Episode 3030 CWSA 11/28/25

Did you miss me?

Today's going to be the quiet talking version.

I'm going to be quiet but extra awesome today.

It's going to be full ASMR.

All right, let's see.

Let me get your comments up here and then we've got a show for you.

So, come on in.

There we go.

Well, did you miss me at all?

So, I was in the hospital for a couple days.

I'm trying to work on my respiratory situation, so I'm going to be soft talking so I don't uh wear myself out.

Okay.

So, this is a little extra ASMR today.

It will seem like low energy, but really it's strategic.

You ready for this?

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

Today will be the whisper version, the ASMR version.

And if you'd like to take 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 mug or a glass of tanker chalice, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

And it happens.

That's right.

Now, pretty good stuff.

Well, today is mostly about hanging out with you people.

I do have some things to talk about.

slow news day.

Well, not as slow as usual for a Black Friday, which seems racist, but as far as I know, it's not.

All right.

Who wants to talk about the news?

Anybody?

Yeah, let's talk about the news.

All right.

So, I'll try to give you as much energy as I can, but uh can't promise a lot today.

Today we're just going to enjoy the fact that we're all here together and uh I got a lot of love yesterday and I'm happy to return it.

So let me tell you I love you all my audience including the beloveds who are a little bit extra special but you're all awesome.

All right.

Well, I saw a post by Mario Knoff, who is great person to follow.

He has lots of good lots of good stuff on Tesla.

And apparently Tesla's full full self-driving is reached a new level of awesomeness.

Getting closer and closer.

Uh, one interesting thing is that Elon Whimo for going first and, you know, getting approvals and probably making it easier for Tesla to get approved for its full self self-driving.

But the uh the point that Mario was making, it's kind of interesting is that once you can if you can turn your car into a self-driving car, imagine having a 1-hour commute that you could do whatever you wanted.

You could get work done.

You could sip your coffee, but you wouldn't have to do any effort.

It just takes you to work and then takes you home.

Well, one of the things it would do is it would make it easier to live an hour away from work.

So, it could have an impact on real estate prices.

So people who live an hour from work suddenly are going to be like, "Hey, this is totally practical.

I love an hour of no kids and no responsibility, hiding away in your your self-driving car for an hour each way.

Sounds pretty good." I have to admit, um, since the the day I walked out of my cubicle existence, I've thought I would never go back.

But when I think about uh an hour each way in a self-driving car where nobody could bother me and I could just just hang out and do what I want, well, I don't know.

Maybe I'll go back to work.

Maybe I'll get my cubical job back.

Um, but let's talk about some news.

So, you all know about the story of the National Guard, uh, the two National Guard people who got shot.

Um, and apparently that's made it possible for Trump to go full reverse migration, meaning that he's uh planning to halt third world immigration from everything that's a third world.

Now, that seems like a pretty big category and it's something that I think he's wanted to do for a while, but because of the uh yeah, because of the tragic news about the National Guard, it sort of creates an opportunity where he can surf the uh the emotional feeling of the country.

So these anecdotal situations, you know, where there's this one thing that happens that doesn't necessarily tell you, you know, the big picture.

There's just one story of one tragic thing.

But those things really move.

They move policy.

So, I don't want to say it's lucky because it's obviously more tragic than anything else, but it does give Trump the uh the opening to be far more severe on his uh immigration.

So, he literally wants to um I guess he wants to audit all the green cards and he wants to ship back anybody who's not here um for all the right reasons.

So, I think there's going to be a it looks like a massive uh increase in um reimmigration or what he calls it reverse immigration or the news calls it that.

I don't know.

I don't know who calls it that, but I I'm generally not in favor of using anecdotes, no matter how powerful, to make policy.

But in this case, it's a policy that at least maybe half the country wanted.

So, I've got a feeling it'll be very popular with the right wing and it will be called it will be called racist by the left wing and that will be just completely normal.

Um, how in the world could we ever vet all the uh the immigrants and keep out the terrorists?

How could you even do that?

It's completely undoable.

So, I think the options are either we put up with this continuous threat or we close down immigration completely.

There's only two choices because the the choice of vetting people really well that doesn't even seem like it it could work, right?

So, we I think we've had this uh fantasy that we could vet people and we would know who's dangerous and who isn't.

Can't really do that.

Not possible.

So, could be that this is uh going to be looking at a big change.

We'll see.

You know, I wonder how many of our policies are based on fear.

Do you ever think about that?

Uh this would be another one where if there's a big change in policy because of it, it would be because of fear.

And I don't know if fear is the best way, you know, to make new policies.

But I think we're going to find out.

Trump also says the uh that we're going to begin stopping Venezuelan drug traffickers by land.

Where exactly would we stop Venezuelans by land?

Do you understand that?

I think he means direct military action uh within Venezuela since we don't have a if we were going to stop it by land, it would already be stopped.

In other words, if they I don't know tried to get across the Mexican border, the Venezuelans would probably, you know, we've already stopped them.

Excuse me while I take a sip from my awesome water thermos bottle that will make you wish you had one.

>> >> So, if you're just joining, I'm using my NPR ASMR voice to uh conserve my energy so I can go as long as possible.

Probably won't go more than 20 minutes, but we'll see.

All right.

So, it looks like we're uh we're at least teasing going to Venezuela.

But here's the real question.

I'm going to get into some conspiracy theory stuff.

It sounds better when you talk like this.

Conspiracy theories.

Is it really about the drugs?

Maybe.

Some people say fentinel is not a Venezuela problem.

So there must be some other reason Trump wants to go into Venezuela.

Is it because Venezuela has some implication in our election systems?

I'm going to talk about that separately.

Is it because what we really want is regime change?

So, do you think the do you think the war on Venezuelan drugs is about voting machines?

Is it really about drugs?

Or is it really about regime change?

Or is it some combination of all three or or two?

And how would we ever know?

Now, um, today, this morning, since it was slow news, I had some gaps in my understanding of some recent stories.

And so, I used Grock to fill me in and it ruined all my fun.

Has anybody tried that yet?

Have you tried using Grock on stories within your own bubble?

You will be very disappointed if you do.

Not not disappointed in Grock necessarily, but you'll be disappointed in how many things you believe that are pure So my experience this morning was, "All right, Grock, does this look reasonable?" Nope.

How about this?

Does this look reasonable?

Nope.

So, it turns out that there were several things that I thought were at least possible in my bubble that Grock says we're Now, that doesn't mean that Grock is right.

Right?

Grock is, you know, intended to achieve maximum truth, but it's not done yet.

You know, Grock is still a work in progress.

So, it's possible that Grock is the one that's wrong, but it's pretty convincing.

So, the first thing I used Grock to um help me on was the Emerald Robinson uh long thread in which she she weaves together a very very convincing story that our elections have been fake basically for years as well as the elections in other countries and that there's a very specific um set of allegations of why that is.

