Comey indictment, lots of AI and other news. Maybe WW3.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, MAHA Dr. Carson, DeepThink AI Robots, Anti-Shoplifter Drones, Flock Safety, Pregnant Women Tylenol, Anna Paulina Luna, James Comey Indictments, President Trump, Anti-Trump Lawfare, EO Domestic Terrorism, George Soros Investigation, Hillary Clinton, Evil-Looking democrats, Hakeem Jeffries Extreme Rhetoric, Emerald Robinson, Election Systems Kraken 2.0, J6 Undercover Agents, Anti-ICE Antifa, Gavin Newsom Anti-ICE Rhetoric, Denmark Mystery Drones, Pete Hegseth, Top Military Commanders Meeting, Political Left Violence, Bot Farm Narrative Promotion, US Policy West Bank Annexation, President Zelenskyy, CA Free Speech Censorship Law, 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.
And let me check your stocks just to see how the days are gonna go.
SP's up a little bit.
Tesla's up a little bit.
Nvidia is down a little bit.
Not bad.
could be worse Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is uh cupper mugger glass of tank or chells of time canteen, joker flask of vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Mm-mm-mm.
Delicious.
Well, in uh news, China allegedly found a million year old skull.
A million year old skull.
Oh, I'm getting an update.
Uh, it wasn't a million year old skull.
Uh it was Joe Biden.
Uh no, I'm just kidding.
It wasn't Joe Biden, it was a million-year-old skull.
Um, but since the oldest known human skull was half a million years old, this uh doubles the potential time that maybe humans have been around in their current form, but they gotta do genetic tests, and then they'll find out for sure if it rewrites the entire history of humankind.
Have you ever believed uh the anthropologists?
I find that I've never believed them, you know, where they find, oh, we found this little fingernail, and this fingernail tells us there's a whole new branch of humanoids.
I I always think that stuff's just made up.
I don't believe any of it.
So it just went from well, the oldest human was about 300,000 years old.
Well, no, well, found what is no 500,000, 500,000.
Oh, no, nope, double that.
One million.
We don't have any idea what was happening back then.
Pure guess.
Well, Ben Carson, Dr. Ben Carson, has been added to the Maha Mix, and he'll uh be working on improving the nutrition standards.
Um, which I love.
I love that uh I'm sure he's the right person, and uh I'm sure that this is one of the most important things we should be doing.
But I will give this one um this one bit of caution.
There's no real nutrition science.
I don't know if you know that, but all that uh, you know, how many vitamins you need and all that, that's all just made up.
Back when I was uh years ago, when I tried to make the product called the Dil Burrito, a frozen burrito that I tried to put all of the vitamins and minerals you would need for one day, so you might get extra, but you wouldn't be short that day.
And what I learned in the process of trying to make a food that had all the vitamins and minerals you need is that the science of which vitamins and minerals and how much you need was changing as fast as we can print the box.
And at some point I said, wait a minute, this isn't science.
We have no idea what's good for you.
We're it looks like we're just guessing.
So that was about when I decided to stop trying to make that product.
Well, believe it or not, according to uh one of the AI observers, uh Asha Tushrivastava, I think that's his name.
Uh maybe it's two words, Ashatosh Shrivastaba.
Anyway, that's as close as I can get.
But anyway, he says that uh Google's deep mind, AI is uh now has a version that is ready for general robotics.
You know how I've been telling you for a long time now that I don't believe that the current versions of AI, the large language models, I don't believe they can ever be adopted to just be a robot brain, because they hallucinate too much and and other problems.
Um, but allegedly Google's deep mind has some version that would be already ready to act as a high-level reasoning brain for robots that could do complicated things they had never done before.
So in theory, you could say, hey, could you wash these grapes?
And if it never washed a grape, it could figure out okay, I need a sink, I need the you know, I need a flosset, I need cold water, not hot water.
So that's the idea.
I'm gonna go full skeptic on this, and I'm gonna say that there is no such thing as a general purpose AI that will work in a robot.
I don't care what they say, I don't believe it.
You know why I don't believe it?
If it can actually operate a robot in a general purpose way, you would see so much video of that.
It would be all over social media.
Look, our general purpose robot uh just learned to do a thing.
Look, it just learned to do another thing, and all I did was tell it what I wanted.
If it could do any of that, it would be all the news.
So no, I do not believe that Google Deep Mind has a general purpose AI that can run a robot.
Maybe someday, but I guarantee if it worked really well right now, you would see the robot.
It wouldn't be a text story about a robot, right?
I I'm not the only one who sees it that way, right?
If it really worked, you would see the video of the robot.
You know, doing full robot things.
There was a video of one robot arm that acted like it was recognizing different objects.
Not impressed, not impressed.
Well, according to MIT Technology Review, James O'Donnell's writing about this, that uh there is a company that makes um uh drones that can chase the shoplifters.
So if you buy this product, if you're a store, and somebody robs your store, you can push a button, and the drone will take off, and then I guess you have to maybe a human has to spot the bad guy running away, but then once the drone is spotted the bad guy or the bad guy's car, it can it can follow it.
So I don't know what happens when you follow it, because I doubt the police are gonna get involved anyway.
So I don't know what could the you know, I I don't think the police really chase too many um too many shoplifters, and it's probably gonna be like a bunch of people, you know, that most of the shoplifting seems to be this, you know, gang of 30 people hit it all the same time.
And one drone's not gonna do much for that.
But I kind of like the idea.
I I would feel safer even if I had one at my house.
You know, if somebody tried to do something at your house, and then the uh drone could give some photographs and take a license plate and make sure it got a picture of the perps.
