Episode 2922 CWSA 08/09/25

Boom.

Oh, there you are.

Come on in.

It must be time.

Yeah, it's Saturday.

Some of you call it Saturday, but that's because you don't yet have a cat, but you will.

All right, let me get your comments working here on locals and then we shall begin.

Good morning everyone and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is a copper among your glass tanker gels in a canteen jugger flask.

A vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

It happens now.

Go.

Yep.

Stein.

Yep.

That was as good as I hoped.

Well, I wonder if there's any new science that would suggest that drinking coffee is good for your cardiovascular disease.

Yes, there is.

According to Spotter Up, it's a groundbreaking uh new study.

And uh turns out that people drink coffee in the morning are way healthier.

Boom.

Take that.

I'll bet you didn't see that coming.

Even though I have a study about that almost every day.

Well, how about this?

There was a study.

Let's see if you can guess what happened.

There was a study according to Medscape.

Um, and they want to see if they could treat eating disorders with um marijuana and then separately with psychedelics.

What do you think was the result when they they tested to see if you could control people's appetites?

Obviously, the marijuana would be increasing their appetite and um the psychedelics might help them with some other kind of eating disorder.

Do you think it worked?

The answer is yes.

Because every time they do a study that gets published in the popular media about psychedelics, every time it's about, well, we tried psychedelics on this particular mental problem, and guess what?

It worked.

So, it turns out there may be no mental problems you can't solve with psychedelics.

One or two doses.

Speaking of marijuana, President Trump is allegedly reportedly considering reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug.

I don't know about that, but there there's some thinking that he talked about that or was willing to consider it, but I feel like he's been willing to consider that for a long time now.

Someone is alleging that because the marijuana business is big enough that it can make, you know, very very large donations to campaigns that maybe it's a different situation.

But I will say I would bet I don't know.

Yeah, I feel as though if Trump were going to do this, he would have already done it.

I don't know why he would wait.

So I'll bet against that.

Well, New York Post is reporting all the important news this summer because remember I told you that the summer has not the most important news.

So, they still have to fill all the space.

Um, so the New York Post is reporting that doctors in China uh say they're baffled over the case of the young woman who experiences uncontrollable orgasms multiple times per day.

Um, she's a 20year-old and she's in a perpetual state of arousal.

Now, the article goes on to say that she spends almost her entire day Oh, wow.

Uh, just binge watching old episodes of Coffee with Scott Adams and they can't figure out why she's having um non-stop orgasms.

No, I just made up part of that story.

the part about watching my show.

But uh allegedly 20 year old woman can't stop having orgasms.

I know what you're thinking.

Not the worst problem in the world, but you wouldn't like it.

I don't think you'd like it at all after the first Well, if it were me, um I don't think I would like it to have continuous orgasms.

Oh, sure.

the first 10,000 I'd probably like it plenty, but eventually eventually you just get tired of it.

Well, in other uh related news, uh according to the logical Indian, I don't know if that's a publication, I hope it is.

Um mobile phone use and laptops on your lap are uh creating a t-fold rise in male infertility.

So men, I don't like to give uh you know sexual andor medical advice, but I'm going to make an exception.

If you forget to bring your condom and uh your sexual partner is ready to go, what I recommend is using your phone in your pocket and putting a laptop on your lap.

Probably 15 minutes will cook whatever you got in there and uh you'll be good to go.

No, no condom needed.

Just use that laptop.

And uh I recommend watching Coffee with Scott Adams because it makes women orgasm and it makes men infertile.

Sorry about that.

I apologize for both of those things.

Anyway, um remember how it's such a mystery that the birth rate is is dropping and and I keep saying it's not a mystery.

It's every single thing is making it worse.

Everything from economics to health to plastic in your balls to whatever fresh hell this is.

It's everything.

You can't find anything.

You can't find anything from dating apps to um you know body mass index, you name it.

Everything is making sex and reproduction less likely.

So there's that.

uh Trump administration is trying to get a billion dollar settlement out of UCLA because Trump has uh they say he's weaponized government, but that's not the impressive part.

The impressive part is he's monetized he's monetized bad behavior by other people.

Oh, I get it.

You're going to be racist and anti-semitic.

All right, here's the bill.

All right.

So, you want to have bad trade deals?

Fine.

Here's the bill.

Uh, you want to have a war in Europe and never stop?

It's okay with me.

Here's the bill.

Anyway, we'll see if that works out.

Um, I saw a post by The Rabbit Hole, an account on X, good follow, The Rabbit Hole.

Um, and the rabbit hole says, "History books should be updated to include affirmative action and DEI as examples of 21st century institutional racism with the impact on Asian and white victims highlighted." Well, do you think that will happen?

Do you think your history books will be rewritten?

And uh the historians will say, you know, now that you mentioned it, there was horrific discrimination against a couple of groups and uh that should be part of history.

I don't know.

I feel like all history has at least two versions, maybe three.

You know, one would be the traditional version, another would be the sort of updated version, and then the third one is the one that never gets published, which is the real one.

You never know the real stuff.

You just have some narrative that people agree on.

Well, maybe that'll happen, but probably not.

Well, you might be aware that President Trump um presided over the signing of a peace agreement apparently between Azabjan and Armenia who if you're like me, you did not know they had any waring going on at all.

But apparently they want to stop that thing you didn't know was happening.

And uh they did.

So they met with the president and everything was smiles and happiness.

And then one of them, and I'm not going to pretend that I that I can't even pretend that I'm interested enough to learn which one of those men was that of Azer Bian versus Armenia because it looks a little bit interchangeable.

So, I'm going to say one of them.

I don't know which one.

um you know sort of flattered Trump by saying that the two of them you know the presidents of both countries should uh push for the Nobel Prize committee to award Trump the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now that's somebody who did their homework before coming to the Oval Office.

Compare that to Zilinski who was such a turd in the Oval Office he basically got thrown out of the White House on camera.

uh compare that to Azer Bjan and Armenia in which they come in and they're like okay what would happen if we say we're going to you know maybe recommend him for the Nobel Peace Prize and what if we needed a little foreign aid or a little bit of assistance don't you think we'd get more of it if we nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize so good job Azeran and Armenian you did your homework.

Um, so Trump has apparently secretly signed, but not so secretly that we don't know it, a directive for the Pentagon to start using military force against cartels.

I thought we were sort of already there, but I guess there's something official that had to be signed.

So from this point on, our military can act against the cartels.

Now, what did the president of Mexico say about that?

No way, Jose.

Um, you you cannot use your military to invade our country.

To which I say, is it an invasion if for a drones bomb a cartel headquarters?

Would that be an invasion?

Number two.

Question number two, what happens if if our military only attacks cartel operations that are already in the United States?

Don't you think that there are cartel, you know, like armed cartel, I don't know, weed farms and armed cartel distribution points and stuff that are in the United States.

Our military probably doesn't even need to leave our borders.

They could fight the cartel all day long, you know, just within our borders.

So, we'll see if there are any uh big news reports about attacks.

It might not take a lot of attacks.

It might be the sort of thing where the the drug cartels are businesses as opposed to being like religious zealots and stuff.

And if you attack a business, their first question will be, "Oh, how do I make money and stay out of jail and don't get killed?" And that's somebody you can usually negotiate with.

So, it might be that uh that Trump could actually make a difference there.

You know, bomb maybe a facility or two just so they know that we're serious.

And then the next thing you know, hey, how about we make money quietly by not bothering your country if you don't bomb us?

So maybe maybe I would bet against it.

So it if you're betting that the uh the drug trade will end in, you know, coming out of Mexico because of that, I wouldn't bet on that, but it might make a dent.

Well, apparently Attorney General uh uh Bondi has authorized a special prosecutor Ed Martin.

He's going to investigate uh two alleged mortgage fraud schemes.

one by Senator Adam Schiff where he claimed two separate homes as his primary residence and Leticia James, the attorney general of New York State, who is according to Bill PTE.

Um she did some shenanigans with claiming her father on one application and she claimed she had two primary residences, which she didn't.

and she claimed her five unit building was for um all for the purpose of you know monetary advantage.

