing that.
We're looking for new ideas.
And then they go, uh we we could make it illegal to wear a mask if you're an ICE agent, uh, therefore guaranteeing the terror terrorizing of your family if you're in ice.
Oh, now you're talking.
Good job, Beth.
So I I saw this article in uh in Breitbart, Joel Pollock was writing about it, and my question was, is it legal for the state to tell ICE what clothes they can wear in California?
I suppose it would be legal if they decided to go naked, it would be legal for California to enforce whatever nudity rules we have in California.
But can they tell the ICE officers what to wear?
Can they?
It seems to me like there must be some way to challenge that with my non existent understanding of the law.
Well, I wonder if while I was talking, two of the cutest cats in the world climbed up on this desk.
And yes, it's true.
Two cats better than one.
All right, everybody, that's all I had for now, and uh hope you enjoyed yourself.
It was a lot of news, a lot of news today, and uh probably a lot more being made at this moment.
Those UFOs are about ready to land.
We better get to Mars fast.
All right.
Um I'm gonna go private with the beloved subscribers to locals, and in 30 seconds after I push this button, we'll be private.
The rest of you, I hope to see you tomorrow, same time, same place.