That would be pretty useful.
Um it's called flock.
Flock safety.
And uh I don't know what their tagline is for flock safety, but if it were me, I'd say, if you steal from me, flock you.
That that's how I would do the marketing.
All right.
Um, well, the uh second quarter GDP got revised, as they always do, but higher.
So all the way up to 3.8.
Now, if you're not an economics nerd, 3.8 GDP, if it were you know, an honest number, would be really, really good.
As in better than we have a right to expect it to be.
Like really, really good, 3.8.
But don't get excited.
It's probably just because the tariffs cause people to buy more and get ready.
And you know, what once all the tariff stuff settles down, um, we'll get an idea what the real number is.
So do not believe that 3.8 is any kind of a sustainable long-term number.
If it is amazing, I mean it would be beyond my highest expectations, but it won't be.
Don't expect that.
But it's better than not being 3.8, that's for sure.
Um, there's a new European startup.
Okay.
Did you know that Europe had startups?
If you heard that there's a European startup that was getting ready to solve some big problem, what would be your first thought?
My first thought was no, they won't.
Nah.
No.
No, there's a reason that there aren't many European startups, or there's no, you know, I don't think there are any unicorns, you know, the ones that are worth more than a billion.
And it has to do with their stultifying um what would you call regulations and stuff.
So basically you get smothered and taxed to death if you're a startup.
But this uh startup called Euclid, according to Dr. Singularity on X, uh, they're building this massive chip system, he says, that would allow lesser powered chips.
Um I think they're lesser powered.
Um, but what it does is use way less power.
So what they're doing is building uh infrastructure for AI that would be way more power efficient.
Um I've been predicting for a while is that the money involved in running the energy needed for AI is so big, you know, we're talking trillions of dollars,
that uh for sure there will be startups trying to reduce the energy drain for AI, and for sure there will be at least incremental improvements, but probably somebody's gonna come up with you know more than an incremental improvement.
So my bet is that uh the big companies will spend a trillion dollars on building out power, and some small company will say, you know, you can do it for one billion now.
We solve the energy problem.
So I feel like the most successful AI company might be somebody who hasn't started yet, because the big ones are gonna run through trillions of dollars.
But what happens if the ones that are fast followers just don't need that much energy?
Suddenly you're you're a pure competitor to chat GPT at uh one millionth of the cost.
So I think that's what's gonna happen.
Well, you may have heard of this in the news.
Uh apparently there are reports that seem credible that there's now a major spike in women being admitted into the ERs because they took too much Tylenol while pregnant to show that uh Trump doesn't know what he's talking about, and at least one woman is essentially brain dead from doing that, and as a baby insider.
So her husband has some tough choices about whether to try to deliver the baby or or or what.
Um, I assume that they they'll try to deliver the baby, because why wouldn't you?
All right, so um That's terrible.
You know, that that's the sort of thing we joked about.
Remember how we would always joke.
It was it was an ongoing joke that if you wanted to kill all just joking, right?
Not not seriously.
Um if you wanted to let's say do harm to all uh Democrats, all you'd have to do is say, uh, you know, um Trump really loves breathing oxygen, and Trump says you should all breathe oxygen, and they would all hold their breath until they passed down and died.
Now that was the joke, but literally, people are taking the Tylenol and dying.
It's not funny, but if you wonder how strong is brainwashing, there you go.
You know, I when I talk about uh brainwashing and persuasion and hypnosis and stuff, there's a tendency for people not to really understand how strong it is.
Now it's not as strong with every person in every situation, so that's why it's confusing.
But for some people, it is a complete takeover of their mind.
And I would say that the these uh Tylenol victims, um probably they're victims of not only TikTok or some social media, because they tend to do it you know publicly, but uh yeah, they they've got CDS, plus they've got social media poisoning.
Well, according to representative Anna Paulina Luna, who uh apparently is in a position to see all the good secrets before we do.
Um, she says that NBC is withholding uh a never before seen video of Lee Harvey Oswald near President Uh Kennedy's limo at the moment of the assassination, which would mean that he was not involved in any way in shooting the president, if that's true.
Now, question number one why would NBC be holding it as opposed to let's say our government and some entity?
Why would NBC have the most important video that could ever be?
And they're just sitting on it, and now they just decided to release it.
Really?
Really?
Um I wonder if it'll be a grainy image.
I haven't seen it yet, but you want to make a bet.
Uh I'm gonna make a bet that it looks approximately like this.
Oh, look.
Oh, look.
It's that's totally that's totally Lee Harvey Oswald.
Do you see him?
Do you see him?
Yeah, something tells me it's gonna look like that.
Do you believe that when you see the picture, you're gonna say, oh my god, that is Lee Harvey Oswald?
Or could it be like those pictures of the 50s?
You know, the old videos you see of people walking in the city and they all look the same.
In 1963, right?
That's what it happened.
In 1963, every guy approximately that age was the same size.
None of them were fat.
They all looked exactly like Lee Harvey Oswald.
They had the same haircut, they were white guys, they dressed the same, they had the same body, all skinny.
Everybody looked like him.
I look like him.
If I had been around then, yeah, a picture of me would look just like him, at least at some point in my life.
All right, so I'm gonna say I don't believe anything about that.
What do you think?
I don't believe any of that.
Uh, but it gets better, according to representative Anna Polina Luna, another story.
She says she's getting horrifying reports that in Haiti, uh, organ traffickers are killing people who were found dead on the street with missing organs.
So do you believe that?
Do you believe that people are being found with missing organs dead on the street because they're selling the organs?