Now what would you given that we know what the claims are and it's hard to imagine there's any kind of defense against any of that because it's just documented and pretty straightforward.

What do you think will happen?

I I feel like people like that who are high enough in the political world, I feel like they just don't go to jail.

Now, you might say to me, "But Scott, what about that story of that exret retired senator who recently went to jail or was some Democrat?" To which I say, "Right, retired.

Retired and also one you never heard of." If they're retired and you never heard of them, yeah, they might go to jail, right?

But Adam Schiff seems to be right in the middle of whatever the the power um I what whatever is the seat of power for the Democrats.

The shift is right in the middle of it.

And I would imagine that they would also, the Democrat power base would also protect Leticia James because she was, you know, integral to their lawfare against Trump.

They want to keep her on their side.

The last thing they want is for her to flip and say, "I'll tell you what.

If you let me skate on all this mortgage fraud stuff, I will tell you that the White House was behind the lawfare and that they coached me and promised me things if I went ahead with it." Oh, that would be awesome.

I don't know if that is true, but it'd be awesome if she flipped and that's what that's what happened there.

Um, I don't know if you saw this clip yet of Bill Moore in his show.

He had Stephen A.

Smith and uh, Bill Maher asked why was it that Pete Buddha Judge had exactly zero black supporters according to a recent poll.

Zero.

There were zero black Americans who said, "Oh yeah, we'd back um, Buddha Judge." And Steve D.

Smith.

He said he he basically said he didn't want to say anything about him being gay, but he goes, "Let me just say this.

He doesn't move us." Us meaning black American voters, I guess.

And uh do you think there's any other reason he has zero black votes?

What else would it be?

It's not like B.

Buddha judge has done some, you know, horrible thing to somebody or or he's part of some big scandal that affected black America.

Is it literally just they're not going to vote for the gay guy?

Is that all it is?

I don't know.

Um maybe Stephen A.

Smith has the exact right characterization.

He doesn't move us.

He's not promising anything.

that would be of value to anybody.

So, I get it.

Well, Jimmy Kimmel was on Sarah Silverman's podcast and uh he he admitted that what he called repulsive liberal scolds are driving people away from the Democratic party.

Um I feel like maybe there's a self-awareness problem at play here.

Is it possible that Jimmy Kimmel might be one of those repulsive liberal skulls?

Because it might look like that to some people, but no, Jimmy Kimmel is sure that it's other people who are the problem.

You know, it's probably other people.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's not what I'm doing every day.

It's those other people.

Um, and then apparently Kimmel has obtained Italian citizenship just in case he needs to escape uh the country.

But the funniest part was watching Silverman and Kimmel agree with each other that as bad as they thought it might be to be under a Trump administration, it's much much worse.

And they never mention anything.

They just don't mention anything.

What is the worst part?

Are you being rounded up?

What exactly is going wrong in your celebrity daily life?

Did your dog walker not show up on time?

What exactly is the nightmare that they're living that I don't even know what they're talking about?

I live in the same country.

I'm in the same state, right?

I think they're in California and I don't know what they're talking about.

I have no idea.

Now, I feel like if you push them, they would say something like, "Well, the authoritarian authoritarian things, the all authoritarian oligarch." And then you say, "Right, right, right.

I hear the words, but what would be an example?" Well, yeah, they're rounding up and sending the hardworking immigrants back to the country of their origin.

to which I would say, "Are you talking about the main thing he said he would do that's completely legal and hadn't been done and the country by majority wanted it done?" Is is that the authoritarian part?

the part where most of the country wanted it and that includes a whole lot of people who are Hispanic are also supporting the mass deportations and the black Americans also supporting uh to a large extent I don't know if it's a majority but supporting the deportation is that the is that the part that's the the hellscape that they're experiencing is that.

Now, I'm not super in favor of law-abiding people who have been here 20 years and paid their paid their taxes and their kids are in school and you know, I'm not really in favor of shipping them back.

I know you are.

I get it.

We're not going to argue at that point.

Um, and I I would argue that how you feel about that situation, the ones who have been here a long time.

I really don't care about somebody who came this year.

If there's somebody who came this year and you want to ship them back, you're fine.

Or or or even anybody who showed up during the Biden administration, I'd probably be okay with shipping all of them back.

But if somebody's been here 20 years and you know they're literally a Trump supporter and their their kids are doing great in school and everything, you know, that's I understand the argument for not making exceptions.

I get it.

I get it.

But from a human empathy standpoint, if you have enough contact with that part of the world, it's really hard to be in favor of shipping them home because home doesn't exist.

This this is their home.

So that's where I'm on where where I stand.

However, even though that's my preference, it is true that Trump promised he would do exactly what he's doing.

He also said he would do the worst first and that part uh clearly is just not true.

So if it bothers you that there was a very very firm promise made often and prominently and it was a lie, if that bothers you, then that would be perfectly uh perfectly acceptable to be bothered by that.

But it's not the biggest thing in the world either.

You know, you got to put it all in context.

Well, I keep watching video clips of Mike Benz talking about things like USAD and all the NOS's and and uh now he's been talking a lot about Norm Eisen.

Now, I want to make sure that I don't get sued.

So, I'm going to blame Mike Benz for for all the characterizations of Norm Eisen.

But if I have it correctly, the the story is this that Norm Eisen is a, you know, major Democrat uh operative and that he's always been a nation coup uh organizer.

So that he first did this work for presumably USAD and and the CIA and applied it to other countries because we know we've done this color revolution thing lots of times to other countries and he was part of that.

And so he's uh steeped in all the technique for overthrowing a country without a military war.

And the accusation is that he simply turned those um skills against the Republicans and just used it internally.

Now, I'm not aware of any laws being broken.

So, let me be clear.

He he is a lawyer, so probably he's pretty smart about making sure he doesn't break any laws.

But it it would sort of suggest that we don't have a real country with like a real system.

It's it's a competition of things like who can push through the best redistricting?

Uh who can send Mark Elias out to change the the voting laws?

Who can get Mark Zuckerberg to give us half a billion dollars to, you know, change things that will be good for one side but not the other?

Who can get uh um voter ID and who can get rid of or or institute more uh mail-in ballots?

That's all the stuff that determines the election.

It it's nothing about policies.

you can, you know, pretty much entirely control the election with all this external stuff.

But Norm Eisen would be part of the world of people who, if you asked him, he'd probably say he's saving the country from authoritarianism and a descent into chaos.

But if you were on the other side of his preferences, you would say, um, it looks like you run coups against legally elected people in the United States.

Shouldn't that be sort of illegal, treasonous kind of thing?

Well, no.

There are always two versions of every story.

And probably he hasn't done anything illegal.

Probably.

Um, but just knowing he exists, let me put it this way.

If you don't know who Norm Eisen is and what US aid is and how both of them are connected to our intelligence community and what the intelligence community has done to other countries for decades, and if you don't see that those same tools were turned inwardly uh against Trump, you don't really know what's going on.

that that story that whole US aid CIA color revolution normis story and how it all fits together.

That's the story of our country.

That is the main narrative that if you didn't understand that, you would be dealing with all these just fake fake news narratives and the Democrats say this and Republicans say that.

But the real stuff, this is all the under the hood stuff that's really driving the real world.

So, all right.

Cheers.

H I'm so afraid to even bring this up, but got to do it.

So, uh HHS Secretary RFK Jr.

Um he's uh announced that Barta, I guess that must be a government entity that funds a bunch of medical stuff, is cancelling 22 mRNA vaccine development contracts, saving half a billion dollars.

And uh RFK Jr.

said the mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses.

and um and he he says the reason the mRNA is no good for respiratory viruses is that it only takes one mutation which you know is going to come you know the viruses mutate reliably it's not like you wonder if they'll mutate they do and as soon as it mutates by just one thing the uh the mRNA technology just stops working so he says that even if you did the best mRNA job you could ever do, it still wouldn't work because there's such a thing as, you know, the the virus evolving and it just makes it not work.

And he believes that there are other platforms that are non mRNA that have more potential.

Now, here's the part where I'm trying to understand the story.

As far as I know, he has not banned the the giving of the existing COVID shot to adults.

Right.

I feel like they may have um pulled their recommendation for young people and for pregnant women.

