Episode 3032 CWSA 11/30/25

Morning everybody.

Come on in.

You're just on time.

We're going to hang out a little bit this morning because well, you missed you missed each other and I missed you two.

Come on and grab a seat.

So later, maybe later today, I'm going to do a separate video with some dad gift ideas.

Wouldn't that be great?

Some dad gift ideas.

Now, obviously, you know, you need to get the Dilbert uh calendar for any dad who's ever worked in an office.

I guarantee this is going to work for any dad who ever worked in an office.

Only available on Amazon.

Get them before they sell out.

But I've got some other great ideas that are not all my products.

You'll love them.

You guys ready for this?

Are you ready?

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

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

But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody 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 jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparallel pleasure.

The dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

Famous around the world happens now.

Uhhuh.

That was as good as I imagined it would be.

Wow.

Well, do you believe it or not?

By the way, I'll be doing a little bit more NPR talk today as I recover my full ability and energy, which is moving in the right direction.

But there's a uh story according to the cooldown which must be a publication of some sort that scientists have achieved a breakthrough that could make batteries obsolete.

It apparently has something to do with um the barrier between salt water and regular water.

And somehow they can use the difference the you know chemical or electrical diff between salt water and regular water.

So as long as you have the two of them you can create electricity and apparently lots of it.

Do you believe that?

It sounds exactly like a April Fool's prank.

that you can make infinite energy out of water just some of it has to be salt water I'm going to say feels a little optimistic but I remind you that there seems to be a battery related energy breakthrough almost every day so sooner or later one of them will work well in Chicago according to futurism um I Guess there are two startups that are have these little robots that are on the sidewalks delivering things and you know that's not new.

You you know there have been startups that tried to have little robots on the sidewalks and uh I guess none of them have really worked but they keep trying.

Uh but here's the funny part of the story.

The only the only reason I'm telling you this story is that people who don't like the robots are putting their dog poop bag on top of the robot.

So if you're out walking your dog and you you don't want to carry the poop bag around and a robot goes by, you just put it on top of the robot and the robot takes your poop away.

Now, I do not recommend this.

It's kind of a messed up thing to do, especially if it's delivering food.

You wouldn't want your food to be delivered with a poop bag on top.

But while I don't recommend it, and I discourage it, it doesn't make it less funny.

That's the important part.

All right.

Um, I think I've seen this before, but it's worth mentioning, I guess.

Elon Musk, I think he was on Joe Rogan, maybe some other podcast, and he said that Grock is the only AI that weighs all human lives equally.

I guess some of the other AIs uh value uh adult white males uh lower than the rest of society.

And that's the technology that we're we're letting loose on the world.

Yeah, maybe.

Maybe.

We ought we ought to have a look at that.

So, apparently Grock's the only one and uh that's based on an actual study.

Um but uh that's pretty alarming is it's alarming to even to even imagine that that's an issue, right?

Oh, what is this behind my shoulder?

Looks like product placement.

The Dilbert calendar is sitting right back there.

twice as good as ever before.

Well, in Chicago, now this is a funny story, too.

According to the post millennial, they're covering this.

Uh Chicago, I guess they tested UBI, universal basic income where they literally just give money to people who don't have money and they try to, you know, see if that'll make their life better and make the world better.

Well, they they just ended up testing $500 a month in cash.

And guess what they concluded?

Well, they concluded that people really like getting $500 in cash for doing no work.

So, they called it a success and said they're going to do more of it.

That's right.

the the standard for judging whether it was successful was whether the people who got the free money were happy about it.

I'm not making that up.

Turns out that people are happy when you give them free money.

Who knew?

Maybe you could have asked me.

All right.

Um, apparently the State Department is doing far fewer press briefings than than before.

To which I ask, why would you do any?

What What would the State Department tell you that Trump wouldn't tell you?

It seems like if you have more than one, you know, government entity that's doing important press briefings in addition to Trump that all it does is create a opportunity for something to look like a misinterpretation or or a conflict.

So why would you ever have a press briefing from the State Department as long as Trump can cover all that same material, which he does you anything that matters.

So yeah, that's the bar.

Smart not to have them.

Well, apparently the defense department or the is it called the department of war now?

I don't know.