Again, Again, I'm gonna go with no, because that's like one of the most that's that's one of the most famous fake stories of all time.
And the people were found in the bathtub with a note and their and their kidneys were missing.
Okay.
No, I don't believe that anybody's been found.
I mean, there might have been somebody found that you know some damage to their body, and then somebody else said, Ah, it looks like they took his kidney, and then you know, then everybody believes that.
No, I do not believe that the Haitians are uh taking organs.
I don't believe you can just carve it out with a butcher knife and sell it on the open market.
I think it's a little harder than that.
Well, you all want to talk about James Comey's indictment.
So the indictments have come down.
There are two of them.
Uh let's say one of them is that he lied to Congress uh about having a third person leak to the media, when indeed Andy McCabe has already said, oh yeah, he authorized me to leak.
So we've got his number two from the FBI.
Uh who interestingly is also sort of on Trump's enemies list, if you will, virtual enemies list, not an actual one.
But uh McCabe probably will be the witness, because he's already said this, probably the witness that takes down Comey.
Now I kind of like that that it'll be McCabe who takes him down.
Um but then the second indictment is that uh he lied to Congress about that uh have you ever threatened?
No.
The other one was uh lying about something.
One is one is uh one is obstructing justice and the other is lying, but I think that they're both based on the same set of acts, maybe anyway.
So the background is you know that the prosecutor who was in charge got canned for not doing enough.
He seemed like he wasn't sort of on board, might have been more of a Democrat lover than uh what Trump needed at the point.
The statute of limitations was about to run out, that's why there was some urgency, and uh at least from the Trump side, some urgency.
Now, of course, uh as you expect, the the Democrats are going on TV, the talking heads, and they're saying that uh it's lawfare against Trump's enemies, and that that's that's a bad thing and should never be done, and it's setting a precedent.
Uh really is setting a precedent.
So going after somebody with law fare just to end their political career looking for the crime as opposed to responding to a crime, are you saying that that's suddenly that's uh that's wrong, and as if it's never happened to anybody named Trump.
I mean, it's the most it's the most obvious thing that's happened in the last several years, but the Democrats have no shame, and they also know that their Democrat base won't really be able to follow this story.
They're only gonna get the top line.
So if the Democrats go on MSNBC and say, well, nothing like this has ever happened before.
I mean, we've never seen anything like this going after a political person with a bunch of trumped up charges or even real charges that normally would be ignored.
What?
So that's funny, but it's working.
You know, I on one hand, I'm criticizing the Democrats for such obvious lies.
So they're lying about their liar.
So Comey's being indicted for lying, you know, under oath.
And uh the response to his supporters is to lie about it.
So they're literally lying about the liar.
Have I ever mentioned that that's all they have?
The Democrats only have hoaxes and lies.
They did have lawfare, but not anymore, because they're not in charge.
All right.
Um, and uh a lot of people are saying that Trump is just after his enemies and it's only about revenge.
To which I say, if it's revenge against people who did this to you, absolutely fair.
I'm all for revenge.
If it's specific revenge, I would not like him to be lawfaring somebody who had nothing to do with anything.
But lawfaring somebody who was trying to remove him from office and was not a was not a legitimate player, in my opinion.
Totally fair.
Absolutely fair.
And I I think Trump has a free punch all the way up to and including jail.
But it has to pass, you know, obviously through some Democrat judge and some Democrat people on a jury and all that.
So it would take a lot.
Some people say, oh yeah, the facts are clear.
This is an obvious conviction.
Democrats say, oh no, it's murky.
It's murky.
I'm not sure.
I'm not sure there's anything there.
But other people say it's the process that is the punishment.
So making Comey go through this expensive, embarrassing um thing, you know, might be the real the real play.
Roger Stone, as you know, um, he was uh once the subject of the FBI, uh what would you say, raiding his house at uh 6 a.m. and giving him no warning and uh um and then apparently the judge in his case gave him a gag order, so he couldn't even talk about his situation.
And uh Roger Stone asked the perfectly reasonable question.
Wait, why isn't Comey being gagged by the federal judge in his case, like I was?
In fact, why is he being allowed to turn himself in?
Why isn't he subjected to a 6 a.m. raid at his home by 29 heavily armed FBI agents?
Well, that's a perfectly good question, Roger Stone.
So as long as we see this difference in treatment, it really does give the Republicans a free hand, because what has happened to them, and Trump in particular, but also his supporters over the last several years is in my opinion so bad that I can't even imagine any amount of law fare against that group of people that I wouldn't be in favor of.
But in general, I would not be in favor of any law faring against anybody, but this group, oh yeah, yeah, they've got a common.
Uh, I'm all on board with that.
Uh Paul Sperry is reporting on X that uh uh Brendan might be next.
Uh he's hearing that uh they're getting ready to uh do something with Brennan.
Um that might happen soon.
And Mike Benz had an interesting summary of the whole situation.
He said, uh arresting all your political opponents for non-existent crimes, then committing a bunch of real crimes, then losing the next election to those opponents, is just a really bad combination.
Yeah, that's a good advice.
If you're gonna law fare people over nothing, at the same time that you're doing something that's actually super illegal, like super illegal, you don't want to lose the next election, so that the people you were you were uh trying to punish are in charge, but that's what happened.
So here's a question for you.
If uh if the next president is a Democrat, and let's say the I don't know, somehow the Congress went Democrat too in 2028.
Do you believe that Trump would be lawfared again?
Yes, he would, right?
They would law fare him again, just out of pure revenge.
They wouldn't be stopping him from doing anything.
It would just be pure revenge.
Would they do it?
Yes, they would.