But um so I ran that against Grock and I said, you know, basically summarize it and then tell me how reasonable it is.

What do you think Grock said?

Grock wasn't buying any of it.

So, um, so Emerald Robinson's, uh, I guess thread you'd call it, is that, and I'll just throw out some of the main points.

So, one of the points is that the the chips in election machines are made in China.

Do you believe that's true?

and that they have um you malicious basically that the chips are malicious but that they were laundered through Taiwan so it would look like the chips came from Taiwan but they really were made in China so I'm not sure that's proven then there was the allegation that uh one of the main election machines had as its CEO Oh, a George Soros um ally.

So, there's a Soros connection alleged and there's a Chinese chip um part, but there's also a Venezuelan software allegation.

And there's something about Serbian servers and the CIA.

So the idea would be, and here's the part I was trying to understand, how in the world could all of those entities be working together?

How how could Soros be working with China who is also working with some Serbians who is also being I don't know managed maybe by the CIA.

Does it seem like they would all be on the same team?

And uh Grock's explanation is that the CIA now this would not be um this is Grock's explanation of I think the Emerald Robinson hypothesis.

So it's not Grock's opinion, it's description of someone else's opinion.

But the idea would be that the CIA is allowing with full knowledge China to manipulate our elections and Soros to manipulate them and some Serbians and maybe some Venezuelan software.

And that the reason that the CIA would allow all that is that somehow that would preserve the deep state as it is now.

Do you think Chinese microchips, if such a thing were real, do you think that all those entities would be working toward the same end and that the CIA would be completely aware of it and allow it to happen?

And then separately, why didn't it work in 2024?

If our elections are completely compromised, why in the world didn't it work in 2024?

And the explanation given is that the good work of the people trying to uncover this vast conspiracy were so good at what they did that it increased the uh let's say the potential for audits and the oversight and that in some cases they got rid of election machines.

um I don't know how many places but so the theory is that they've you know that for uh maybe decades the entire system has been rigged that hundreds of people are aware of it and part of it but yet somehow they we only hear about it from a few whistleblowers even though decades and hundreds of people have been involved That's that's a that's a stretch.

But we have seen we have seen real world situations where hundreds of people have been involved and it was actually was a conspiracy.

You if you're talking about co for example that was an example of a lot of people being involved who could have been whistleblowers but weren't.

So, we we do have, I think, some precedent of lots of people being involved and nobody talking because they'd be afraid of being executed presumably by the CIA.

So, how much of that sounds um real to you?

Do you believe that all of those entities, let's see, I'll give you the entities again.

Which ones?

Uh, it would have been um the Soros organization, Venezuela, some Serbian hackers, the Chinese making microchips, and the CIA.

Do you believe that they were all coordinating?

That's kind of a It's kind of a stretch.

I'm just looking at your comments.

So, um, Grock spot.

Well, let me let me tell you what else.

Just give you as much as I have.

Um, first of all, the the story is kind of Yeah, it's confusy.

Exactly.

It's a it's a big confusing story.

So, that's your first hint that maybe there's something wrong.

Meaning, there's a lot of parts to it.

And if there's one thing I've taught you and only one thing, it's that um things which are not true can often have a lot of circumstantial evidence that they are.

So it's not unusual for something not to be true, but really really looking like it is for 20 different reasons.

That's it just doesn't mean it's true.

So, let's see what else.

Um, I I also look to Mike Benz to tell me if this all tracks.

And I I think Mike, I don't want to I hate to mischaracterize him, but I I think he would be on the side of um not complete not completely embracing the Emerald Robinson version of events.

Um I didn't see him debunk it, but nor did I see him fully embracing it.

If he had that would have added a lot to the credibility because he knows you know he he knows the context of things in ways we don't.

Anyway, so part of the um part of the theory is is that the reason No, not not S I R I theory.

T H E O R Y.

I've got to talk to my phone for a minute.

My phone thought I was talking to it.

Shh.

Phone, quiet down.

All right.

So part of the theory is that the reason that um the bad people got away with it is that they they learn to shave votes only from the deep red pro.

Trump um districts.

And the idea is um that nobody would suspect if they did all the cheating in the red areas because the red areas are Republican controlled and you wouldn't expect those to be the places that there would be cheating against Trump.

And the theory is that if it's a Trump 70% area that if they just shave it back to say 68% nobody would notice because it would still be a landslide for Trump in a Trump area.

So that would look legit.

It would just look oh it's off by 2% from what we expected.

But you know you can't you can't expect that accurately.

>> >> So that makes sense.

Uh I don't think there's proof of that, but it makes sense in the how would you cheat?

If you did cheat, how would you do it?

So it makes sense that way, but I don't think that's um I don't think there's evidence of that.

Uh let's see what else.

the I've been saying for a while that the best evidence that the electronic voting machines are not legit w without stating who might be behind, you know, any uh any bad behavior is that they they're not cheaper, they're not easier, and they're not more secure than the alternative, which is paper ballots.

So, why do they even exist?

Um, I'm leaning toward the idea that they do exist for the purpose of rigging elections in other countries.

But that would still raise the question, who's doing the rigging?

Is it possible that the CIA was working with Maduro and China?

I I don't know how all that makes sense.

Anyway, so let's see what else Grock said about it.

Um, yeah.

So, the theory that the CIA allegedly allowed China to insert spyware because they were okay with it.

Does that really track does it make sense to you that um there would be at least I don't know two or three entities that all had some access to be able to rig the rig the vote.

I don't know.

So I'm going to say this about that.

Um, first of all, Grock, there's really a spoiler that this won't be the first thing I tell you that um they kind of debunked.

Now, debunk is a strong word and it does not mean disproven.

So, just get that part straight.

Uh, Grock did not disprove the theory.

is simply did not find it compelling, I guess.

But is that is that evidence?

Are you is anybody convinced by Grock's opinion?

Well, one of the things that Grock did was it mocked me and actually it used me as an example in his response.

It sounded he said it sounded more like a like a Scott Adams conspiracy theory.

And I said, "Why'd you bring me into it?" And that was the funny part.

Grock knows who I am.

Um, it knows who I am, but it also use me as an example to make his point.

Anyway, got a little personal there.

All right.

So, I also tested Grock against the Mike Benz um hypothesis, I'll call it that, that uh it's not a coincidence that uh there are these big immigration waves in to America um that follow some kind of CIA um color revolution in another country.

So I think he had some I don't know maybe there were like eight different examples of countries where we were actively meaning the CIA was actively trying to uh do a regime change and caused instability in the the target country be it Syria or Afghanistan and then once that um once that uh let's a um disruption of their society happened and it triggered a bunch of uh immigration uh or migration out of the target country that uh there was a secondary benefit that the deep state or the CIA or somebody knew would happen.