Um I don't know the details of that, but I I think that's, you know, not recommended anymore.

And we've known that for a long time.

But is it true that RFK Jr.

has cancelled a bunch of vaccine development contracts?

So that would be for stuff that's not rolled out, but that he's keeping the mRNA based current vaccination recommendations.

Is that true?

Because there's more to the story and uh it gets really murky.

So Steve Bannon had on the war room HHS special advisor Dr.

Stephen Havill and he says something RFK Jr.

did not say.

So it makes me wonder if he has the right narrative on this but he says that RFK Jr.

pulled that mRNA funding after the data showed that getting vaccinated was more dangerous than CO itself.

Now, I listened to RFK Jr.'s statement and he didn't say anything like that.

Did you hear him say anything like that?

Now, I'm not saying let me be careful here because I know that whenever I talk about this topic, um you you many of you will confuse talking about it with promoting it.

All right?

So, we're not promoting.

And I'll tell you in advance, I don't know what's true and what's not true about this story or about the science.

I don't know what's true.

So, I will neither debunk nor recommend anything medical, which is my way.

All right?

I just don't do that.

So, let me go on.

So, this uh guest on Steve Bannon's war room, Dr.

Steven Hatfield um he said that the uh there was a metaanalysis.

Now what have you learned from me when when an expert goes on TV and says there was a metaanalysis?

What have you learned?

What you should have learned is oh it's not science.

A metaanalysis is not science.

and and they are so susceptible to misuse or you know being done wrong a metaanalysis for reasons I've described many times that uh as soon as your so-called expert says we've done a meta analysis that's when you should stop believing what they say they could be right because the metaanalysis will either say something worked or it didn't work you know only two possibilities So even if it's wrong, it might be wrong in the right direction because there only two directions, right?

It's a coin flip.

So even the wrong analysis could half of the time get you the right answer.

It's only two possibilities, yes or no.

So do you believe that the metaanalysis concluded, as Dr.

Hatfield said that quote it was more dangerous to take a vaccine than it was to get COVID and be hospitalized with it and that uh um yeah so the the idea was that getting the vaccine uh made you have worse hospitalization outcomes than if you had not been vaccinated at all.

Now remember, I gave you the warning.

I'm not saying that's true.

I'm just reporting to you what other people say is true.

Now, I want to do a little test of your um reasoning ability.

How many of you said to yourself, uh those experts who recommended that vaccine, uh I don't believe any of those experts, you know, they've got their own their own motivations, etc.

So that you rejected the experts when they first told you to get the shot and you said to yourself, "Well, I'm glad I I'm sure glad I didn't trust those experts." And then when you hear this story about the meta analysis, do you say, "Aha, finally we know the truth." How many of you did that?

How many of you said, "I was sort of just using my instinct to resist the shot." But now that this metaanalysis is out and people within RFK Junior's domain are saying, "Aha, everything was opposite of what you're told." And the reason we know it's opposite is because we have all these studies.

Okay, that would be bad analysis.

Here, here would be the correct analysis.

You ready?

The correct analysis is on day one, hey, I don't trust all these experts.

They haven't tested it enough and I don't trust their motivations andor their competence.

Would that have been a reasonable view on day one?

Yes.

Yes, that would be completely that was my view.

So, it's the reason I didn't get my uh shots until months had gone by and I saw who was dying and who wasn't and all that, but that's another topic.

So, it would be totally reasonable, totally reasonable if you said, "I don't trust these experts." But would it be reasonable that you trust these latest experts?

Why would you tell why would you trust Dr.

Steven Hatfield?

I'm not saying he's wrong.

I'm saying that if you don't apply the same filter, then you're not being rational.

You're just guessing.

The correct filter is you should not have trusted it when it was first rolled out.

Uh you may remember that I predicted it wouldn't work when it was rolled out.

So that was the correct take.

The correct take was not trusting it.

What is the correct take when you have a whole bunch of new science?

This says the opposite.

that was really bad for you and they knew it the whole time.

Don't trust it.

One of those is probably closer to true, but you don't have any way of knowing.

You and I have no way of knowing if anybody did the science correctly.

They're just claims.

So to round out the story, I will say that at the moment the CDC and the World Health Organization and another of other another uh other experts are still saying that the uh mRNA technology was a miracle and it saved millions of people's lives and the science on it is crystal clear.

Is that true?

>> I don't know.

It's either true that it worked or it's true that it didn't work.

And you have no way no way of ever knowing which one was true.

I'll bet you'll never know in your whole lifetime.

It will never be it will never be credible because there will be studies on both sides for forever.

There will always be studies on both sides.

So, I don't know what to believe.

Do you remember uh Trump talked about so-called freedom cities about the uh federal government just before he was elected?

The federal government could make some land available that uh entrepreneurial developers could build their own little freedom cities and sort of experiment with, you know, lowcost better, you know, better everything.

And that idea seems to sort of died away.

You know, I don't hear anybody talking about it.

Trump doesn't talk about it.

But then uh I started seeing all these stories about gerrymandering.

And I said to myself, how many places are there in the US where if the federal government said, "All right, we'll make this little area uh a freedom city." And let's say some clever developer said,"I'm going to build a freedom city that will really be around um Christians who want to go to church.

It won't be exclusive, so we're not going to discriminate against anybody, but it'll really be optimized for Christians who want to go to church." Now, in theory, that would bring in more Republicans than Democrats.

you you might have a better idea how to do that, but the idea would be that you could build a freedom city in just the right battleground state where it might tip the election because if you can bring in, you know, a quarter million people who are reliably Republican voters and then give them a good experience in these freedom cities and then make it really easy to vote in the freedom cities.

Could you use the freedom cities to rig the election by moving in little pockets of reliably Republican voters into battleground states?

I don't know.

So, you know, it would take somebody's because the the state affected could also they could probably just circle it and uh gerrymander it out of existence.

So, it might be that that they could gerrymander it away even if you pulled it off.

I don't know.

Anyway, the AI industry is still having copyright class action problems from authors.

I thought that was kind of settled, but apparently not.

Ars Technica is writing about it.

Uh, Anthropic is being sued by some class action group of authors.

And uh the the issue here is that if uh if it turns out that the authors win and the class action goes goes well for the authors that it would destroy the AI industry totally because they don't really have a way to avoid the knowledge from books I guess because that's what they trained on.

So, it's possible that we will destroy our own AI industry through the courts.

But if I had to bet on it, I would follow the money and I would say uh we would be talking about like $50 trillion of value and the future of the country.

So, I would say there's so much money involved um that the courts would be, you know, under so much pressure and there would be counter suits.

And I I I feel like the people who have $50 trillion at at risk are going to win that battle every time because there's just so much so much at risk.

Anyway, uh according to Sai Post, Vladimir Henry is writing that uh the brightest children from lowincome homes uh are very competitive with the brightest kids from rich places up until the age of about 11.

And then for reasons that are not clear, but you probably have your own theories, when that bright kid reaches age 11, if they're in a poor situation, their academic results just go to hell between 11 and 14.

But the rich kids who were just as bright as the poor kids when they were, you know, five and six years old, uh they apparently have a better support system in every way.

And so they go on to become brave adults.

So there is something in the process of poverty that makes a bright kid um turn off.

And I don't know what exactly it is.

It could be that they don't want to look like the nerd and they don't want to be teased for being the the brainiac or stuff like that.

Um, remember I keep telling you that being uh immune to embarrassment is the greatest superpower ever.

Well, here's here's a good example.

When I was in school, um, I eventually graduated as validictorian of my Chinese school.

Not very impressive because the entire school was very small.

Um, but early on in my grade school, it was obvious I was going to be, you know, a student and I was, you know, trying to make something of myself.

And can you imagine that I got teased for being a, you know, a brainiac, a nerd, etc.

And the answer is, of course I did.

Of course I did.

And you're probably saying, "Oh my god, how did you handle all that humiliation and the teasing?" To which I say, "Why humiliation?

Why humiliation?

Are you telling me I was supposed to feel bad when the dumb people called me smart?

Where was the part where I was supposed to feel bad?

I missed all I missed the entire part where where their cutting insults were slicing through my psyche and leaving me in tatters.