Um they've confirmed that uh 11 billion dollars, which is only a small fraction of the real number, has been stolen.

11 billion dollars since 2017.

Uh, and according to the GAO, it's only a small fraction of how much has been stolen of your tax money, just just the stuff that was going to the Department of Defense.

Um, so the the Pentagon, which spends about a trillion dollars a year, has never passed an audit.

Do you think we're better than um Ukraine?

You know, I I've said this before, but when you look at the number of expensive homes and expensive cars, it doesn't really map to my understanding of how many legitimate jobs there are in the world that you can make that much money.

It looks like I mean, I've been feeling this for a long time that we're primarily a corruption economy.

Not primarily, but that maybe something like I 20% of the entire GDP is criminal.

I don't know how big it is, but every time we we look at any entity that has a budget, doesn't it always look the same?

like every time there's a big budget, be it Minneapolis, be it the uh Department of Defense, be it the NOS's, be it USAD, every time there's a big budget, it's being stolen.

New York City's budget, the city budgets, every time.

If we could solve one problem, which is the ability to audit where our money goes, everything would be different.

So, it feel it feels like it feels like what the Trump administration needs to do, I don't even know if it's doable, is to find some way to insist that nobody ever gets a budget for anything unless there's a really dynamic auditing feature where everybody can see where every dollar goes.

Short of that, it's just all being stolen.

It doesn't matter if it's money for Ukraine or money for poor people or money for a disease or money for COVID.

Every single time, every time it's being stolen, a as a, you know, as a developed country, we can't figure out how to audit our stuff.

I mean, it's crazy.

It's crazy.

Anyway, here are some examples.

a uh Pentagon contractor.

I guess one of the ways or maybe the main way that this kind of money is stolen is there's kickbacks for for sending money in one direction versus another.

There are all these shell companies that are like fake companies pretending to do things that you would get money for but not really doing those things.

Well, in other news, um, Gateway Pundit is reporting that, uh, the US Treasury, so that would be Scott Bessant is, uh, is going to start seizing remittances.

So, remittances in this context is talking about, uh, people who are usually usually non-citizens.

They don't have to be non-citizens, but they're sending money back to their home country or wherever they came from.

Now, on one hand, I like freedom and I think people should be able to do whatever they want with their money, you know, assuming it's legally obtained.

On the other hand, there's a really good reason or argument for limiting the ability for people to make money in the US and then send that money somewhere else.

That doesn't help us.

It helps wherever you're sending it, but it doesn't help us.

So, if you were to tax those remittances, um, you know, at least you get something out of it.

or if you were to block them or cap them, it probably would be a good idea for the United States.

So, I don't I don't know how big that number is, but it's a lot of money.

And if we could just um if those dollars would simply stay circulating within the US economy, you know, you have a you have a multiplier effect.

So the dollar spent goes to another American who now has a dollar who spends it that goes to another American.

Well, if you take that and you you create a leak where that dollar just leaves our system, then it never has any multiplier effect.

So you don't lose a dollar, you lose like I don't know, the multiplier would probably be 10 maybe 10 to one.

I don't know what the real number is, but it's a lot.

So just letting a dollar leave our system to go back to the home country, that $1 is like $10 in terms of GDP over time.

So yeah, velocity.

Exactly.

Somebody took an economics course.

Yeah, velocity is what we're talking about.

And let's see.

So I guess they're going to flag uh anything that's over $2,000.

That probably will go down over time.

That's a lot of money actually sending back to the the home country.

Well, now Trump has uh put a pause on US immigration uh permanent pause.

Well, I don't know how permanent it is.

Uh from third world countries.

Now, do you remember when Trump tried the uh the so-called Muslim ban and that didn't work out?

So, he modified it and then it worked out.

Um, why did he never try third world ban?

It it does seem like that would capture everything you didn't want.

You know, that the third world would capture kind of all kinds of situations.

And if you needed, I suppose if you needed to make an exception, it wouldn't be that hard.

But it seems kind of clean to just say we don't let people from third world countries in unless it's a special situation because I don't know how much is helping us.

Now the other factors that are impossible to predict are the effect of a decreasing population.

you know, our our reproduction rate is below replacement.

So, it's not like we're going to be able to get away with not importing people unless the robot u revolution is so fast that we just never need to import another person and then we would slowly turn into a robot country.