And what they would do is they would uh aim the aim the refugees for areas where the extra population could be used to change the vote.

So, and uh and Mike gave a bunch of examples that uh you would have to believe that they were all a coincidence for that to for for there to be any other reason.

In other words, it does look intentional, but only by the fact that there are too many coincidences.

But Grock, I thought, was going to buy into this a little bit uh more than it did.

Grock said that uh there's no evidence of intent.

So, it didn't doubt Mike Benz's facts.

it only said there's a part missing which is some evidence that anybody intended for this to happen.

Um we can observe that it does happen.

We can observe that um something like color revolutions that we're pushing in other places does create mass migration and we can observe that it changes the the political you know dynamic in certain places but um the part that's missing is some kind of a more direct smoking gun I guess that It's all intentional.

At least at least the intentional part is that it's uh partly to, you know, change the uh the voting balance in the United States.

So, that ruined uh some of my fun there.

Um, as far as I can tell, Mike is undefeated in terms of showing his receipts, but uh, sometimes you have to make a little bit of a a leap and say, well, this doesn't look like a coincidence or or if it is a coincidence, it's sure a weird one.

So I would say that um so Grock was not Grock was not uh not at all convinced.

Now again I remind you that doesn't mean Grock is right.

That was just sort of Grock's stake.

Then I uh this this one will kill you.

You ready for another one?

I don't want to ruin all of your your fun with the conspiracy theories because they are fun and I I I get drawn into them as much as anybody else.

All right.

So, I saw a post by Eric Dohy that summarized what a number of other people have said about the sedicious sex.

you know, the sedicious six, that would be the six uh Democrats who uh did the video that suggested that um people in the military should not follow orders that are illegal.

Now, as Eric um points out, and I and this would be the uh I think Eric's take would be what I'd call the uh the Republican bubble.

Doesn't mean it's wrong.

Doesn't mean it's right.

It's just what the Republicans are saying on social media, but you know, maybe the Democrats don't even see it.

I don't even know if they see it.

But it goes like this.

>> >> There is an alleged and everything I say about this will be alleged uh an alleged nonprofit linked to George Soros that is fermenting sedition within the military.

So the the thinking is that the video we saw was um inspired by or even the script was written by some third party external um bad player and that that bad player might be linked to maybe George Soros.

Uh, but also, let's see, there's some group called Win Without War that put up a billboard, just one billboard in North Carolina.

Um, and that was similar in tone to the sedicious sedicious sex.

Um, so that would suggest there's some external maybe larger, you know, larger play bigger than just some Democrats wanting to do a thing.

There's some link to Antifa allegedly.

Um, and then as Eric Dhy is reporting that on November 11th, just days before the video, the National Lawyers Guild uh published a page urging service members to refuse illegal orders.

Um, and it would be the basically the same talking points as in the video.

So, and then win without war, uh, that entity.

Let me see if I got the right entities.

So, there's a National Lawyers Guild, but there's also the Wind Without War nonprofit, I think, um, who are backed by the Soros Open Society and the group had some previous name.

All right.

So, and then, oh, here it is.

So, the win without war is partnered with the National Lawyers Guild.

Is this all too confusing?

So the the the short version is that um the belief is that the six Democrats were not doing this on their own that there was some external guiding force still unidentified that uh allegedly had some connection with Soros.

Um, I guess the National Lawyers Guild supports Antifa.

And then, um, here's the key part.

There's something that Senator Ruben Ggo said um on video recently in some interview I guess and uh allegedly he admitted that there was a external script that the script for the video you know he had seen it it came from some external source but Grock says that's fake news.

Grock says there is no such thing as Reuben Ggo admitting there was a third party script that just didn't happen and that it was a misinterpretation of something he did say, but there's no evidence that he said it came from an external source.

Now, um I don't doubt that there's more than one entity that's putting out the same message.

But then I asked Grock, "So why would these six people put out this video if not to, you know, try to create some kind of a insurrection or uh cause chaos or, I don't know, take over the government or something else." And here's what Grock said.

Grock said it's most likely that the that the Democrats are legitimately afraid of Trump trying to go full dictator and issuing illegal orders.

Uh, and so Grock believes that these sedicious sex were actually patriots who are legitimately concerned that Trump is at least teasing or moving toward more some more authoritarian situation and that they would like to reduce the chances that he could succeed at that.

And so they're warning the troops, hey, watch out.

You know, he might actually try something that's legitimately illegal and you're going to have to step up.

Now, what do you think?

Do you think it's more likely that some external entity was behind it all?

And who would that be?

Or do you think that every Democrat is afraid, literally every Democrat is afraid that Trump might exceed his uh legal domain and try to get the military to do something illegal.

Um, and it might be illegal in terms of war, might be illegal in terms of um immigration.

um could be illegal in terms of anything I guess.

So what what sounds more likely to you that the dem Democrats are legitimately afraid and some of them said hey let's do something about it you know to inoculate so the the word that that Grock used was inoculate so the idea was to simply get the military thinking about how they would handle a situation that looked, you know, unambiguously illegal to them.

I would say at this point, um, the third party connection is unproven.

I don't think you need a third party if every Democrat is really thinking the same thing.

And, you know, Trump keeps teasing about a third term.

And if you're a Democrat, you're going to take that seriously.

You know, I I think Republicans laugh at the third term thing because it looks like, you know, Trump's just playing with them, but they're the ones being played with.

So, they might be thinking, they might be thinking it's real.

I'm going to say on this one, um, the only thing I think is proven is that there's more than one Democrat who thinks Trump might be breaking the law sometime soon.

So, if there is a connection to some shadowy external source, um, I don't think that's quite proven yet.

Could be, though.

Could be.

All right.

Um, next story.

Uh, I saw in the Independent Hannah Arriva Aarova is writing that, uh, Russian drones are targeting civilians and turning one Ukrainian city into what they called a human safari.

So apparently Kissan allegedly has uh you know I think hundreds of uh Russian drones a day are hunting for civilians that just happen to go outdoors.

Does that sound real to you?

Keep in mind that all reports from a war zone are a little, you know, a little sketchy.

Do you believe that one?

Do you believe that in Keran there are I don't know hundreds of attacks on uh on civilians and if and if they are le let's say it was true why would Russia do that why would it why would it use drones to attack civilians I will sip for my awesome thing while you think about that would they be doing it if it if it's happening at all?

Uh are they trying to depopulate the city?

Are they trying to get people to move so for what?

So it'd be easier to take over the city.

Um, one theory is that they were just practicing and that they just use it for target practice to train the drone operators.

Do you think they're doing it for target practice just to train the drone people?

Now, that doesn't seem like good use of training.

Um, are they trying to demoralize the city?

Is it revenge?

Some people say it's revenge for something the Ukrainians did.

Uh, that doesn't make sense.

Um, or is it propaganda and it's not actually happening?