The whole time I was just thinking, "Yeah, you got that right." Yeah, I am going someplace.

Too bad you're not.

Yep, I'm a nerd.

Uh, that's right.

I did do my homework.

Uhhuh.

Uhhuh.

Yeah, I did get an A on that test.

I did.

Thanks for noticing.

So, I don't I don't know if I was mentally deficient or just some kind of weird narcissist, but I re I recall that I was teased, but I don't recall any damage whatsoever, like ever.

It just felt like I was winning the whole time.

And that's how I played it.

Anyway, I don't know if that advice will help your lowincome kid uh survive the brutal situation, but but but it's also true that the town I grew up in was a little closer to goodwill hunting than it was to like an inner city.

Yeah.

I I would say that the the citizens of my town were rooting for me from the time I was very young and it was obvious they were rooting for me and helped helped me escape just like Goodwill Hunting.

So, um I don't know if having a uh having a complete immunity to uh humiliation would help anybody else, but help me.

Um, okay.

Here's here's a story that I don't know if this is true.

All right.

So, this is a story about the uh agreement that Trump and Putin are going to meet in Alaska and talk about maybe ending the war in Ukraine.

and you're probably telling yourself um that they wouldn't have the meeting unless they thought there was pretty good chance of something positive coming out of it.

And then what we hear somewhat surprisingly is that Putin would be willing to simply take some of the uh but not all of the territory that he's conquered and just say all right I'll keep this and we'll you know we'll just park company.

Now, you probably said to yourself, "Really?

Really?" Because it didn't seem like Putin had ever offered that before, and it didn't seem like he was losing so badly that he'd have to change what his his position is.

So, why would Putin suddenly go from, "Nope, there's no real reason to talk to, oh yeah, let's talk next week." Now you may say, well, it's because Trump threatened those sanctions on the Indians buying Russian oil or something else.

There is a uh there's a report in a German publication, Build BL.

Now, I don't know if it's true, but this is their version of what's going on that uh the Steve Wickoff quote misunderstood uh Putin and where Putin said something about those occupied territories, the ones that Putin's already con conquered, that Steve Wickoff misunderstood Putin's willingness to negotiate a deal.

And so that what you're seeing is a whole bunch of people operating under a misunderstanding of how close they are to an agreement.

Now, I'm not going to say that's true because it's just some German publication, you know, it's not being widely reported that way in our press, so probably not true.

But it does explain everything and it would be a Dilbert world kind of thing where they just heard each other wrong.

But you know what's even funnier?

What if the reason they're having the meeting is because that Wickoff there was a translation problem and that he literally misunderstood Putin.

What if that's the only reason they have the meeting?

And then what if having the meeting leads to them actually ending the war?

There's a nonzero possibility that the meeting was a complete mistake.

But once you get there, you know, they know the war can't last forever.

So maybe Putin will say, "Well, well, as long as I'm here, you know, it'd be too stupid to come here and then just walk home." not walk home, but you know, so there's a nonzero possibility that the most dilberty thing in the world happened, which is they accidentally scheduled a meeting that they should not have and that once they're there, they're like, "Wow, I might as well end this war." Maybe it's possible.

That's the most optimistic thing I could say because I do not see any way that under normal circumstances this will lead to any kind of an end to the war.

Unless there's something we don't know about.

Maybe Russia has a bigger problem in some domain than than we're aware.

Maybe, but we haven't heard about it.

Um, and then of course Zinski is trying to be the turd in the punch bowl and uh he's saying that he's ruling out any kind of deal that the US and Russia make for Ukrainian land.

He's ruling it out.

Okay.

But apparently there's also some Ukrainian legal problem that would make it impossible for Zilinski to agree to give away Ukrainian land.

he wouldn't have the power to do it.

There'd have to be some kind of, you know, national uh referendum or something, but it's doable.

He just have to do it and it would wouldn't be instant.

Anyway, um according to Breitbart News, Oliver Lane is writing that there was a poll, I guess it was a Gallup poll of, uh Ukrainians and how many of them want to keep fighting and how many of them don't?

It turns out that um well, maybe you could tell me what percentage of Ukrainians want to fight to quote the bitter end.

What percentage want to fight until they're all dead?

Um, let's see if you can guess the percentage.

25 says Texas Hogammer.

25.

25.

Excellent guesses.

The answer is 24, but I will accept 25.

Oh, we got a 24.

Iro, good for you.

All right.

So, uh, have I demonstrated once again that I have the smartest podcast audience?

They knew the answer to the question just intuitively, 24%.

Um, according to Radio Liberty, um, so Ukraine is expected to make 4 million drones this year.

um almost all of them will be the low-end you know inexpensive drones.

Russia is also expected to make millions of similarly low-end drones this year.

So between Ukraine and Russia, you know, maybe I don't know 7 to 10 million drones will be created just by their own countries.

That doesn't even count the number that they'll buy.

So the United States of course being the powerful superpower that it is, if those countries can make millions of drones, how many do you think the US can make?

Because we now have an estimate of that from the New York Times.

Well, the answer is maybe a 100,000 units.

Yeah.

So, while the war torn, povertystricken country of Ukraine is making 4 million per year of drones, we might be able to make a 100,000.

Uh, we've got a problem because whoever makes the best and most drones gets to run the world.

And apparently that's not us.

That's not us.

So, we better uh get going on that.

President Trump.

Well, uh, Israel is, uh, planning to, as you know, take full control of, uh, Gaza, and they're going to start by taking full control of Gaza City.

Uh, but at the same time, the US and Qatar are talking about some kind of grand proposal that they'll have in two weeks.

The grand proposal for, I assume, the grand bar is what makes it more than just Gaza.

So maybe the grand part is the Abraham Accords get expanded, but in return there's a lot of support for the Palestinian people who got um relocated, etc.

So I don't know what that'll be, but um I would like to offer a reframe for Hamas and all the children who were victims of the war.

It seems to me that the right way to frame Hamas is uh that they're involved in child sacrifice and it's their own children.

So they are literally sacrificing the lives of their children for some larger religious and military victory.

But Israel is getting blamed for killing them.

You know, of course they are killing.

But doesn't it seem to you like Hamas is not just fighting a war and hoping the children do well, but rather they're it's an organized human child sacrifice.

And Israel, of course, is part of it because if Israel decided, oh, you can have everything you want, just come on in and take what you need.

Well, then there wouldn't be any children being uh killed.

But under the normal conditions of war and national defense etc.

of course of course there will be response and will respond results in lots of people dying that you wish wouldn't die but uh human child sacrifice that's what it looks like to me.

So we got that.

All right.

Um, usually on Saturday when I'm done, uh, Owen Gregorian does a spaces, but he's got something to do today.

So, that will happen tomorrow.

So, tomorrow is Sunday.

There'll be a spaces after the show, but not today.

Not today.

So, you can uh go about your day and get your breakfast and have a wonderful day.

I'm going to take a nap with some cats and play some ping pong later and uh I'm going to have a great day.

I hope you do, too.

All right, I'm going to say uh some words privately to my beloved uh subscribers on locals and the rest of you.

You're going to disappear in 30 seconds and I hope you come back tomorrow.

Say

Boom. Oh, there you are. Come on in. It

must be time. Yeah, it's Saturday.

Some of you call it Saturday, but that's

because you don't yet have a cat, but

you will.

All right, let me get your comments

working here on locals and then

we shall begin.

Good morning everyone

and welcome to the highlight of human

civilization. It's called Coffee with

Scott Adams and you've never had a

better time. But if you'd like to take a

chance of elevating your experience up

to levels that no one can even

understand with their tiny shiny human

brains. All you need for that is

a copper among your glass tanker gels in

a canteen jugger flask. A vessel of any

kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip. It

happens now. Go.

Yep. Stein.

Yep. That was as good as I hoped.

Well, I wonder if there's any new

science that would suggest that drinking

coffee is good for your cardiovascular

disease. Yes, there is. According to

Spotter Up, it's a groundbreaking

uh new study.

And uh turns out that people drink

coffee in the morning are way healthier.

Boom. Take that. I'll bet you didn't see

that coming. Even though I have a study

about that almost every day.