Uh-oh.

I just realized that's probably what's going to happen.

Okay.

uh work with me here.

So let's say that uh we limit migration immigration into the country and let's say that our um our repopulation rate stays below replacement.

There would be fewer humans every day, but because we're at the beginning of the robot revolution, there would be more robots every day.

Now, in the beginning, we're going to say humans are humans and robots are robots and they're just tools.

But as those robots become more and more humanlike, which is guaranteed, it's going to happen fast, will we so easily call the robots tools and the humans the important thing when the number of robots starts surpassing the number of humans?

What happens when the United States becomes 90% humanoid robots doing all the things that humans do and 10% humans?

Are we destined to become a robot only country?

you know that could happen right in in the real world there's a possibility that sometime maybe even in your lifetime uh well not in your lifetime probably but there's a real possibility that the United States will be only populated by humanoid robots that can also reproduce what would stop that from happening right all the trends are in that direction Our population will reduce, our immigration will go to zero, and the number of robots that are, you know, indistinguishable from humans basically will start at zero, but it's going to go to millions, you know, within just a few short years.

So, robot nation coming up.

There is a rumor this morning that I do not believe is true.

There's no confirmation for it, but I'll just tell you the rumor.

the rumors that uh Venezuelan leader Maduro uh may have tried to escape Venezuela in an airplane that apparently is known to be his airplane, but there is no confirmation of anything of the sort.

So, the news is not treating it like that's a real story yet.

So, I would say that is unlikely to be true.

Um, I also wouldn't understand how Maduro's plane could be flying over Venezuela, which is what the rumor said, that it landed landed somewhere near the Brazilian border.

And some people were saying, "Oh, that's how he can escape the country." Um, but didn't Trump put a um what would you call it?

a a total cap on airline flight above Venezuela.

You know, didn't Trump say that we would enforce that?

So, how can it be true that the US would put a flight ban over Venezuela, but also that the leader plane could be flying around?

Because the last thing I would want to do if I were Maduro is get in an airplane when we've just had we'll basically shoot down planes that are in the air.

Uh yeah, I don't think he's on that plane.

Anyway, um have you heard the update on the so-called burn bags?

So, did you know that the FBI found these bags that were meant for burning documents that were sensitive?

Uh, and they just simply had not yet burned them.

So, they put them in the burn bag and then I guess when the bag is full, they would burn it.

But there have been some burn bags found that were not burned.

And uh Cash Patel says that it they involve the Trump Russia hoax, you know, the Russia collusion hoax, and that they're found in a secret room and they will be shown to the public.

And Cash Patel says, quote, "You're going to see everything we found in that room in one way or another, uh blah blah blah." And uh so I saw this Cash Patel was uh on an interview uh for the Epic Times and Yan Yelik was talking to him and it kind of felt like Cash was suggesting there's something in there that's going to amaze us or shock us or confirm maybe confirm something we suspected.

But I don't know when we're going to see that.

But I can't wait to see the burn bags.

Burn bag.

Open them up.

Well, according to Breitbart News, uh Warner Todd Houston's writing about this.

There's a new documentary out uh that shows that uh Gavin Newsome and Karen Bass did nothing as the LA and Pacific Palisades burned.

Now, do you believe that?

Well, I believe there's a documentary, but uh you know how I always tell you that the documentary effect must be guarded against.

The documentary effect is um if you if you make a documentary and it's entertaining and people watch it for the let's say the hour that it lasts or whatever, they will be convinced of whatever it is you're trying to sell or whatever narrative you're putting forward.

they will think is true.

So if you were to watch this documentary, which clearly is designed to show the California politicians failed, do you think you would come away with it with any other opinion than oh my god, they massively failed the, you know, the state?

No.

So, I would warn you, um, I haven't seen it, but I also plan not to see it because I already know it will convince me that the politicians are crooked or incompetent, um, and there will not be showing the other side cuz, you know, even if it looks super obvious that the politicians were at fault, it looks like it to me, uh, even then there's always another side, you You know, if if you sat down with Newsome and said, "All right, you know, why didn't you do X?

Why didn't you do Y," he might have some explanation that even though you're not like a fan of Newsome, even though you're positive he could have done better, even though you're sure the state failed you, still everybody's got a, you know, they've got their version of events.