Or is it happening but not at the level that's being reported?

I would say I'm not quite willing to believe that uh it's even happening.

Um, I would say it's it's too Yeah, it's too fog of war.

It's too much exactly like exactly like something somebody would lie about in a war.

Oh, you're monsters.

You're killing our civilians.

We would never do that.

So, I'm going to say I don't believe that story.

Um then I tried to use Grock to understand how likely is it that Ukraine and Russia would find a find an acceptable peace.

And I think the answer is there's not really any way.

I don't think there is a way.

Um so I I started with some um context.

You know, I've been hearing forever that uh Ukraine could have made peace back in 2022.

Um, and I guess the offer was on the table that uh Russia would keep Crimea and the Donbass that has a bunch of Russian national a bunch of Russian ethnic people would have some kind of special rule and that uh Ukraine would um agree to never join NATO.

And the theory is that Russia would have taken that offer.

Um, but uh it looked like Zalinski may have been the one who who Let's see.

Let's see if I have this right.

Oh, so so it looks like it looked like there was a way to make peace, but probably that's an exaggeration.

I suspect they were not ever close to peace, but it might be true that if they the only way they could make peace is something that looked like giving up a lot.

Um, so you see how hard it is to for me to even explain this, doing a terrible job.

So, so according to Grock, I'll just tell you what Grock says.

Uh Grock said that in 2022 um Ukraine floated some concessions to maybe wrap things up with our war and he signaled openness to neutrality not joining NATO.

uh Zalinski did and autonomy or special status for the Donbass and but I think um but Putin pushed again this is Grock Putin pushed for total demilitarization a handover of Crimea and more so it tanked.

So according to Grock, there was never anything that both sides agreed on.

So if there was never anything that both sides agreed on, was it ever was it ever something that could have not happened?

So and then there's Grock also says that the egos of the two leaders is in play.

You know that neither of them can lose.

So that's part of the that's part of it.

So here's what I think.

I don't think there was ever a chance it wasn't going to go to war because they were never that close.

They say they were.

Um but I think that's just propaganda.

Um and both think the other is the the reason that it went further.

So, um, here's why I think it's impossible for them to get any kind of peace.

Because if Silinski makes peace by giving up land, he will lose his job and probably be killed.

If Putin decided to go easy on um Ukraine, that wouldn't make sense because he seems to be in a sort of a winning position in the long run.

So, you've got two leaders who neither of them have much incentive to settle it.

Um but they have an incentive to keep doing what they're doing.

At the very least, you would need one of the sides to think it was a bad idea to be at war, and I don't think we have that.

Greetings from Moscow.

Somebody in the comments is in Moscow.

So, I would say that I don't believe the story uh that there was a point in the past where they could have made peace.

I think that was always maybe exaggerated and probably this was always going to happen just because of the interests of the two leaders and it's more about the leaders than the countries.

What do you think?

I'm looking at the comments.

Do you think do you think there's any chance that they could have settled this thing earlier like 2022?

Yeah, I'm really feeling like no.

And uh then on top of that, you have all the smart people saying that even if um Putin agreed, you couldn't trust him.

So, you know, there there's not enough there's not enough to make a deal, but even if he made a deal, it wouldn't be worth anything.

Cuz I can't see I can't see Putin giving up on at least controlling Ukraine as a proxy.

So, proves again.

What did I prove again?

So, I guess I don't believe anything about um that they could have had peace before.

I just I just don't think it was possible.

And it isn't possible now either.

So, I would say at minimum um I'm going to reup my prediction.

I think there's going to be at least another year of war and there it'll be perpetual war unless something changes and I think uh I think time is on Russia's side right now.

Yeah, it looks like they're in a winning position.

So they'd they would have no reason to negotiate.

I mean, it certainly doesn't look like it doesn't look like Putin wants peace, does it?

I don't think he cares at all.

I mean, he would want peace if he also got as much of Ukraine as he wanted, but uh doesn't look like that's an option.

Ukraine is not a country anymore.

Well, there's still something left.

>> >> you know, KV is still unoccupied.

All right, that's all I have for today.

If you're joining late, uh my whispering is cuz trying to save energy and uh I thought I'd try my ASMR FM radio voice and it worked.

So, I got through most of the show.

Now, there there's not much going on, and I think I I think I did a terrible job today if I were to uh judge my own uh analysis.

Pretty bad.

Uh because these stories are all complicated.

But I recommend the following.

If you if you see one of these complicated conspiracy theory stories, no matter where it comes from, and no matter how credible it sounds, you really owe it to yourself to spend a few minutes with Grock and say, "All right, here's the claim.

Is that is that legitimate?" I think what you're going to find is that nine out of 10 times Gro is going to say, "No, that is not legitimate." And then you'll say, "Damn it, I'm in a bubble." Because we all are in bubbles.

Now, you may have also seen News Nation did a story about Dr.

Sunun Jan and his uh cancer treatments and trying to get the FDA to approve it.

And uh who who was it?

Uh was it Redfield?

Some somebody was ex FDA was saying that uh the the practice of waiting for a um a uh a serious trial of every of every medicine is not always appropriate.

And I think the claim was if you if you observe somebody doing a treatment that cures them or puts them in remission and there was nothing else that worked.

That's not nothing.

You know, it's not a randomized control trial.

But can you ignore that?

Suppose suppose dozens of people are cured of incurable cancer.

Would you not allow the next person to try it?

So I think that's the question we're down to.

So I'm on that path.

So if I get if I get remission that'll mean something.

I'll let you know.

I've got one more dose.

All right, people.

I'm running out of energy.

So, thanks for joining.

And I'll say bye for now.

I I don't have enough energy to um stay for the uh after show for my beloveds, but I'll try to get more energy in the future.

Bye for now.

Did you miss me? Today's going to be the

quiet talking version.

I'm going to be quiet but extra awesome

today.

It's going to be full ASMR.

All right, let's see.

Let me get your

comments up here

and then we've got a show for you.

[clears throat] So, come on in.

There we go.

Well, did you miss me at all?

So, I was in the hospital for a couple

days.

I'm trying to work on my respiratory

situation, so I'm going to be soft

talking so I don't uh wear myself out.

Okay.

So, this is a little extra ASMR today.

It will seem like low energy,

but really it's strategic.

You ready for this?

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

Today will be the whisper version, the

ASMR version. And if you'd like to take

your experience up to levels that no one

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains,

[clears throat] all you need for that is

a copper mug or a glass of tanker

chalice, a canteen jugger flask, a

vessel of any kind. Fill with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join

me now for the unparalleled pleasure,

the dopamine hit of the day, the thing

that makes everything better. It's

called the simultaneous sip. And it

happens. That's right. Now,

[clears throat] pretty good stuff.