Well, how about this? There was a study.

Let's see if you can guess what

happened. There was a study according to

Medscape.

Um, and they want to see if they could

treat eating disorders with um marijuana

and then separately with psychedelics.

What do you think was the result when

they they tested to see if you could

control people's appetites? Obviously,

the marijuana would be increasing their

appetite and um the psychedelics might

help them with some other kind of eating

disorder.

Do you think it worked? The answer is

yes.

Because every time they do a study that

gets published in the popular media

about psychedelics, every time it's

about, well, we tried psychedelics on

this particular mental problem, and

guess what? It worked. So, it turns out

there may be no mental problems you

can't solve with psychedelics.

One or two doses.

Speaking of marijuana, President Trump

is allegedly reportedly considering

reclassifying marijuana as a less

dangerous drug.

I don't know about that, but there

there's some thinking that he talked

about that or was willing to consider

it, but I feel like he's been willing to

consider that for a long time now.

Someone is alleging that because the

marijuana business is big enough that it

can make, you know, very very large

donations to campaigns

that maybe it's a different situation.

But I will say I would bet I don't know.

Yeah, I feel as though if Trump were

going to do this, he would have already

done it. I don't know why he would wait.

So I'll bet against that.

Well, New York Post is reporting all the

important news this summer because

remember I told you that the summer has

not the most important news. So, they

still have to fill all the space. Um, so

the New York Post is reporting that

doctors in China uh say they're baffled

over the case of the young woman who

experiences uncontrollable orgasms

multiple times per day.

Um, she's a 20year-old and she's in a

perpetual state of arousal.

Now, the article goes on to say that she

spends almost her entire day Oh, wow.

Uh, just binge watching old episodes of

Coffee with Scott Adams

and they can't figure out why she's

having um non-stop orgasms.

No, I just made up part of that story.

the part about watching my show. But uh

allegedly

20 year old woman can't stop having

orgasms.

I know what you're thinking. Not the

worst problem in the world, but you

wouldn't like it. I don't think you'd

like it at all after the first

Well, if it were me,

um I don't think I would like it to have

continuous orgasms. Oh, sure. the first

10,000 I'd probably like it plenty, but

eventually eventually you just get tired

of it.

Well, in other uh related news,

uh according to the logical Indian, I

don't know if that's a publication, I

hope it is. Um mobile phone use and

laptops on your lap are uh creating a

t-fold rise in male infertility.

So men, I don't like to give uh you know

sexual andor medical advice, but I'm

going to make an exception. If you

forget to bring your condom

and uh your sexual partner is ready to

go, what I recommend is using your phone

in your pocket and putting a laptop on

your lap. Probably 15 minutes will cook

whatever you got in there and uh you'll

be good to go. No, no condom needed.

Just use that laptop. And uh I recommend

watching Coffee with Scott Adams because

it makes women orgasm and it makes men

infertile.

Sorry about that.

I apologize for both of those things.

Anyway,

um remember how it's such a mystery that

the birth rate is is dropping and and I

keep saying it's not a mystery. It's

every single thing

is making it worse. Everything from

economics to health to plastic in your

balls to whatever fresh hell this is.

It's everything. You can't find

anything. You can't find anything from

dating apps to um you know body mass

index,

you name it. Everything

is making sex and reproduction less

likely. So there's that. uh Trump

administration is trying to get a

billion dollar settlement out of UCLA

because Trump has uh they say he's

weaponized government, but that's not

the impressive part. The impressive part

is he's monetized

he's monetized bad behavior by other

people. Oh, I get it. You're going to be

racist and anti-semitic. All right,

here's the bill.

All right. So, you want to have bad

trade deals? Fine. Here's the bill.

Uh, you want to have a war in Europe and

never stop? It's okay with me. Here's

the bill.

Anyway, we'll see if that works out.

Um,

I saw a post by The Rabbit Hole, an

account on X, good follow, The Rabbit

Hole. Um, and the rabbit hole says,

"History books should be updated to

include affirmative action and DEI as

examples of 21st century institutional

racism with the impact on Asian and

white victims highlighted."

Well, do you think that will happen? Do

you think your history books will be

rewritten? And uh the historians will

say, you know, now that you mentioned

it, there was horrific discrimination

against a couple of groups and uh that

should be part of history. I don't know.

I feel like all history has at least two

versions, maybe three. You know, one

would be the traditional version,

another would be the sort of updated

version, and then the third one is the

one that never gets published, which is

the real one.

You never know the real stuff. You just

have some narrative that people agree

on.

Well, maybe that'll happen, but probably

not.

Well, you might be aware that President

Trump um presided over the signing of a

peace agreement apparently between

Azabjan and Armenia who if you're like

me, you did not know they had any waring

going on at all. But apparently they

want to stop that thing you didn't know

was happening. And uh they did. So they

met with the president and everything

was smiles and happiness. And then one

of them, and I'm not going to pretend

that I that

I can't even pretend that I'm interested

enough to learn which one of those men

was that of Azer Bian versus Armenia

because it looks a little bit

interchangeable. So, I'm going to say

one of them. I don't know which one. um

you know sort of flattered Trump by

saying that the two of them you know the

presidents of both countries should uh

push for the Nobel Prize committee to

award Trump the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now that's somebody who did their

homework before coming to the Oval

Office.

Compare that to Zilinski

who was such a turd in the Oval Office

he basically got thrown out of the White

House on camera. uh compare that to Azer

Bjan and Armenia in which they come in

and they're like okay what would happen

if we say we're going to you know maybe

recommend him for the Nobel Peace Prize

and what if we needed a little foreign

aid or a little bit of assistance

don't you think we'd get more of it if

we nominated him for the Nobel Peace

Prize so good job Azeran and Armenian

you did your homework.

Um, so Trump has apparently secretly

signed, but not so secretly that we

don't know it, a directive for the

Pentagon to start using military force

against cartels.

I thought we were sort of already there,

but I guess there's something official

that had to be signed. So from this

point on, our military can act against

the cartels. Now, what did the president

of Mexico say about that? No way, Jose.

Um, you you cannot use your military to

invade our country. To which I say, is

it an invasion if for a drones

bomb a cartel headquarters? Would that

be an invasion?

Number two. Question number two, what

happens if if our military only attacks

cartel operations that are already in

the United States? Don't you think that

there are cartel, you know, like armed

cartel, I don't know, weed farms and

armed cartel distribution points and

stuff that are in the United States.

Our military probably doesn't even need

to leave our borders. They could fight

the cartel all day long, you know, just

within our borders. So, we'll see if

there are any uh big news reports about

attacks.

It might not take a lot of attacks.

It might be the sort of thing where the

the drug cartels are businesses as

opposed to being like religious zealots

and stuff. And if you attack a business,

their first question will be, "Oh, how

do I make money and stay out of jail and

don't get killed?" And that's somebody

you can usually negotiate with. So, it

might be that uh

that Trump could actually make a

difference there. You know, bomb maybe a

facility or two just so they know that

we're serious. And then the next thing

you know, hey, how about we make money

quietly by not bothering your country if

you don't bomb us? So maybe maybe

I would bet against it. So it if you're

betting that the uh the drug trade will

end in, you know, coming out of Mexico

because of that, I wouldn't bet on that,

but it might make a dent.

Well, apparently Attorney General uh uh

Bondi

has authorized a special prosecutor Ed

Martin. He's going to investigate uh two

alleged mortgage fraud schemes. one by

Senator Adam Schiff where he claimed two

separate homes as his primary residence

and Leticia James, the attorney general

of New York State, who is according to

Bill PTE. Um she did some shenanigans

with claiming her father on one

application and she claimed she had two

primary residences, which she didn't.

and she claimed her five unit building

was for

um all for the purpose of you know

monetary advantage.

Now what would you given that we know

what the claims are and it's hard to

imagine there's any kind of defense

against any of that because it's just

documented and pretty straightforward.

What do you think will happen?

I I feel like people like that who are

high enough in the political world, I

feel like they just don't go to jail.