And if you're not going to hear the other side, I don't know if you should spend too much time hypnotizing yourself on one side.

So, just beware.

That said, I do think the state failed failed uh the residents.

All right.

Well, I guess Charlie Sheen did an interview with Megan Kelly.

Um Blaze media is writing about it.

And uh what was interesting is uh that Charlie Sheen used the word hypnotized and he talked about himself and he said that he had been quote hypnotized by staterun media and that when he realized by looking at you know different news outlets he somehow unhypnotized himself um to understand that they're you know two sides to the story basically and that He wasn't as, you know, anti-Trump or anti- conservative as maybe he thought he was.

But here's why I thought this was interesting.

Um, I I went to Grock and I asked it.

Has the word hypnotized been used as often as it is now?

And Grock said, "Oh my god, you know, big difference." Um the word hypnotized would rarely come up you know let's say 10 years ago uh I think I said 10 years but that in the past 10 years when people talk about politics they do actually use the word hypnotized and uh it is said according to Grock that hypnotized as a word used in politics went from being obscure to being fairly common s such that Charlie Sheen would just, you know, have that as a go-to.

Um, I've told you before that one of the things I do is try to track my own influence on events.

And one of the ways I do it is by tracking uncommon word usage.

And hypnotize is sort of the word I introduced about 10 years ago talking about persuasion and whatnot.

And so I asked Grock, and I've asked I've asked other AIS this, but I had not asked Grock, um, if I personally uh, was the reason that hypnotized is a common word where it used to not be common.

And uh with a few follow-up questions, Grock did say that uh I'm responsible for creating a narrative of Trump being persuasive.

That is the common way we see him today.

And uh they actually credited me for that change.

A change from looking at policy when you're talking about politics to looking at persuasion.

and it mentioned my book win bigly and and it said I had relentlessly hammered on it.

Um and then Grock said that what I did for the let's say the narrative is that I gave people this is Grock's wording I gave people a vocabulary to understand Trump as a persuader.

And if you have a vocabulary for something, that's a way of saying you have a narrative or a framework for understanding things.

And then as new events happen, you can attach it to the framework and that would be called a narrative.

A a way of seeing the information as opposed to the information.

The information is attached to the narrative.

The narrative is the way you interpret it.

Right?

So apparently, at least according to Grock, um I changed the narrative from being, you know, the common narrative of policy and I don't know, character, the things we would normally talk about with politicians to one where people understand it um as a persuasion framework.

And apparently that's me.

I seem to have changed the entire way I I seem to have changed the entire way that people look at um politics.

So you you can have a different opinion and uh believe that I was just a I don't know just describing something that was there anyway.

But what was there anyway is that there was always persuasion.

I didn't invent that.

But what I invented was the narrative of seeing it through that lens.

And I think I actually did that.

Um, and when I see Charlie Sheen using the word hypnotized, and I know that that would have been an obscure use of the word 10 years ago, which is exactly when I started talking about this and talking about persuasion and Trump.

Uh, I think that's me.

I think that he would not have used the word hypnotized if he had not been, let's say, opening his eyes in a world that I had partly created.

I'm kind of curious if you're buying this at all.

Are you buying this?

How I'm looking at your comments now.

How many of you believe that I made a big enough difference that it changed the entire way people look at politics all the way through to affecting Charlie Sheen's choice of words?

Do do you think that's credible?

I'm looking at your comments.

Most of most of you think it's credible.

And I would bet that the longer you've been watching my podcasts, the more credible it seems.

Now, some of that is the documentary effect.

So, beware.

Beware.

If you're watching my content and you're not seeing anything else, that's probably not good enough.

You probably need to, you know, you you need to see the other argument from stuff I do, too.

So, it's not just about, you know, it includes me.

Let's just say I'm part of the documentary effect.

So, beware and be skeptical of everything, including me.

All right.

We'll give you some persuasion lessons as we go here today.

Um, so are you following the story that the Washington Post has this exclusive story?

Hm.

the Washington Post, the one that is usually accused of being a CIA tool.

H maybe um I mean they're accused of that.

It's an allegation, but the Washington Post has a story that allegedly, and I believe this is whistleblowers.

Let's see.

The Washington Post and whistleblowers.