Well, today is mostly about hanging out

with you people. I do have some things

to talk about.

slow news day. Well, not as slow as

usual for a Black Friday, which seems

racist, but as far as I know, it's not.

All right. Who wants to talk about the

news?

Anybody? [clears throat]

Yeah, let's talk about the news. All

right. So, I'll try to give you as much

energy as I can, but uh can't promise a

lot today. Today we're just going to

enjoy the fact that we're all here

together

and uh I got a lot of love yesterday and

I'm happy to return it.

So let me tell you I love you all my

audience

including the beloveds who are a little

bit extra special

but you're all awesome.

All right. Well, I saw a post by Mario

Knoff, who is great person to follow. He

has lots of good lots of good stuff on

Tesla. And apparently Tesla's full full

self-driving

is reached a new level of awesomeness.

Getting closer and closer.

Uh, one interesting thing is that Elon

Whimo for going first and, you know,

getting approvals and probably making it

easier for Tesla to get approved for its

full self self-driving.

But the uh the point that Mario was

making,

it's kind of interesting is that once

you can if you can turn your car into a

self-driving car, imagine having a

1-hour commute

that you could do whatever you wanted.

You could get work done. You could sip

your coffee, but you wouldn't have to do

any effort. [clears throat] It just

takes you to work

and then takes you home.

Well, one of the things it would do is

it would make it easier to live an hour

away from work.

So, it could have an impact on real

estate prices.

So people who live an hour from work

suddenly are going to be like, "Hey,

this is totally practical. I love an

hour of no kids and

no responsibility,

hiding away in your your self-driving

car for an hour each way.

Sounds pretty good." I have to admit,

um, since the the day I walked out of my

cubicle existence,

I've thought I would never go back. But

when I think about uh an hour each way

in a self-driving car [clears throat]

where nobody could bother me

and I could just just hang out and do

what I want, well, I don't know. Maybe

I'll go back to work. Maybe I'll get my

cubical job back.

Um, but

let's talk about some news.

So, you all know about the story of the

National Guard, uh, the two National

Guard people who got shot.

Um, and apparently that's made it

possible for Trump to go full reverse

migration,

meaning that he's uh planning to halt

third world immigration

from everything that's a third world.

Now, that seems like a pretty big

category and it's something that I think

he's wanted to do for a while, but

because of the uh

yeah, because of the tragic news about

the National Guard, it sort of creates

an opportunity

where he can surf the uh the emotional

feeling of the country.

So these anecdotal situations,

you know, where there's this one thing

that happens that doesn't necessarily

tell you, you know, the big picture.

There's just one story of one tragic

thing. But those things really move.

They move policy. So, I don't want to

say it's lucky because it's obviously

more tragic than anything else, but it

does give Trump the uh the opening to be

far more severe on his uh immigration.

So, he literally wants to um I guess he

wants to audit

all the green cards and he wants to ship

back anybody who's not here um for all

the right reasons.

So, I think there's going to be a it

looks like a massive uh increase in um

reimmigration or what he calls it

reverse immigration or the news calls it

that. I don't know. I don't know who

calls it that, but I I'm generally not

in favor of using anecdotes,

no matter how powerful, to make policy.

But in this case, it's a policy that at

least maybe half the country wanted.

So,

I've got a feeling it'll be very popular

with the right wing

and it will be called

it will be called racist by the left

wing

and that will be just completely normal.

Um,

how in the world could we ever

vet all the uh the immigrants

and keep out the terrorists? How could

you even do that? It's completely

undoable.

So, I think the options

are either we put up with this

continuous threat

or we close down immigration completely.

There's only two choices because the the

choice of vetting people really well

that doesn't even seem like it it could

work, right?

So, we I think we've had this uh fantasy

that we could vet people and we would

know who's dangerous and who isn't.

Can't really do that.

Not possible.

So, could be that this is uh going to be

looking at a big change. We'll see. You

know, I wonder how many of our policies

are based on fear.

Do you ever think about that? Uh this

would be another one where if there's a

big change in policy because of it, it

would be because of fear.

And I don't know if fear is the best

way,

you know, to make new policies.

But I think we're going to find out.

Trump also says the uh that we're going

to begin stopping Venezuelan drug

traffickers by land.

Where exactly

would we stop Venezuelans by land?

Do you understand that? I think he means

direct military action

uh within Venezuela

since we don't have a

if we were going to stop it by land, it

would already be stopped.

In other words, if they I don't know

tried to get across the Mexican border,

the Venezuelans would probably, you

know, we've already stopped them.

Excuse me while I take a sip from my

awesome water thermos bottle

that will make you wish you had one.

>> [sighs]

>> So, if you're just joining, I'm using my

NPR ASMR voice

to uh conserve my energy so I can go as

long as possible. Probably won't go more

than 20 minutes,

but we'll see.

All right. So,

it looks like we're uh we're at least

teasing going to Venezuela. But here's

the real question. I'm going to get into

some conspiracy theory stuff.

It sounds better when you talk like

this. Conspiracy theories.

Is it really about the drugs?

Maybe. Some people say fentinel is not a

Venezuela problem. So there must be some

other reason Trump wants to go into

Venezuela.

Is it because Venezuela has some

implication in our election systems?

I'm going to talk about that separately.

Is it because

what we really want is regime change?

So, do you think the

do you think the war on Venezuelan drugs

is about voting machines?

Is it really about drugs?

Or is it really about regime change?

Or is it some combination of all three

or or two? And how would we ever know?

Now, um, today, this morning, since it

was slow news, I had some gaps in my

understanding of some recent stories.

And so, I used Grock

to fill me in and it ruined all my fun.

[gasps]

Has anybody tried that yet? Have you

tried using Grock on stories within your

own bubble?

You will be very disappointed if you do.

Not not disappointed in Grock

necessarily,

but you'll be disappointed in how many

things you believe that are pure

[snorts and laughter]

So my experience this morning was, "All

right, Grock, does this look

reasonable?"

Nope.

How about this? Does this look

reasonable? Nope.

So, it turns out that there were several

things that I thought were at least

possible in my bubble that Grock says

we're

Now, that doesn't mean that Grock is

right. Right? Grock is, you know,

intended to

achieve maximum truth,

but it's not done yet. You know, Grock

is still a work in progress. So, it's

possible that Grock is the one that's

wrong, but it's pretty convincing.

So, the first thing I used Grock to um

help me on was the Emerald Robinson

uh long thread in which she she weaves

together a very very convincing story

that our elections have been fake

basically for years

as well as the elections in other

countries

and that there's a very specific

um set of allegations of why that is.

But um so I ran that against Grock

and I said, you know, basically

summarize it and then tell me how

reasonable it is. What do you think

Grock said?

Grock wasn't [clears throat] buying any

of it. So,

um, so Emerald Robinson's,

uh, I guess thread you'd call it,

is that, and I'll just throw out some of

the main points.