Now, you might say to me, "But Scott,

what about that story of that exret

retired senator who recently went to

jail or was some Democrat?" To which I

say, "Right, retired. Retired and also

one you never heard of." If they're

retired and you never heard of them,

yeah, they might go to jail, right? But

Adam Schiff seems to be right in the

middle of whatever the the power

um I what whatever is the seat of power

for the Democrats. The shift is right in

the middle of it. And I would imagine

that they would also, the Democrat power

base would also protect Leticia James

because she was, you know, integral to

their lawfare against Trump. They want

to keep her on their side. The last

thing they want is for her to flip and

say, "I'll tell you what. If you let me

skate on all this mortgage fraud stuff,

I will tell you that the White House was

behind the lawfare and that they coached

me and promised me things if I went

ahead with it." Oh, that would be

awesome. I don't know if that is true,

but it'd be awesome if she flipped and

that's what that's what happened there.

Um,

I don't know if you saw this clip yet of

Bill Moore in his show. He had Stephen

A. Smith

and uh,

Bill Maher asked why was it that Pete

Buddha Judge had exactly zero black

supporters according to a recent poll.

Zero. There were zero black Americans

who said, "Oh yeah, we'd back um, Buddha

Judge." And Steve D. Smith.

He said he he basically said he didn't

want to say anything about him being

gay, but he goes, "Let me just say this.

He doesn't move us."

Us meaning black American voters, I

guess. And uh

do you think there's any other reason he

has zero black votes?

What else would it be? It's not like B.

Buddha judge has done some, you know,

horrible thing to somebody or or he's

part of some big scandal that affected

black America.

Is it literally just they're not going

to vote for the gay guy? Is that all it

is?

I don't know. Um maybe Stephen A. Smith

has the exact right characterization. He

doesn't move us. He's not promising

anything.

that would be of value to anybody. So, I

get it.

Well, Jimmy Kimmel was on Sarah

Silverman's podcast

and uh he he admitted that what he

called repulsive liberal scolds are

driving people away from the Democratic

party. Um I feel like maybe there's a

self-awareness problem at play here. Is

it possible

that Jimmy Kimmel might be one of those

repulsive liberal skulls?

Because it might look like that to some

people, but no, Jimmy Kimmel is sure

that it's other people who are the

problem. You know, it's probably other

people. Yeah. Yeah. It's not what I'm

doing every day. It's those other

people.

Um, and then apparently Kimmel has

obtained Italian citizenship

just in case he needs to escape uh the

country. But the funniest part was

watching Silverman and Kimmel agree with

each other that as bad as they thought

it might be to be under a Trump

administration, it's much much worse.

And they never mention anything. They

just don't mention anything.

What is the worst part? Are you being

rounded up? What exactly is going wrong

in your celebrity daily life? Did your

dog walker not show up on time? What

exactly is the nightmare that they're

living that I don't even know what

they're talking about? I live in the

same country. I'm in the same state,

right? I think they're in California and

I don't know what they're talking about.

I have no idea.

Now, I feel like if you push them, they

would say something like, "Well, the

authoritarian authoritarian things, the

all authoritarian oligarch."

And then you say, "Right, right, right.

I hear the words, but what would be an

example?"

Well, yeah, they're rounding up and

sending the hardworking immigrants back

to the country of their origin. to which

I would say, "Are you talking about the

main thing he said he would do that's

completely legal

and hadn't been done and the country by

majority wanted it done?" Is is that the

authoritarian part? the part where most

of the country wanted it and that

includes a whole lot of people who are

Hispanic

are also supporting the mass

deportations and the black Americans

also supporting uh to a large extent I

don't know if it's a majority but

supporting the deportation

is that the is that the part

that's the the hellscape that they're

experiencing

is that. Now, I'm not super in favor of

law-abiding people who have been here 20

years and paid their paid their taxes

and their kids are in school and you

know, I'm not really in favor of

shipping them back. I know you are. I

get it. We're not going to argue at that

point. Um, and I I would argue that how

you feel about that situation, the ones

who have been here a long time. I really

don't care about somebody who came this

year. If there's somebody who came this

year and you want to ship them back,

you're fine.

Or or or even anybody who showed up

during the Biden administration,

I'd probably be okay with shipping all

of them back. But if somebody's been

here 20 years

and you know they're literally a Trump

supporter and their their kids are doing

great in school and everything, you

know, that's I understand the argument

for not making exceptions. I get it. I

get it. But from a human empathy

standpoint, if you have enough contact

with that part of the world, it's really

hard to be in favor of shipping them

home because home doesn't exist. This

this is their home.

So that's where I'm on where where I

stand. However,

even though that's my preference,

it is true that Trump promised he would

do exactly what he's doing. He also said

he would do the worst first and that

part uh clearly is just not true. So if

it bothers you that there was a very

very firm promise made often and

prominently and it was a lie, if that

bothers you, then that would be

perfectly uh perfectly acceptable to be

bothered by that.

But it's not the biggest thing in the

world either. You know, you got to put

it all in context.

Well, I keep watching video clips of

Mike Benz talking about things like USAD

and all the NOS's and and uh now he's

been talking a lot about Norm Eisen.

Now, I want to make sure that I don't

get sued. So, I'm going to blame Mike

Benz for for all the characterizations

of Norm Eisen. But if I have it

correctly, the the story is this

that Norm Eisen is a, you know, major

Democrat uh operative and that he's

always been a nation coup uh organizer.

So that he first did this work for

presumably USAD and and the CIA and

applied it to other countries because we

know we've done this color revolution

thing lots of times to other countries

and he was part of that. And

so he's uh steeped in all the technique

for overthrowing a country without a

military war. And the accusation is that

he simply turned those um skills against

the Republicans and just used it

internally. Now, I'm not aware of any

laws being broken. So, let me be clear.

He he is a lawyer, so probably he's

pretty smart about making sure he

doesn't break any laws. But

it it would sort of suggest that we

don't have a real country with like a

real system. It's it's a competition of

things like who can push through the

best redistricting?

Uh who can send Mark Elias out to change

the the voting laws? Who can get Mark

Zuckerberg to give us half a billion

dollars to, you know, change things that

will be good for one side but not the

other? Who can get uh um voter ID and

who can get rid of or or institute more

uh mail-in ballots? That's all the stuff

that determines the election. It it's

nothing about policies.

you can, you know, pretty much entirely

control the election with all this

external stuff. But Norm Eisen would be

part of the world

of people who, if you asked him, he'd

probably say he's saving the country

from authoritarianism

and a descent into chaos.

But if you were on the other side of his

preferences, you would say, um, it looks

like you run coups against legally

elected people in the United States.

Shouldn't that be sort of illegal,

treasonous kind of thing? Well, no.

There are always two versions of every

story. And probably

he hasn't done anything illegal.

Probably.

Um, but just knowing he exists,

let me put it this way. If you don't

know who Norm Eisen is and what US aid

is and how both of them are connected to

our intelligence community and what the

intelligence community has done to other

countries for decades, and if you don't

see that those same tools were turned

inwardly uh against Trump, you don't

really know what's going on.

that that story

that whole US aid CIA color revolution

normis story and how it all fits

together. That's the story of our

country. That is the main narrative that

if you didn't understand that,

you would be dealing with all these just

fake fake news narratives and the

Democrats say this and Republicans say

that. But the real stuff, this is all

the under the hood stuff that's really

driving the real world.

So,

all right. Cheers. H I'm so afraid to

even bring this up, but got to do it.

So, uh HHS Secretary RFK Jr. Um he's uh

announced that Barta, I guess that must

be a government entity that funds a

bunch of medical stuff, is cancelling 22

mRNA vaccine development contracts,

saving half a billion dollars.

And uh RFK Jr. said the mRNA technology

poses more risk than benefits for these

respiratory viruses.

and um and he he says the reason the

mRNA is no good for respiratory viruses

is that it only takes one mutation which

you know is going to come you know the

viruses mutate reliably it's not like

you wonder if they'll mutate they do and

as soon as it mutates by just

one thing

the uh the mRNA technology just stops

working so he says that even if you did

the best mRNA job you could ever do, it

still wouldn't work

because there's such a thing as, you

know, the the virus evolving and it just

makes it not work. And he believes that

there are other platforms that are non

mRNA that have more potential. Now,

here's the part where I'm trying to

understand the story.