If you didn't even know what the story was about, would you trust it?

It's the Washington Post and it's based on whistleblowers.

That's That's pretty low credibility right there.

That's pretty low.

Doesn't mean it's false.

It could be true, but if you were going to sort of handicap how likely it was and the only thing you knew about it was that there were whistleblowers, nah, it's not quite good enough.

But let me tell you the story if you haven't heard it.

So, the accusation is that the at the very first uh Venezuelan drug boat that our military blew up that there were a couple of survivors from the attack and that the order went out to kill them all, you know, quote, kill them all and then there was a second strike that finished them off.

Now, that I believe that would be a war crime if true.

Now, at the same time that you've got the six Democrats, the sedicious six, suggesting that the military should not follow what would be illegal orders.

This would probably be an illegal order if it really happened.

And if it really happened is, you know, the big part of the question.

So, do you think it's a coincidence that the Washington Post H allegedly a vehicle used by the CIA and deep state for their messaging that they have a story with whistleblowers h whistleblowers and it happens to perfectly match the narrative that the Democrats are putting out right now, which is there might be some illegal orders.

What would you do if you got the illegal orders?

So, does it make you think about illegal orders?

Yes, it does.

So, is that a coincidence?

Is it a or is it a deep state CIA persuasion play which would look exactly like it?

Now, I don't have any confirmation or special information that would say that the Washington Post story is literally just made up to convince people that there's a big risk of illegal orders.

I don't have any proof of that.

What I do have is some pattern recognition.

And when it's the Washington Post and it's a story that the anti-Trump world would like you to see and it fits perfectly with the narrative and it's based on whistleblowers.

That's a lot of pattern recognition going into that that looks like it's just part of a persuasion op from anti-Trump forces.

But I I hasten to remind you I don't have any proof of that.

It just the pattern is a little hard to ignore.

So keep an eye on that.

Now let's look at uh the front page of a publication called The Hill.

So keep in mind the context I just gave you.

the sedicious sex.

Then coincidentally fitting perfectly in their narrative, there's a story about allegedly Haggath gave the order to what would be illegal orders.

H um at the same time, The Hill had a number of stories in the front page, and I wanted to see what uh what that looked like.

Um, and here are some of the things that uh were on their headlines.

All right, so this is from The Hill today.

One of the stories is titled five ways Republicans are breaking up with Trump or breaking with Trump.

Now, I didn't read the article.

Uh, this is about looking at the the bigger picture, right?

So, five ways Republicans are breaking with Trump.

So that would be a story to suggest that Trump's popularity is falling within his base.

Even though the numbers suggest he's the most popular president within his party of maybe all time, he has like 87% support within Republicans.

But five ways Republicans are breaking.

Another another headline also on the Hill same day.

Reagan judges surfaced as unfiltered assessors of Trump.

Oh, so there are Republicans who are even more Republican than Trump because they're Reaganapp appointed judges and uh and they have unfiltered assessments of Trump.

Oh, so in other words, there are some very credible Republican types, these judges who are trying to block Trump.

So that would suggest that Republicans are not all exactly on the same side.

So that that headline is at the same way at the same time as the headline, five ways Republicans are breaking with Trump.

Let's see.

There's another headline.

Trump approval rating drops to new low according to a poll.

Okay, that is three headlines just on the Hill just today suggesting that Trump is losing his popularity.

Now put it all together, Washington Post, whistleblowers, right?

sedicious six.

Uh, don't follow um, you know, don't follow the orders of you any illegal orders if you're in the military.

And then, oh, look at all the ways the Republicans are abandoning Trump.

In other words, making it easy to abandon Trump because you feel that other people are doing it.

What would be persuasion in this case?

Repetition.

Repetition.

Repetition.

So the more they say, uh, Trump is becoming less popular, uh, Republicans are breaking with him, you better not agree with him if he gives illegal orders.

They're they're creating a narrative, and there's that narrative word again, a framework in which you can imagine that Trump is becoming less popular.

Once that narrative is established, then anything in the news that's anti-Trump or shows somebody disagreeing with him or anything that they could, you know, stretch to make it look like it's an illegal military order.

Now, they all fit in that same narrative that he might give an illegal order and his popularity is shrinking within his own base, even if that's not necessarily true.

All right.