So, one of the points is that the the

chips in election machines

are made in China. Do you believe that's

true? and that they have um you

malicious

basically that the chips are malicious

but that they were laundered through

Taiwan

so it would look like the chips came

from Taiwan but they really were made in

China so I'm not sure that's proven

then there was the allegation that uh

one of the main election machines had as

its CEO Oh, a George Soros

um ally.

So, there's a Soros connection

alleged and there's a Chinese chip

um part, but there's also a Venezuelan

software allegation.

And there's something about Serbian

servers

and the CIA.

So the idea would be,

and here's the part I was trying to

understand,

how in the world could all of those

entities be working together?

How how could Soros be working with

China

who is also working with some Serbians

who is also being I don't know managed

maybe by the CIA.

Does it seem like they would all be on

the same team?

And uh Grock's explanation

is that the CIA now this would not be um

this is Grock's explanation

of I think the Emerald Robinson

hypothesis.

So it's not Grock's opinion, it's

description of someone else's opinion.

But the idea would be that the CIA is

allowing with full knowledge

China to manipulate our elections

and Soros to manipulate them and some

Serbians and maybe some Venezuelan

software.

And that the reason that the CIA would

allow all that is that somehow that

would preserve

the deep state as it is

now. Do you think Chinese microchips,

if such a thing were real, do you think

that all those entities would be working

toward the same end and that the CIA

would be completely aware of it

and allow it to happen?

And then separately,

why didn't it work in 2024?

If our elections are completely

compromised,

why in the world didn't it work in 2024?

And the explanation given is that the

good work of the people trying to

uncover this vast conspiracy

were so good at what they did that it

increased the uh let's say the potential

for audits and the oversight and that in

some cases they got rid of election

machines.

um I don't know how many places but so

the theory is that they've you know that

for uh maybe decades

the entire system has been rigged that

hundreds of people

are aware of it and part of it

but yet somehow they we only hear about

it from a few whistleblowers

even though decades and hundreds of

people have been involved That's that's

a that's a stretch. But we have seen we

have seen real world situations where

hundreds of people have been involved

and it was actually was a conspiracy.

You if you're talking about co for

example that was an example of a lot of

people being involved who could have

been whistleblowers but weren't. So, we

we do have, I think, some precedent of

lots of people being involved and nobody

talking because they'd be afraid of

being executed presumably by the CIA.

So, how much of that sounds um

real to you?

Do you believe that all of those

entities, let's see, I'll give you the

entities again.

Which ones? Uh, it would have been

um the Soros organization,

Venezuela, some Serbian hackers, the

Chinese making microchips, and the CIA.

Do you believe that they were all

coordinating?

That's kind of a It's kind of a stretch.

I'm just looking at your comments. So,

um,

Grock spot. Well, let me let me tell you

what else. Just give you as much as I

have. Um,

first of all, the the story is kind of

Yeah, it's confusy. Exactly. It's a it's

a big confusing story. So, that's your

first hint that maybe there's something

wrong.

Meaning, there's a lot of parts to it.

And if there's one thing I've taught you

and only one thing, it's that um things

which are not true can often have

[clears throat]

a lot of circumstantial evidence that

they are. So it's not unusual

for something not to be true, but really

really looking like it is for 20

different reasons. That's it just

doesn't mean it's true.

So, let's see what else. Um,

I I also look to Mike Benz

to tell me if this all tracks. And I I

think Mike, I don't want to I hate to

mischaracterize him, but I I think he

would be on the side of

um not complete not completely embracing

the Emerald Robinson

version of events.

Um I didn't see him debunk it, but nor

did I see him fully embracing it.

If he had

that would have added a lot to the

credibility

because he knows you know he he knows

the context of things in ways we don't.

Anyway, so part of the um part of the

theory

is is that the reason

No, not not S I R I theory. T H E O R Y.

I've got to talk to my phone for a

minute. My phone thought I was talking

to it.

Shh. Phone, quiet down.

All right. So part of the theory is that

the reason that um the bad people got

away with it

is that they they learn to shave votes

only from the deep red proTrump

um districts.

And the idea is

um that nobody would suspect if they did

all the cheating in the red areas

because the red areas are Republican

controlled and you wouldn't expect those

to be the places that there would be

cheating against Trump. And the theory

is that if it's a Trump 70% area that if

they just shave it back to say 68%

nobody would notice because it would

still be a landslide for Trump in a

Trump area. So that would look legit. It

would just look oh it's off by 2% from

what we expected. But you know you can't

you can't expect that accurately.

>> [clears throat]

>> So that makes sense. Uh I don't think

there's proof of that, but it makes

sense in the how would you cheat? If you

did cheat, how would you do it? So it

makes sense that way, but I don't think

that's um I don't think there's evidence

of that.

Uh let's see what else.

the

I've been saying for a while that the

best evidence that the electronic voting

machines are not legit

w without stating who might be behind,

you know, any uh any bad behavior is

that they they're not cheaper,

they're not easier, and they're not more

secure than the alternative, which is

paper ballots. So, why do they even

exist?

Um, I'm leaning toward

the idea that they do exist for the

purpose of rigging elections in other

countries.

But that would still raise the question,

who's doing the rigging?

Is it possible that the CIA was working

with Maduro

and China?

I I don't know how all that makes sense.

Anyway,

so let's see what else Grock said about

it.

Um,

yeah. So, the theory that the CIA

allegedly allowed China to insert

spyware

because they were okay with it. Does

that really track

does it make sense to you that

um there would be at least I don't know

two or three entities that all had some

access to be able to rig the rig the

vote. I don't know. So I'm going to say

this about that.

Um, first of all, Grock, there's really

a spoiler that this won't be the first

thing I tell you that um they kind of

debunked.

Now, debunk is a strong word and it does

not mean disproven.

So, just get that part straight. Uh,

Grock did not disprove the theory. is

simply

did not find it compelling, I guess. But

is that is that evidence?

Are you is anybody convinced by Grock's

opinion?

Well, one of the things that Grock did

was it mocked me and actually it used me

as an example

in his response. It sounded he said it

sounded more like a like a Scott Adams

conspiracy theory.

And I said, "Why'd you bring me into

it?"

And that was the funny part. Grock knows

who I am.

Um,

it knows who I am, but it also use me as

an example to make his point.

Anyway, [snorts] got [clears throat] a

little personal there. All right. So, I

also tested Grock against the Mike Benz

um hypothesis, I'll call it that, that

uh it's not a coincidence

that uh there are these big immigration

waves

in to America um that follow some kind

of CIA

um color revolution in another country.