As far as I know, he has not banned the

the giving of the existing COVID shot to

adults. Right. I feel like they may have

um pulled their recommendation for young

people and for pregnant women.

Um I don't know the details of that, but

I I think that's, you know, not

recommended anymore. And we've known

that for a long time. But

is it true that RFK Jr. has cancelled a

bunch of vaccine development contracts?

So that would be for stuff that's not

rolled out, but that he's keeping the

mRNA based current vaccination

recommendations.

Is that true?

Because there's more to the story and uh

it gets really murky. So Steve Bannon

had on the war room HHS special advisor

Dr. Stephen Havill

and he says something RFK Jr. did not

say. So it makes me wonder if he has the

right narrative on this but he says that

RFK Jr. pulled that mRNA funding after

the data showed that getting vaccinated

was more dangerous than CO itself.

Now, I listened to RFK Jr.'s statement

and he didn't say anything like that.

Did you hear him say anything like that?

Now, I'm not saying let me be careful

here because I know that whenever I talk

about this topic, um you you many of you

will confuse talking about it with

promoting it. All right? So, we're not

promoting.

And I'll tell you in advance, I don't

know what's true and what's not true

about this story or about the science. I

don't know what's true. So, I will

neither debunk

nor recommend anything medical, which is

my way. All right? I just don't do that.

So, let me go on. So, this uh guest on

Steve Bannon's war room, Dr. Steven

Hatfield

um he said that the uh there was a

metaanalysis.

Now what have you learned from me when

when an expert goes on TV and says there

was a metaanalysis?

What have you learned? What you should

have learned is oh it's not science.

A metaanalysis is not science.

and and they are so susceptible to

misuse or you know being done wrong a

metaanalysis for reasons I've described

many times that uh as soon as your

so-called expert says we've done a meta

analysis that's when you should stop

believing what they say

they could be right because the

metaanalysis will either say something

worked or it didn't work you know only

two possibilities So even if it's wrong,

it might be wrong in the right direction

because there only two directions,

right? It's a coin flip. So even the

wrong analysis

could half of the time get you the right

answer. It's only two possibilities, yes

or no. So

do you believe that the metaanalysis

concluded, as Dr. Hatfield said that

quote it was more dangerous to take a

vaccine than it was to get COVID and be

hospitalized with it and that uh

um

yeah so the the idea was that getting

the vaccine uh made you have worse

hospitalization

outcomes than if you had not been

vaccinated at all. Now remember, I gave

you the warning. I'm not saying that's

true. I'm just reporting to you what

other people say is true.

Now, I want to do a little test of your

um reasoning ability.

How many of you said to yourself, uh

those experts who recommended that

vaccine, uh I don't believe any of those

experts, you know, they've got their own

their own motivations, etc. So that you

rejected the experts when they first

told you to get the shot and you said to

yourself, "Well, I'm glad I I'm sure

glad I didn't trust those experts." And

then when you hear this story

about the meta analysis, do you say,

"Aha,

finally we know the truth."

How many of you did that? How many of

you said, "I was sort of just using my

instinct to resist the shot." But now

that this metaanalysis is out and people

within RFK Junior's domain are saying,

"Aha, everything was opposite of what

you're told." And the reason we know

it's opposite is because we have all

these studies.

Okay, that would be bad analysis.

Here, here would be the correct

analysis. You ready? The correct

analysis is on day one, hey, I don't

trust all these experts. They haven't

tested it enough and I don't trust their

motivations andor their competence.

Would that have been a reasonable view

on day one? Yes. Yes, that would be

completely that was my view. So, it's

the reason I didn't get my uh shots

until months had gone by and I saw who

was dying and who wasn't and all that,

but that's another topic. So, it would

be totally reasonable, totally

reasonable if you said, "I don't trust

these experts."

But would it be reasonable that you

trust these latest experts? Why would

you tell why would you trust Dr. Steven

Hatfield?

I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying

that if you don't apply the same filter,

then you're not being rational. You're

just guessing.

The correct filter is you should not

have trusted it when it was first rolled

out. Uh you may remember that I

predicted it wouldn't work when it was

rolled out. So that was the correct

take. The correct take was not trusting

it.

What is the correct take when you have a

whole bunch of new science? This says

the opposite. that was really bad for

you and they knew it the whole time.

Don't trust it.

One of those is probably closer to true,

but you don't have any way of knowing.

You and I have no way of knowing if

anybody did the science correctly.

They're just claims. So to round out the

story, I will say that

at the moment the CDC and the World

Health Organization

and another of other another uh other

experts

are still saying that the uh mRNA

technology was a miracle and it saved

millions of people's lives and the

science on it is crystal clear. Is that

true?

>> I don't know.

It's either true that it worked or it's

true that it didn't work. And you have

no way no way of ever knowing which one

was true. I'll bet you'll never know in

your whole lifetime.

It will never be it will never be

credible

because there will be studies on both

sides for forever. There will always be

studies on both sides.

So, I don't know what to believe.

Do you remember uh Trump talked about

so-called freedom cities about the uh

federal government just before he was

elected? The federal government could

make some land available that uh

entrepreneurial developers could build

their own little freedom cities and sort

of experiment with, you know, lowcost

better, you know, better everything. And

that idea seems to sort of died away.

You know, I don't hear anybody talking

about it. Trump doesn't talk about it.

But then

uh I started seeing all these stories

about gerrymandering.

And I said to myself, how many places

are there in the US

where if the federal government said,

"All right, we'll make this little area

uh a freedom city." And let's say some

clever developer said,"I'm going to

build a freedom city that will really be

around

um Christians who want to go to church.

It won't be exclusive,

so we're not going to discriminate

against anybody, but it'll really be

optimized for Christians who want to go

to church." Now, in theory,

that would bring in more Republicans

than Democrats. you you might have a

better idea how to do that, but the idea

would be

that you could build a freedom city in

just the right battleground state

where it might tip the election because

if you can bring in, you know, a quarter

million people who are reliably

Republican voters and then give them a

good experience in these freedom cities

and then make it really easy to vote in

the freedom cities. Could

you use the freedom cities to rig the

election by moving in little pockets of

reliably Republican voters into

battleground states?

I don't know.

So, you know, it would take somebody's

because the the state affected could

also they could probably just circle it

and uh gerrymander it out of existence.

So, it might be that that they could

gerrymander it away even if you pulled

it off. I don't know. Anyway,

the AI industry is still having

copyright class action problems from

authors. I thought that was kind of

settled, but apparently not. Ars

Technica is writing about it. Uh,

Anthropic

is being sued by some class action group

of authors. And uh

the the issue here is that if uh if it

turns out that the authors win and the

class action goes goes well for the

authors that it would destroy the AI

industry totally because they don't

really have a way to avoid

the knowledge from books I guess because

that's what they trained on. So,

it's possible that we will destroy our

own AI industry through the courts. But

if I had to bet on it, I would follow

the money and I would say uh we would be

talking about like $50 trillion of value

and the future of the country.

So, I would say there's so much money

involved

um that the courts would be, you know,

under so much pressure and there would

be counter suits. And I I I feel like

the people who have $50 trillion at at

risk are going to win that battle every

time because there's just so much

so much at risk.

Anyway,

uh according to Sai Post, Vladimir Henry

is writing that uh the brightest

children from lowincome homes

uh are very competitive with the

brightest kids from rich places up until

the age of about 11.

And then for reasons that are not clear,

but you probably have your own theories,

when that bright kid reaches age 11, if

they're in a poor situation,

their academic results just go to hell

between 11 and 14. But the rich kids who

were just as bright as the poor kids

when they were, you know, five and six

years old, uh they apparently have a

better support system in every way. And

so they go on to become brave adults.

So there is something in the process of

poverty

that makes a bright kid um turn off. And

I don't know what exactly it is. It

could be that they don't want to look

like the nerd and they don't want to be

teased for being the the brainiac or

stuff like that.