What would you do if you were Trump?
And you knew that simply you know, running out your term and leaving, you know, peaceful transfer of power.
If you knew that that would be your death, or that you would be locked up forever by bad actors, what would you do?
Would you leave the job?
Would be kind of dangerous, wouldn't it?
They've created a situation, which is the only situation I can imagine where Trump has a overwhelming incentive to never leave the job.
Now, I don't believe that he has that intention whatsoever.
I believe that he intends to serve his term, do the best job he can, go down in history as one of the great presidents.
And that's you know, he's on track to do that.
Um, but if they start making noise, like the minute you're out of office, you know, we're gonna you know, we're gonna put you in jail, and you know it's gonna be trumped up charges.
What would you do if you were Trump?
Would you say, well, I'll just I'll just fight it in the courts?
Well, the courts are gonna be you know, Obama appointed judges, and you know, you have no reason to believe he would get a fair hearing in the court.
What would you do?
You might be tempted to stay in office and stay alive, keep your family alive.
Remember, the family is probably in jeopardy too.
You know, they would go after Don Jr., you know, or anybody else they could.
So the Democrats are creating the situation very much like they created the situation demonizing ICE and demonizing Trump.
They created the situation where an assassin was almost guaranteed.
They created that.
They are now, if they were to get elected, they would be creating a situation where it wouldn't make sense for Trump to leave the office if he had any way to stay.
I don't know that that's even possible in our system.
You know, the military would have to be on board, and I doubt they would be.
So why are they creating the situation that they fear the most?
I do think, however, that if JD Vance you know is looking good and he wins the election, um, Trump just retires.
No problem at all, because JD Vance is not going to go after him.
But uh it's gonna be pretty important.
I I think if JD Vance um doesn't win, I don't know what's gonna happen.
Yeah, uh all bets are off at that point because you can you expect people to try to stay alive and to do whatever they can to stay in a jail.
If you put Trump in a situation, don't expect him to roll over.
He he should fight as hard as he can.
I hate to say it.
Um so there's that.
So uh Cash Patel is uh telling us that uh the people who are doing the research on Comey, the investigation, are FBI agents and intel analysts and staff uh who are career people, so they're not some political people.
Uh he's saying that they're you know the dependable career people who are doing it.
Now that's so you don't think it's just a political hit.
But honestly, I can't tell if Cash Patello's just mocking the Democrats by saying that.
Because it's sort of just a thing you say.
Is he serious?
Oh, don't worry, this is legitimate because these are career professionals.
Wasn't something like that what they said about Trump when they had all the fake the fake law affair and the fake uh Russia collusion thing?
What wasn't any part of the defense?
Well, yeah, it's these are career FBI people.
I mean, they're not political, they're career people.
So cash is saying the same thing, and it makes me wonder if it's the same reason that they say nobody's above the law.
They don't say nobody's above the law because it's the first thing that comes to mind.
They say it because the other side said it.
But she can't tell.
So is this more of that?
Is this more mocking?
But you can't tell.
Because it might be serious.
I can't tell.
I honestly can't tell.
But it looks like trolling.
Um Ken Delanian of NBC, who is often identified allegedly, as a CIA asset who you know whose job it is to make sure the NBC News does whatever the CIA wants.
That's what they allege about Ken Delaneyan.
But um he's saying that uh that Trump's actions against his uh critics and enemies is uh what do you call it?
Uh never never happened before.
Uh he's he's entered the tradition of not doing that.
That tradition was so ended.
The the Democrats completely removed all the guardrails, and now they have to live with it.
They're they're living in the world they created, but yeah, don't expect them to love it.
All right.
So Trump uh yesterday signed a memorandum directing the federal agencies to go against uh to look for the people funding the domestic terrorists and uh going after them, you know, Antifa, etc.
And uh he said that would include going after some wealthy people, including he named uh George Soros and Reed Hoffman as possible targets of investigation.
Now they would be targets specifically because some of their money might have made it into the hands of some of the domestic terrorists antifa types, but we don't know that for sure.
That that would be alleged at this point.
But the New York Times uh uh confirms, PJ Media is writing about this, that uh the DOJ is investigating George Soros.
So what do you think they're gonna find when they investigate Soros?
Are they gonna find just a ton of um things that look dirty that are actually illegal?
I don't know.
But here's what I'd expect.
They might have the goods, and they might say, all right, we got you.
You did this and that and that, we're gonna put you in court, and then magically, uh, as if on schedule, George Soros Sr. would have a let's say a bad health outcome, and he would be way too out of it to actually be in trial.
You want to make a bet?
I'm gonna make the bet that they do find the goods on Soros, but that they can't really hold the trial because he's just gonna be like, oh, I'm so old.
He's gonna do the Biden defense.
Okay, if we took you to court, we probably would convict you, but you're only gonna be alive six months anyway, and you couldn't really defend yourself because you'd just be like, Well, I'm so old, uh.
So I don't think there's any chance that Soros Sr. will you know go to jail?
I don't think there's any chance of that.
He's too old.
But maybe Alexander would be uh, you know, his son, maybe in a little bit of trouble.
I don't know.
We'll find out.
Well, uh, so yesterday there was a little clip of Hillary Clinton being a terrible person, and um I reposted it with just one comment.
I said, worst human being in the world.
Now, if you're on X, do you feel like that would be like a big post?
You know, lots of attention.
All I said was, worst human being in the world.
Like it's not really clever.
It's not new.
It's not breaking news.
It's not a meme.
It's just an opinion.
Worst human being in the world.
It got a million views.
A million views.
That's how many people immediately immediately embrace the idea that she's the worst human being in the world.