So I think he had some I don't know

maybe there were like eight different

examples of countries where we were

actively meaning the CIA was actively

trying to uh do a regime change and

caused instability in the the target

country be it Syria or Afghanistan

and then once that um once that uh let's

a

um disruption of their society happened

and it triggered a bunch of uh

immigration

uh or migration out of the target

country that uh there was a secondary

benefit

that the deep state or the CIA or

somebody knew would happen. And what

they would do is they would uh aim the

aim the refugees

for areas where the extra population

could be used to change the vote.

So,

and uh and Mike gave a bunch of examples

that uh you would have to believe that

they were all a coincidence

for that to for for there to be any

other reason. In other words, it does

look intentional,

but only by the fact that there are too

many coincidences.

But Grock,

I thought, was going to buy into this a

little bit uh more than it did. Grock

said that uh there's no evidence of

intent.

So, it didn't doubt

Mike Benz's facts.

it only said there's a part missing

which is some evidence that anybody

intended for this to happen. Um we can

observe that it does happen. We can

observe that

um something like color revolutions that

we're pushing in other places does

create mass migration

and we can observe that it changes the

the political you know dynamic in

certain places

but um the part that's missing is some

kind of a more direct smoking gun I

guess that It's all intentional. At

least at least the intentional part is

that it's uh partly to, you know, change

the uh the voting balance in the United

States.

So, that ruined uh some of my fun there.

Um, as far as I can tell, Mike is

undefeated in terms of showing his

receipts,

but uh, sometimes you have to make a

little bit of a

a leap [clears throat] and say, well,

this doesn't look like a coincidence or

or if it is a coincidence, it's sure a

weird one.

So I would say that um so Grock was not

Grock was not uh not at all convinced.

Now again I remind you that doesn't mean

Grock is right.

That was just sort of Grock's stake.

Then I uh this this one will kill you.

You ready for another one?

I don't want to ruin all of your your

fun with the conspiracy theories because

they are fun and I I I get drawn into

them as much as anybody else. All right.

So, I saw a post by Eric Dohy that

summarized

what a number of other people have said

about the sedicious sex. you know, the

sedicious six, that would be the six uh

Democrats

who uh did the video that suggested that

um people in the military should not

follow orders that are illegal.

Now, as Eric um points out, and I and

this would be the uh I think Eric's take

would be what I'd call the uh

the Republican bubble.

Doesn't mean it's wrong. Doesn't mean

it's right. It's just what the

Republicans are saying on social media,

but you know, maybe the Democrats don't

even see it. I don't even know if they

see it. But it goes like this.

>> [clears throat]

>> There is an alleged and everything I say

about this will be alleged

uh an alleged nonprofit linked to George

Soros that is fermenting sedition within

the military. So the the thinking is

that the video we saw was um inspired by

or even the script was written by some

third party external

um bad player and that that bad player

might be linked to maybe George Soros.

Uh, but also, let's see, there's some

group called Win Without War that put up

a billboard, just one billboard in North

Carolina. Um, and that was similar in

tone to the sedicious sedicious sex. Um,

so that would suggest there's some

external maybe larger,

you know, larger play bigger than just

some Democrats wanting to do a thing.

There's some link to Antifa allegedly.

Um, and then as Eric Dhy is reporting

that on November 11th, just days before

the video, the National Lawyers Guild uh

published a page urging service members

to refuse illegal orders.

Um, and it would be the basically the

same talking points as in the video. So,

and then win without war, uh, that

entity.

Let me see if I got the right entities.

So, there's a National Lawyers Guild,

but there's also the Wind Without War

nonprofit, I think,

um, who are backed by the Soros Open

Society

and the group had some previous name.

All right. So, and then, oh, here it is.

So, the win without war is partnered

with the National Lawyers Guild. Is this

all too confusing?

So the the the short version

is that um the belief is that the six

Democrats were not

doing this on their own that there was

some external guiding force still

unidentified

that uh allegedly had some connection

with Soros.

Um,

I guess the National Lawyers Guild

supports Antifa.

And then, um, here's the key part.

There's something that Senator Ruben Ggo

said

um on video recently in some interview I

guess and uh allegedly he admitted that

there was a external script that the

script for the video you know he had

seen it it came from some external

source but Grock says that's fake news.

Grock says there is no such thing as

Reuben Ggo admitting there was a third

party script that just didn't happen and

that it was a misinterpretation

of something he did say, but there's no

evidence that he said it came from an

external source.

Now,

um I don't doubt that there's more than

one entity that's putting out the same

message. But then I asked Grock, "So why

would these six people put out this

video if not to, you know, try to create

some kind of a insurrection or uh cause

chaos or, I don't know, take over the

government or something else." And

here's what Grock said. [clears throat]

Grock said it's most likely that the

that the Democrats are legitimately

afraid of Trump trying to go full

dictator and issuing illegal orders.

Uh, and so Grock believes that these

sedicious sex were actually patriots

who are legitimately concerned that

Trump is at least teasing or moving

toward

more some more authoritarian situation

and that they would like to reduce the

chances that he could succeed at that.

And so they're warning the troops, hey,

watch out. You know, he might actually

try something that's legitimately

illegal and you're going to have to step

up.

Now, what do you think? Do you think

it's more likely that some external

entity was behind it all? And who would

that be? Or do you think that every

Democrat is afraid,

literally every Democrat is afraid that

Trump might exceed his uh legal domain

and try to get the military to do

something illegal.

Um, and it might be illegal in terms of

war, might be illegal in terms of

um immigration.

um could be illegal in terms of anything

I guess.

So

what what sounds more likely to you that

the dem Democrats are legitimately

afraid

and some of them said hey let's do

something about it you know to inoculate

so the the word that that Grock used was

inoculate

so the idea was to simply

get the military thinking about how they

would handle

a situation that looked, you know,

unambiguously illegal to them.

I would say at this point, um, the third

party connection is unproven.

I don't think you need a third party if

every Democrat

is really thinking the same thing. And,

you know, Trump keeps teasing about a

third term. And if you're a Democrat,

you're going to take that seriously. You

know, I I think Republicans laugh at the

third term thing because it looks like,

you know, Trump's just playing with

them, but they're the ones being played

with. So, they might be thinking,

[clears throat] they might be thinking

it's real.

I'm going to say on this one,

um, the only thing I think is proven is

that there's more than one Democrat who

thinks

Trump might be breaking the law sometime

soon.

So, if there is a connection to some

shadowy external source,

um, I don't think that's quite proven

yet. Could be, though. Could be.

All right. Um,

next story.

Uh, I saw in the Independent

Hannah Arriva

Aarova is writing that, uh, Russian

drones are targeting civilians

and turning one Ukrainian city into what

they called a human safari. So

apparently Kissan allegedly

has uh you know I think hundreds of uh

Russian drones a day are hunting for

civilians that just happen to go

outdoors.