Um, remember I keep telling you that

being uh immune to embarrassment is the

greatest superpower ever. Well, here's

here's a good example. When I was in

school, um, I eventually graduated as

validictorian of my Chinese school. Not

very impressive because the entire

school was very small. Um, but early on

in my grade school, it was obvious I was

going to be, you know, a student and I

was, you know, trying to make something

of myself. And can you imagine that I

got teased for being a, you know, a

brainiac, a nerd,

etc. And the answer is, of course I did.

Of course I did. And you're probably

saying, "Oh my god, how did you handle

all that humiliation and the teasing?"

To which I say, "Why humiliation?

Why humiliation?

Are you telling me I was supposed to

feel bad when the dumb people called me

smart?

Where was the part where I was supposed

to feel bad?

I missed all I missed the entire part

where where their cutting insults were

slicing through my psyche and leaving me

in tatters.

The whole time I was just thinking,

"Yeah, you got that right."

Yeah, I am going someplace.

Too bad you're not. Yep, I'm a nerd. Uh,

that's right. I did do my homework.

Uhhuh. Uhhuh. Yeah, I did get an A on

that test. I did. Thanks for noticing.

So, I don't I don't know if I was

mentally deficient or just some kind of

weird narcissist, but I re I recall that

I was teased,

but I don't recall any damage

whatsoever, like ever.

It just felt like I was winning the

whole time. And that's how I played it.

Anyway, I don't know if that advice will

help your lowincome kid

uh survive the brutal situation,

but but but it's also true that the town

I grew up in was a little closer to

goodwill hunting than it was to like an

inner city. Yeah. I I would say that the

the citizens of my town were rooting for

me from the time I was very young and it

was obvious they were rooting for me and

helped helped me escape just like

Goodwill Hunting.

So,

um I don't know if having a uh

having a complete immunity to uh

humiliation would help anybody else, but

help me.

Um, okay. Here's

here's a story that I don't know if this

is true. All right. So, this is a story

about the uh agreement that Trump and

Putin are going to meet in Alaska and

talk about maybe ending the war in

Ukraine. and you're probably telling

yourself um that they wouldn't have the

meeting unless they thought there was

pretty good chance of something positive

coming out of it. And then what we hear

somewhat surprisingly is that Putin

would be willing to simply take some of

the uh but not all of the territory that

he's conquered and just say all right

I'll keep this and we'll you know we'll

just park company. Now, you probably

said to yourself, "Really?

Really?" Because it didn't seem like

Putin had ever offered that before, and

it didn't seem like he was losing so

badly that he'd have to change what his

his position is. So, why would Putin

suddenly go from, "Nope, there's no real

reason to talk to, oh yeah, let's talk

next week."

Now

you may say, well, it's because Trump

threatened those sanctions on the

Indians buying Russian oil or something

else.

There is a uh there's a report in a

German publication, Build BL. Now, I

don't know if it's true,

but this is their version of what's

going on that

uh the Steve Wickoff quote misunderstood

uh Putin

and where Putin said something about

those occupied territories, the ones

that Putin's already con conquered, that

Steve Wickoff misunderstood

Putin's willingness to negotiate a deal.

And so that what you're seeing is a

whole bunch of people operating under a

misunderstanding

of how close they are to an agreement.

Now, I'm not going to say that's true

because it's just some German

publication, you know, it's not being

widely reported that way in our press,

so probably not true. But it does

explain everything and it would be a

Dilbert world kind of thing where they

just heard each other wrong. But you

know what's even funnier?

What if the reason they're having the

meeting is because that Wickoff there

was a translation problem and that he

literally misunderstood Putin. What if

that's the only reason they have the

meeting? And then what if

having the meeting leads to them

actually ending the war?

There's a nonzero possibility

that the meeting was a complete mistake.

But once you get there, you know, they

know the war can't last forever. So

maybe Putin will say, "Well, well, as

long as I'm here, you know, it'd be too

stupid to come here and then just walk

home." not walk home, but you know, so

there's a nonzero possibility that the

most dilberty thing in the world

happened, which is they accidentally

scheduled a meeting that they should not

have and that once they're there,

they're like, "Wow, I might as well end

this war." Maybe it's possible. That's

the most optimistic thing I could say

because I do not see any way that under

normal circumstances this will lead to

any kind of an end to the war. Unless

there's something we don't know about.

Maybe Russia has a bigger problem in

some domain than than we're aware.

Maybe, but we haven't heard about it.

Um, and then of course Zinski is trying

to be the turd in the punch bowl and uh

he's saying that he's ruling out any

kind of deal that the US and Russia make

for Ukrainian land. He's ruling it out.

Okay. But apparently there's also some

Ukrainian legal problem that would make

it impossible for Zilinski to agree to

give away Ukrainian land. he wouldn't

have the power to do it. There'd have to

be some kind of, you know, national uh

referendum or something, but it's

doable. He just have to do it and it

would wouldn't be instant.

Anyway, um according to Breitbart News,

Oliver Lane is writing that there was a

poll, I guess it was a Gallup poll of,

uh Ukrainians and how many of them want

to keep fighting and how many of them

don't? It turns out that um well, maybe

you could tell me what percentage of

Ukrainians want to fight to quote the

bitter end.

What percentage want to fight until

they're all dead?

Um, let's see if you can guess the

percentage.

25 says Texas Hogammer.

25. 25. Excellent guesses. The answer is

24, but I will accept 25.

Oh, we got a 24. Iro, good for you. All

right. So, uh, have I demonstrated once

again that I have the smartest podcast

audience? They knew the answer to the

question just intuitively, 24%.

Um, according to Radio Liberty,

um, so Ukraine is expected to make 4

million drones this year.

um almost all of them will be the

low-end you know inexpensive drones.

Russia is also expected to make millions

of similarly low-end drones this year.

So between Ukraine and Russia, you know,

maybe I don't know 7 to 10 million

drones will be created just by their own

countries. That doesn't even count the

number that they'll buy.

So the United States of course being the

powerful superpower that it is, if those

countries can make millions of drones,

how many do you think the US can make?

Because we now have an estimate of that

from the New York Times. Well, the

answer is maybe a 100,000 units.

Yeah. So, while the war torn,

povertystricken country of Ukraine is

making 4 million per year of drones, we

might be able to make a 100,000.

Uh, we've got a problem

because whoever makes the best and most

drones gets to run the world. And

apparently that's not us. That's not us.

So, we better uh get going on that.

President Trump.

Well, uh, Israel is, uh, planning to, as

you know, take full control of, uh,

Gaza, and they're going to start by

taking full control of Gaza City. Uh,

but at the same time, the US and Qatar

are talking about some kind of grand

proposal that they'll have in two weeks.

The grand proposal for, I assume, the

grand bar is what makes it more than

just Gaza. So maybe the grand part is

the Abraham Accords get expanded, but in

return there's a lot of support for the

Palestinian people who got um relocated,

etc. So I don't know what that'll be,

but um I would like to offer a reframe

for Hamas and all the children who were

victims of the war.

It seems to me that the right way to

frame Hamas is uh that they're involved

in child sacrifice

and it's their own children. So they are

literally sacrificing the lives of their

children for some larger religious and

military victory.

But Israel is getting blamed for killing

them. You know, of course they are

killing. But doesn't it seem to you like

Hamas is not just fighting a war and

hoping the children do well, but rather

they're it's an organized human child

sacrifice.

And Israel, of course, is part of it

because if Israel decided, oh, you can

have everything you want, just come on

in and take what you need. Well, then

there wouldn't be any children being uh

killed.

But under the normal conditions of war

and national defense etc. of course of

course there will be response and will

respond results in lots of people dying

that you wish wouldn't die

but uh human child sacrifice that's what

it looks like to me.

So we got that. All right. Um,

usually on Saturday

when I'm done, uh, Owen Gregorian does a

spaces, but he's got something to do

today. So, that will happen tomorrow.

So, tomorrow is Sunday.

There'll be a spaces after the show, but

not today. Not today. So, you can uh go

about your day and get your breakfast

and have a wonderful day. I'm going to

take a nap with some cats and play some

ping pong later and uh I'm going to have

a great day. I hope you do, too. All

right, I'm going to say uh some words

privately to my beloved

uh subscribers on locals and the rest of

you. You're going to disappear in 30

seconds and I hope you come back

tomorrow. Say