Can you imagine that somebody says you're the worst human being in the world?
And a million people immediately say, Oh, yeah, yeah.
Yep.
You're not second.
You're you're the worst.
Worst in the world.
So here's a question that I do ask every now and then, but this is another time to ask it.
Is it my imagination and my tremendous bias that Republicans look like ordinary people?
And the top Democrats, the ones you see the most on TV, I usually call them the designated liars.
They look evil.
Am I wrong?
If you if you watch the video of Hillary, she doesn't seem like just somebody who disagrees.
Take uh take Hillary, uh, take uh Kamala.
In my opinion, uh Kamala, you know, maybe incompetent or whatever, but I don't think she's evil per se.
Like she doesn't project evil, but Hillary does.
I mean, I just see evil when I look at her.
And again, it's not a it's not a woman thing or even a Democrat thing.
I don't see evil when I see um, you know, any other uh like Nancy Pelosi.
I don't I don't see evil.
I think she's a liar and she's uh you know partisan, etc.
But she's just sort of doing her job.
But with Hillary, she actually just seems actually evil, you know, like if they were if demons were real, I don't know.
But then look at the others, Raskin.
You tell me Raskin doesn't look evil or Schiff or uh Comey, I I think Comey doesn't look as evil.
Comey looks more like a weasel, you know, like you cannot like what he does, but he doesn't look evil.
He's he obviously looks like somebody who lied, but that's not that unusual.
Um I wouldn't say evil, but how about Brennan?
Brennan comes off as evil.
You can't possibly look at that guy and say, oh, there's there's somebody who plays between the lines.
He just looks like a demon.
What about uh Blumenthal?
Evil.
What about Hakeem Jeffries?
Hakeem Jeffries is the most evil-looking face I've ever seen in my life.
Now, the things he says are more ordinary Democrat things, but oh my god, if you were gonna cast uh uh a demon or a uh you know bad guy in a movie, you would cast him pretty quickly.
Uh what about Clapper?
There's something with Clapper, I don't know what it is, right?
And what about several of the Democrat lawyers?
I won't name names, but you know which ones I'm talking about.
They've got several TV lawyers, not all of them.
Uh Eli Honig is uh perfectly reasonable guy, but they've got a there's several lawyers that just come off as evil, that they don't even come off as just biased, just evil.
And I'm trying to think, so yeah, yeah, you know what I'm talking about.
Uh so here's what I'm trying to decide.
You know, you always have to check yourself for bias.
Are there prominent Republicans who are always in the news who have a persona that comes off as like a demon?
And I couldn't think of one.
Think of the people in the news, obviously Trump.
You know, Trump is just Trump.
He doesn't have any you know demon vibes.
Um what about uh you know, Thune?
Thuon just looks like a regular guy.
What about Tom Cotton?
Regular guy.
I mean, I could go down the list, but I'm not wrong, right?
It just the demeanor, the face, the way they act.
You know, the there are liars everywhere, and there are biased people everywhere.
But the amount of people that are Democrat leaders who are actually evil is weird.
I saw somebody say John McCain.
I I might have given you John McCain if if he were still around.
Somebody's saying Steve Miller.
Stephen Miller is a little bit of a hybrid.
There was a time when I would have said, okay, you got me.
Stephen Miller is a scary persona.
But at the moment, he's projecting extreme competence and doing exactly what most of the base wants them to do.
So I I believe he's managed his brand from wow, you're kind of scary, to you're still kind of scary, but you're doing what we want you to do.
You're doing the scariness that we demand of you.
So I I would say that I have a different impression of him than maybe five years ago.
Anyway, um speaking of uh Hakeem Jeffries, he was just at a black caucus uh conference, and he said that uh Republicans are pushing white supremacy, invoking Jim Crow, the KKK, and lynching.
Now you're a real piece of shit, if that's your message to black America.
I mean, what can you say about Hakeem Jeffries, but pure piece of shit, especially in the context of the rhetoric being too too extreme and cause violence?
What what would cause?
I mean, what this is just so damaging.
That this is beyond um, you know, just a mistake.
This is evil.
This is just pure unadulterated fucking evil.
How does he get away with that?
Anyway, there's big news in the so-called Tina Peters case.
I guess she's in uh in court because she did some things with some voting machines trying to uh trying to determine if there were some irregularities in the 2020 election, uh, and did something that got her in trouble.
But the new news is that uh they have I guess on her side, uh Emerald Robinson is uh posting on this, that uh apparently they have a uh a witness who claims,
and the witnesses from Venezuela, remember the Kraken when Sydney Powell said uh there's a general in Venezuela and they can they can uh manipulate the voting machines, blah blah blah.
And then that turned out not it got debunked.
I don't know if it was untrue, but it got debunked.
Well, now the there's a Venezuelan witness.
We don't know much about him because he's afraid for his life, so he's operating uh anonymously from us, and he alleges that uh the voting machines, um I'll give you the question and the answer.
The question was, sir, do you have personal knowledge?
Personal knowledge, right?
So it's got to be personal knowledge, whether the election systems in the US, the voting systems can be manipulated by foreign agents.
The answer was the electoral systems of the United States can be manipulated by foreign agents or third parties.
Uh do you think that do you think that uh testimony is gonna hold?
I'm gonna say no.
I'm gonna say no.
I I would vote against this holding up as a fact.
It could be that this is just another cracking, you know, another another intentionally fake story to make it even harder to know what really is true.
So while I don't Trust voting machines as a general statement, and I don't believe that they should be part of our system because we we can't trust them.
There's no way you could know.