Does that sound real to you? Keep in

mind that all reports from a war zone

are a little, you know, a little

sketchy. Do you believe that one? Do you

believe that in Keran there are I don't

know hundreds of attacks on uh on

civilians and if and if they are le

let's say it was true

why would Russia do that

why would it why would it use drones to

attack civilians

I will sip for my awesome thing while

you think about that

would [clears throat] they be doing it

if it if it's happening at all? Uh are

they trying to depopulate the city? Are

they trying to get people to move so for

what? So it'd be easier to take over the

city. Um,

one theory is that they were just

practicing and that they just use it for

target practice to train the drone

operators.

Do you think they're doing it for target

practice just to train the drone people?

Now, that doesn't seem like good use of

training.

Um, are they trying to demoralize the

city?

Is it revenge? Some people say it's

revenge for something the Ukrainians

did. Uh, that doesn't make sense. Um, or

is it propaganda and it's not actually

happening? Or is it happening but not at

the level that's being reported?

I would say I'm not quite willing to

believe

that uh it's even happening.

Um, I would say it's it's too Yeah, it's

too fog of war. It's too much exactly

like exactly like something somebody

would lie about in a war. Oh, you're

monsters.

You're killing our civilians. We would

never do that. So, I'm going to say I

don't believe that story.

Um then I tried to use Grock to

understand

how likely is it that Ukraine and Russia

would find a find an acceptable peace.

And I think the answer is there's not

really any way. I don't think there is a

way. Um

so I I started with some um context.

You know, I've been hearing forever that

uh Ukraine could have made peace back in

2022.

Um, and I guess the offer was on the

table that uh Russia would keep Crimea

and the Donbass that has a bunch of

Russian national a bunch of Russian

ethnic people would have some kind of

special rule

and that uh Ukraine would um

agree to never join NATO.

And the theory is

that Russia would have taken that offer.

Um,

but uh it looked like Zalinski may have

been the one who who Let's see. Let's

see if I have this right.

Oh, so so it looks like it looked like

there was a way to make peace, but

probably that's an exaggeration.

I suspect they were not ever close to

peace, but it might be true that if they

the only way they could make peace is

something that looked like giving up a

lot. Um,

so you see how hard it is to for me to

even explain this, doing a terrible job.

So,

so according to Grock,

I'll just tell you what Grock says. Uh

Grock said that in 2022

um Ukraine floated some concessions

to maybe wrap things up with our war and

he signaled openness to neutrality

not joining NATO.

uh Zalinski did and autonomy or

special status for the Donbass

and but I think

um but Putin pushed again this is Grock

Putin pushed for total demilitarization

a handover of Crimea

and more so it tanked. So

according to Grock,

there was never anything that both sides

agreed on.

So if there was never anything that both

sides agreed on,

was it ever was it ever something that

could have not happened?

So

and [clears throat] then there's Grock

also says that the egos of the two

leaders is in play. You know that

neither of them can lose.

So that's part of the that's part of it.

So here's what I think. I don't think

there was ever a chance it wasn't going

to go to war because they were never

that close. They say they were.

Um but I think that's just propaganda.

Um and both think the other is the the

reason that it went further.

So,

um,

here's why I think it's impossible for

them to get any kind of peace. Because

if Silinski makes peace by giving up

land, he will lose his job and probably

be killed.

If Putin decided to go easy on um

Ukraine, that wouldn't make sense

because he seems to be in a sort of a

winning position in the long run.

So, you've got two leaders

who neither of them have much incentive

to settle it. Um but they have an

incentive to keep doing what they're

doing.

At the very least, you would need one of

the sides to think it was a bad idea to

be at war, and I don't think we have

that.

Greetings from Moscow.

Somebody in the comments is in Moscow.

So, I would say that I don't believe

the story

uh that there was a point in the past

where they could have made peace. I

think that was always maybe exaggerated

and probably this was always going to

happen

just because of the interests of the two

leaders

and it's more about the leaders than the

countries.

What do you think?

I'm looking at the comments. Do you

think do you think there's any chance

that they could have settled this thing

earlier like 2022?

Yeah, I'm really feeling like no.

And uh then on top of that,

you have all the smart people saying

that even if um Putin agreed,

you couldn't trust him.

So, you know, there there's not enough

there's not enough to make a deal, but

even if he made a deal, it wouldn't be

worth anything.

Cuz I can't see

I can't see Putin giving up on

at least controlling Ukraine as a proxy.

So,

proves again.

What did I prove again?

So, I guess I don't believe anything

about um that they could have had peace

before. I just I just don't think it was

possible. And it isn't possible now

either.

So, I would say at minimum

um I'm going to reup my prediction. I

think there's going to be at least

another year of war and there it'll be

perpetual war unless something changes

and I think uh

I think time is on Russia's side right

now.

Yeah, it looks like they're in a winning

position. So they'd they would have no

reason to negotiate.

I mean, it certainly doesn't look like

it doesn't look like Putin wants peace,

does it? I don't think he cares at all.

I mean, he would want peace if he also

got as much of Ukraine as he wanted,

but uh doesn't look like that's an

option.

Ukraine is not a country anymore.

Well, there's still something left.

>> [clears throat]

>> you know, KV is still unoccupied.

All right, that's all I have for today.

If you're joining late,

uh my whispering is cuz trying to save

energy

and uh I thought I'd try my ASMR FM

radio voice

and it worked. So, I got through

most of the show.

Now, there there's not much going on,

and I think I I think I did a terrible

job today

if I were to uh judge my own uh

analysis.

Pretty bad.

Uh because these stories are all

complicated.

But I recommend the following.

If you if you see one of these

complicated conspiracy theory stories,

no matter where it comes from, and no

matter how credible it sounds, you

really owe it to yourself to spend a few

minutes with Grock and say, "All right,

here's the claim. Is that is that

legitimate?"

I think what you're going to find is

that nine out of 10 times Gro is going

to say, "No, that is not legitimate."

And then you'll say, "Damn it, I'm in a

bubble." Because we all are in bubbles.

Now, you may have also seen News Nation

did a story about Dr. Sunun Jan and his

uh cancer treatments

and trying to get the FDA to approve it.

And uh who who was it? Uh was it

Redfield? Some somebody was ex FDA was

saying that uh the the practice of

waiting for a

um a

uh a serious trial of every of every

medicine is

not always appropriate.

And I think the claim was if you if you

observe

somebody doing a treatment

that cures them or puts them in

remission

and there was nothing else that worked.

That's not nothing. You know, it's not a

randomized control trial.

But can you ignore that?

Suppose suppose dozens of people

are cured of incurable cancer.

Would you not allow the next person to

try it?

So I think that's the question we're

down to.

So I'm on that path.

So if I get if I get remission that'll

mean something.

I'll let you know. I've got one more

dose.

All right, people.

I'm running out of energy.

So, thanks for joining. And I'll say bye

for now. I I don't have enough energy to

um stay for the uh after show for my

beloveds, but I'll try to get more

energy in the future. Bye for now.