Now, let's look at Politico.

Uh, one of the headlines is how Trump's base could break.

Okay.

So you you can start to see that if it's true, and I don't know that it is, but if it's true that our our publications, our mainstream media is at least partly just propaganda by deep state intelligence assets.

If that's true, what would it look like?

Wouldn't it look exactly like this?

And I remind you, if you don't know what a color revolution is, you need to study up on that because I'm not sure we're in one, but I know that if you were doing pattern recognition and you were say, well, what what would it look like?

A color revolution is how the US intelligence uh and our other assets have overthrown some number I don't know what the number is but multiple other countries and the accusation is that the same technique is being used internally by some presumably anti-Trump forces to destabilize the Trump administration and put back I suppose a a Democrat lead thing.

So, so a color revolution would include um suspiciously funded street protests.

Do we have that?

Do we have recently suspiciously funded treat street protests that look sort of sort of dangerous?

Yes.

Yeah.

Um they're not all dangerous looking.

the the no kings stuff is not especially dangerous, but we do have um we're looking at the funding for Antifa, etc.

So, it does look like there's some kind of sketchy funding for protests.

That's what you would expect we would do to another country if we were trying to get rid of them.

There would also be uh if you were if you were suffering from an externally imposed color revolution, you there would also be the press would have a pretty unified attack on the leader.

Do we see the press going after the leader, Trump?

Yes.

More than we've ever seen the press go after anything.

So, we got the sketchy street protests.

We've got the media maybe influenced by intelligent sources.

We don't know, but it looks like it.

And uh attacking the leader and uh yeah, so those would be some of the hallmarks of it.

So, it looks like it, but we wouldn't know.

And then there's the part about following illegal orders.

And there's a part about trying to jail the current administration because you always need you always need some um excuse to jail the person who's in charge so you can install your own person.

That's what that's how we would do it if we're overthrowing another country.

Um and that's exactly what was happening to Trump.

The lawfare was not trying to beat him electorally.

It was trying to put him in jail.

And there was also, it looked like to me, a huge effort to put his supporters in jail, and anybody who supported him, anybody who tried to be his lawyer, anybody who was a close confidant.

So all the elements are in place for what would be a color revolution that was aimed by our country at our own country.

Um but the the part that uh is missing I think is who's in charge?

Who's in charge?

I think I saw um I I've seen speculation that you know that Obama is still in charge and he's running the things from behind.

I haven't seen the proof of that or that John Brennan is still in charge.

Haven't seen the proof of that.

Um so I think one thing that's missing from the narrative is a sense of who's in charge.

Like I if we are undergoing a color revolution, is it just a bunch of people who knew what to do but they didn't need any central coordinating or is it actually centrally coordinated by who?

The CIA, all of the CIA, some corner of the CIA, um some other intelligence assets.

Don't know.

So I I think I would say we're short of proof that there is a um organized color revolution, but all the elements are there.

The the part missing would be who the hell is doing it?

You know, we we could speculate about that, but I don't think there's any smoking gun that I'm aware of.

Now certainly if you looked at the Russia collusion hoax and if you said hey whoever was behind that Russia collusion hoax unless they're in jail they'd be just doing that same stuff more of it and that would suggest Obama and it would suggest Brennan and Clapper and uh all the uh all the guys that we know were involved guys and gals that we know were involved.

olved in that hoax because they're still they're still operating.

I mean, nothing would stop them from doing more of it if they were doing it.

On another topic, um I am quite intrigued by what uh Alan Dersuit has said.

I don't think this is new.

I think he said this for a while, that he knows exactly who's being protected by the non-release of the Epstein files.

and he promises us that it's not Trump, but that there are some number and I don't know the number of important people who are being protected by the non-release of the Epstein files.

Now, Durowitz says he's not guessing because he uh because of court cases he was involved in, he actually knows who the people are.

But what he doesn't tell us is how many of them there are.

Is it three people who are being protected?

Because the way he talks about it, it sounds like it's a lot.

I don't know what a lot would be.

Like any one would be a lot in this particular con uh context.

But how many people do you think are being protected and what type of people?

I I think he also suggested it's um all manner of important people.

They're all important, but they're not necessarily elected leaders.

They're not necessarily any specific kind of rich person.

There are just a variety of important people who are being protected.