Um, but is this one witness telling the truth?
And and does this person know the truth?
I'd bet against it.
Yeah, I'd bet against it.
But maybe I could be, you know, I would love to be wrong about that, but I'd bet against it.
And the bet against it is only based on the fact that there have been about a billion election claims, and they uh they always turn stale.
They they never really pan out.
So if this is the real one, well, I I just don't want to do the Charlie Brown football thing where I keep going, hey, hey, I think this was real, finally, finally we got a real one.
Maybe, but I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna embrace that.
I would need more.
John Solomon of Just News is reporting that uh we've just learned that the FBI had 274 agents at the Capitol on January 6th, and allegedly they were plain clothes, they didn't have a way to identify themselves even to each other.
And I I guess they thought they were ill-prepared and uh ill um ill-managed in what they were supposed to do when they were there, but uh 274, and that would just be the FBI.
How many other entities would have had undercover people there?
What do you think?
And would 274 agents, would that be enough to cause the crowd to go a certain direction?
Um, that maybe it wouldn't have.
The answer is yes, that is enough people that if if those people wanted to make sure there was trouble, they could very easily with that number of people, even much less.
Um, it would probably only take a dozen people to you know initiate something like knocking on a window or something like that.
Um, but 274, it becomes easy.
You could absolutely manage the entire you know nature of the crowd with 274 people, you would just have to make sure that those people were the you know loudest, most aggressive, and then other people would sort of follow.
It wouldn't take that much.
Now, I don't know if that makes a difference.
Uh knowing that there were 274.
I don't know.
Does that really change how you think about the whole thing?
Because I don't think you even needed the agents to create the riot.
I think that some people were gonna be bad, and they were most people were there to protest, not to form an insurrection.
Um, but the the bad guys, the democrats called it an insurrection because they could, but I'm not sure that the number of agents really makes a difference in the narrative.
It's good to know, but it might not make a difference.
Uh let's see.
Apparently, some some element of Antifa issued an anti-anti-ICE threat before the shooting.
Um, so that's scary.
But since Antifa is not really a fully organized entity, I don't think it means much that uh you know, one Antifa person says something that's sort of what Antifa says.
Jesse Waters is reporting that uh Gavin Newsom had ordered just before the shooting, not long before, just hours before, I think, ordered a what he called a code red and ordered his base to quote push back against the what he called the gestapo, meaning ice.
So you got newsom calling ice gestapo and saying you should push back.
How do you push back against the gestapo?
Is it by talking really cleverly?
Hey, we've got to defeat the gestapo, huh?
Let's let's come up with some good arguments.
No, hey, we gotta beat the gestapo.
Uh, we better organize people to sign up to vote.
No, no, The one and only way you stop the Gestapo is with violence.
And for Newsom to imagine that he could use that kind of word, um, and that it wouldn't trigger somebody to pull a trigger.
I don't know.
He's either stupid or evil.
And by the way, Newsom does not give me the evil vibe of the other Democrats, uh, which makes him more dangerous because I think he can actually get elected under some set of circumstances.
Um I think he's a weasel.
I don't think he's capable.
I think he's not well, he's capable of getting elected, but I don't think he's competent.
Um we'll see.
Well, meanwhile, over in Denmark, you know, there have been these uh drones that have been over their airports and they don't know what that's about.
Well, the prime minister of Denmark just addressed the nation and admitted that they don't know what those are.
So apparently it's not Denmarks, and they apparently haven't ruled out anything, haven't ruled out China or non-human intelligence or anything else.
Uh-huh.
And apparently, um yeah.
So, what do you think they are?
What do you think all these drones are?
Well, I'll tell you the one thing.
If you thought that the modern industrial countries all had good uh good control over their own skies, apparently not.
Apparently not.
Apparently, you can you can just fly a big old drone, because these are not that small.
You know, these would be the biggest, you know, larger size drones.
You can fly a drone over their country as long as you want.
Uh, you can fly over anything you want, no matter how you know proprietary or anything else, and then you can leave whenever you feel like it, and nobody leave nobody will even know where you went back to.
Um, that does not give me any feeling of safety about anything.
Anyway, um, so we don't know what that's about.
But I will tell you it's very unlikely that it's a alien, and uh it's you know, it's some human beings drone, and we don't know why they're doing it.
Um, in the scariest news I've ever seen in my life, besides the pandemic, um the first days of the pandemic when we didn't know what it was.
Um, so apparently P. Exeth in the Department of War is uh ordering all the top generals and admirals to meet at Quantico, Virginia uh today, but sometime around now, and we don't know why.
Now, does that scare you that all the top military people are being brought to a secure location to get new instructions?
Does that sound like we're about to go to war with a major country?
Maybe.
But there's some other possibilities.
One possibility is it's just part of the saber rattling with Russia, so you know, um Putin and Trump are in this, you know, this war of words, but they back up the words with a little saber rattling.
It's like, hey, we've got a big navy sitting right outside your doorstep.
Hey, we've got a nuclear triad.
Look at us testing some new missiles.
So it could be that it's uh entirely to send a message to Russia that if you want war, we're ready.
Maybe.
Yeah, so you know, so maybe it's just part of the negotiations.
Maybe.
I mean, it wouldn't be the worst move in the world to make Russia think, uh, why are all those generals meeting?
Have we gone too far?
Because it looks like our plan is to push Russia into economic disaster, if we can, and uh what would they do in return?
Uh would they bomb our homeland To take out some of our energy production.
Well, that would be war.
So it could be that we know that uh we've got Russia in a corner, and the only thing they can do to respond before we destroy their energy economy.
And when I say we, I mean Ukraine with our weapons.
Um it could be that we just want to make sure that Russia knows they don't have that option of going military to respond to that.
Maybe.
Or maybe they're prepping to attack Venezuela.
But would you need to pull in every top leader if you were going after a Venezuela?
I feel like you wouldn't want too many people to know what was going on if they were, you know, let's say you were the general assigned to some far part of the world.
Would you really need to know if Venezuela was going to be targeted?
Probably didn't need to know.
It'd be better if you didn't, so the the news doesn't get out.
Um, but I would say probably so I would say probably not about Venezuela, because you wouldn't get everybody.
You would get every person if it was about Russia.
You would get every person if it was about China, you know, say Taiwan, for example.
Um it could be, I've I saw it uh suggested that it might be to tell people that they either have to be with the program, you know.
Let's let's say it's the Heg Seth slash Trump program of what they want the military to be.
You either have to be on board with that completely, or we're gonna fire you today.
So it could be sort of a loyalty test to just say, look, if you do this set of things, we're gonna fire your ass.
We have no tolerance for it anymore.
You can't be woke, you can't be leaking things.
You know, you're you're just gone, you're more gone than gone if you do anything that we find disloyal or not on board.
So it might be that, which would make sense to have everybody there.
Um what other reasons would they not tell us?
So it has to be in the category of things that they don't think the um what?
Five minutes left if Scott does what.
Oh, five minutes before the top of the hour.
All right.
So we'll find out what that is.
I have to say that the uh 800 generals is uh scary, but one of the possibilities is that Earth is being attacked by aliens.
They're already in Denmark uh flying around, and uh the US needs to do a full, you know, full military push to defend against the alien armada that's coming our way.
Maybe maybe I wouldn't bet on that one.
I'm not gonna bet on the aliens.
Uh, of all these possibilities, I would say it's either sending a message to Russia or something about modernizing or changing the the nature of the entire military.
So they're either going to reorganize, fire the disloyal, or send a message to Russia.
That those would be my best guesses.
Um that there's seemingly undeniable evidence that the political left is the ones that are dangerous in terms of violence, uh, because his latest shooter, the uh the ice shooter.
Um Adam Kinzinger is on CNN, and he goes, the thing we need to be looking at is not is this right or is this left?
So suddenly it's not important if it's coming from mostly from the left or mostly from the right, and it became not important the minute it became obvious it was more coming from the left.
Now, my take is I really don't care too much because I think that there's plenty of violence coming from everywhere and for every damn reason, sometimes crazy, sometimes political, sometimes trying to impress Jody Foster.
I mean, you know, it's coming from everywhere all the time.
So to me, that's not the most interesting thing to talk about.
But what is interesting is is the way we talk about things, inspiring a certain set of people, but not a certain other set.
I don't see anything that the Republicans are saying that would stimulate somebody to kill.
But I see plenty of things, like every single day from the left, they should by all logic and everything you know about the world and everything you know about people and everything you know about influence and persuasion, it should create a bunch of killers, and that's what we observe.
You know, what four so far?
Two assassins, one Charlie Kirk, one on ICE.
I mean, that's four that were almost certainly inspired by the way uh Democrats talk.
So that's important.
Um also coming from representative uh Luna had a picture on X of a bot farm.
Now, a bot farm is a bunch of smartphones that are sort of attacked on shelves, and there's you know, hundreds and hundreds of smartphones, and the smartphones I guess are programmed to uh to act independently like bots to move the conversation online to make it look like something is more popular than something else.
But I have a question.
How do you know it's a bot?
It seems to me that it wouldn't be that hard to spot, and I've accused a number of people in my timeline of being bots, you know.
I just say obvious paid troll or obvious bot or something like that, and surprisingly, uh a lot of them don't push back.
Sometimes they do.
They go, uh no, I'm real, you know, I uh this this is who I am.
Sometimes sometimes you don't hear from them again, which suggests maybe they were bots, but I would love to see some examples of some known bot messages, because I believe it'd be like AI, you know how easy it is to spot AI.
I believe you could spot a bot once once you've seen the pattern.
So if there's anybody who could do that, it would be really useful.
Is there anybody who has any kind of you know data of known bot messages on any topic?
Because I'm sure they operate similarly.
So I'd like to know more about those bots.
Uh Trump said that uh quote, I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank.
Nope, I will not allow it.
It's not going to happen.
There's been enough, it's time to stop now.
Okay.
Now, does that answer the question of who's in charge?
Do you believe that Trump means it and that he has the ability to stop Israel from annexing the West Bank?
I don't know if they want to annex it, but if they did, could Trump stop it?
See, this is why I I think it's not so much Israel is just you know wagging the dog and running the United States.
It seems like that sometimes depends on the question.
But don't you think it works both ways?
You know, I I've said it before, it seems more like a sibling situation where you can both influence each other, and it kind of depends who cares the most about it, right?
So Trump is saying he cares a lot about this, you know, about the possibility of annexing and doesn't want it to happen.
And uh that probably is enough to stop it from happening.
But likewise, there are probably things that Israel says privately to Trump.
Look, we're just we just have to do this.
You know, you you can disagree with us, but we're gonna do it anyway, because this is just something it's too important.
We just have to do this.
So I feel like it's more like an ongoing conversation where both sides are trying to make the point of what's more important and what matters to them the most, and then it's just sort of negotiated a little bit.
So I don't believe that Israel calls all the shots.
They definitely Have way more influence than most of us are comfortable with.
I would say that.
But it's still it's always a negotiation, I think.
Well, Iran and Russia signed a 25 billion dollar deal for building nuclear power plants in Iran.
So you know, it makes me wonder how that partnership is working out.
Because Israel and Iran get along pretty well.
Uh Russia, I'm sorry, Russia and Iran get along pretty well.
Uh Russia is really good at getting along with the the worst dictators.
Maybe we should learn something from them.
All right, Zelensky in Ukraine says uh there's no way to have an election unless they have a ceasefire.
And uh, do you think he wants a ceasefire?
So he says, I don't want to lead the country in peacetime.
He actually said that.
Doesn't want to be the leader in peacetime.
Really?
Uh I think it's a problem when the the person who is in charge of a ceasefire believes that they would get fired from their job if they did what the country wants them to do.
Because he sort of would get fired.
I mean, he probably wouldn't win an election anyway.
So why would we ever expect Zelensky to operate in good faith?
That's a lot to ask.
It's a lot to ask anybody.
Well, another news that was sort of predictable, China has banned NVIDIA chips to be purchased in China.
Now, wouldn't you think that that's what they would want more than anything is NVIDIA chips?
Apparently they couldn't get the top best ones, but they could get the ones just below that.
And if they put them together, they could get some stuff done.
But apparently, according to Andrew Ng, um China has now figured out how to use uh their own chips in a configuration where the system level design of the chips can get them the same output as the NVIDIA, or at least in the ballpark, and they don't need NVIDIA to do everything that we do with NVIDIA.
So once again, if you thought NVIDIA would rule the roost forever, well, maybe it's already over.
You know, if China, if China doesn't need NVIDIA to be as competitive as they think they need to be, I don't know.
I think the competition for NVIDIA is going to be pretty intense.
Meanwhile, in the stupidest state in the world, California, there's a law that the governor hasn't signed yet, but he might uh limiting free speech in California.
So if you say something on social media that somebody calls violence, intimidation, or coercion, um, you can be arrested.
Now that's if if uh Newsom signs it.
If he signs it, that will be one more thing working against him for running for president.
So I feel like I'm gonna guess that he won't sign it.
Because I think he has to go for free speech if he's gonna run for president.
So, but um, I might have to move out of California if this becomes a real thing, because um I got canceled uh for complaining about people not liking me, but that turned into I don't like other people, which was never part of the conversation.
I've never even offered an opinion other than I like black Americans, I love them.
You know, I've only had good you know, good experiences personally on a personal level.
So if somebody like me uh can say, oh, I'm worried about other people not liking me, and that can turn into you hate a certain demographic group.
Is that uh violence, intimidation, or coercion?
Because remember, words are violence, right?
Can I be arrested just for doing what I do every day?
I don't know.
Um, and then Kelsey Piper, who is writing on X, uh, that uh California, only 28% of black students in California can read at basic level uh or above the fourth grade level.
But in Mississippi, where you would think, oh, that Mississippi is a backward state.
How are they doing?
I mean, if California only has 28% of black students reading, uh, must be really bad in Mississippi, right?
Nope.
Mississippi is 52%, about twice as good.
Why?
Because Mississippi and apparently several southern states have completely changed how they do education.
And they've I think I don't know the details, but I think they just moved back to more of a traditional model, one that you know works, and it works.
So if you were if you were a black family, you would probably thrive in Mississippi better than California.
If what if what you cared about was your kids' education, isn't that wild?
The things could be so opposite of what you imagine.
Anyway, um the European Union's gonna put some uh tariffs on steel in China, yeah.
Really high tariffs, which reminds me of Trump.
So uh I had this uh thought that I posted today, and it goes like this.
First you laugh at Trump, then you fight him, then you become him.
First you laugh at him, then you fight him, then you become him.
Now that's a little bit borrowed from another saying that you'll recognize, but isn't that what's happening?
Newsom is literally pretending to be Trump.
First you laugh, then you fight, then you become him.
That's the ultimate victory, having people become you.
Anyway, that story is boring.
Um, the U.S. apparently, uh, according to interesting engineering, is uh gonna convert a retired coal mine into a nuclear fusion power plant.
I said fusion.
Fusion isn't even a real technology yet, is it?
And they're they're actually building the plant, money is going into it.
Well, turns out that there are a couple of uh uh ways to do fusion, and one of them works, and it's stable, and it's stable enough and it works well enough that it's really just an engineering question, and uh so we're we're building a fusion reactor in our lifetime, be done by 2030.
They wanted to, but uh um it's called uh stellarator fusion technology.
So if you want to act like the smartest person at the party, stellarator is the good stuff, but there's also uh other fusion projects are getting funded big in a big way, and the other one is uh let's see,
commonwealth fusion systems got another customer, so they have customers, but they don't have a technology that is proven to work, but they're really close, so people are putting billions into it in the hope that it can be commercialized.
So that's where we're at.
Um, it's boring.
Um, according to the federalist, uh, a number of corporations and academic offices, uh, you know, they have DEI offices and DEI employees.
Well, apparently, in a number of these cases, the DEI people were H1B visa workers, in other words, they were non-Americans who were telling Americans uh whether they could have, you know, what they could do and what they couldn't do based on their race.
Now, it's obnoxious enough when an American tells me what I can and cannot do based on my race and my gender, but do you really want somebody from another country telling what you can and cannot do in your own country?
No, thank you.
No, thank you.
And in case you're wondering, JD Vance, according to Erasmus and poll, uh, 51% of U.S. voters have a favorable opinion of him, which is pretty darn good.
51%.
So JT coming on strong.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
I went a little bit long, but not too bad.
And uh I'm gonna say some words privately to my beloved members of locals, subscribers.