Does that sound right to you?

I have to say that sounds completely right to me.

can't be sure, but it does feel like there's more than, you know, more than one person being protected.

It's probably probably several countries involved.

And I'll bet you that the US's relationship with those several countries is kind of dependent on us keeping our damn mouths shut about what their leaders were up to.

So, you could do you could do your own uh your own speculation about what countries are involved, but uh I think Great Britain is at the top of my list.

Don't have any proof, but if I had to guess who we would try so hard to protect, it feels like Great Britain, doesn't it?

Now, I know some of you are going to say Israel because that just gets thrown into every conversation.

But I don't have any specific reason to think that Israel's um being protected.

You know, that they may or may not have been involved in some Epstein blackmail intel thing.

That would be separate.

So separate from whether Israel had any Epstein involvement is a question of whether any prominent Israelis are being protected.

And that I don't have any I don't have any specific reason to think that would be the case.

But I love the fact that all of us are wondering who is being protected.

But Duruitz actually knows.

Can you imagine being him?

Can you can you imagine being one of the few people on earth who don't have to wonder?

He actually knows.

He knows the actual names of the people being protected.

And I I think he's telling the truth.

So I think he does know the names.

It's kind of weird.

Anyway, um Ukraine had uh some military success, I guess you'd call it, um with their uh sea drones.

So that would be water-based drones.

uh blew up two empty um oil tankers that were apparently part of what's they call Russia's ghost fleet.

So if you read the news as I did and you found out that two um tankers now there are oil tankers involved in the avoiding sanctions.

So, Russia is under sanctions, but there are these all these sketchy, usually rusty old um tankers that have been getting around the sanctions.

Now, if I told you, as I just did, that Ukraine had blown up two of them in one one day in the Black Sea, would you think that that would make a difference?

What's the What's missing in the story?

Well, what's missing is how many tankers are there?

If they blew up two and there were only five, that's a pretty big story.

But if you had to guess, how many how many ghost tankers do you think Russia is using every day?

Not not over time, but just every day.

How many tankers are either carrying an illegal load of Russian oil or returning empty to get a load?

If you had to guess, so I'm looking at your numbers.

Uh 18.

Well, if if Ukraine took out two of 18, that would be a lot for one day of of work, right?

Somebody's saying 200.

So, I went to Grock, which by the way, I I don't understand any stories in the news anymore unless I've checked with Grock.

Now, Grock could be hallucinating, right?

Could be hallucinating.

So, grain assault, but um according to Grock, over a thousand uh tankers are part of this ghost fleet.

Don't you think that should have been right at the top of the story?

Now go check the stories.

Is that propaganda?

Because if you said to me, "Oh, they they took out two of a thousand." I would say, "Oh, so they did basically nothing and they were empty, so it barely even polluted, right?" Um, but if you thought the number of total ghost tankers was some lower number, maybe in the low hundreds, then suddenly two of them being taken out one day starts sounding like, whoa, maybe those Ukrainians are doing well.

So ask yourself this.

Is it bad reporting that they don't give you the context of how many how many tankers there are total?

Is it just bad reporting?

Or is it intentionally trying to create a narrative that Ukraine has more of a chance of winning or at least, you know, pressing the war than they do?

What do you think?

Is it is that a coincidence?

Do you think it's just a coincidence that the most important number isn't in the story?

Or or maybe they don't know.

Even if they don't know how many uh ghost tankers there are, shouldn't they say that?

As in, well, two of them went down or at least they were damaged.

I don't think they went down.

Uh they were damaged and we don't know how many uh there are total.

That feels like something that story should include, right?

So, the fact that it's not in the story tells me that we're seeing a narrative.

We're not seeing reporting.

Um, then I asked Grock, and remember again, Grock doesn't have to be right all the time, but I'll tell you what Grock said because it's interesting.

Um, I've told you before that one of the ways you can predict the future is by looking at insurance.

And so I wondered, are these boats privately owned?

Not boats, ships.

Are are these tankers privately owned?

And if they're privately owned, are they insured?

And the answer is, you know, there are a variety of situations, but some of them uh well, let me cut to the important thing.

I asked Grock how much a tanker can earn making one run of, you know, let's say a a full uh ship of oil.

And the answer is about $3 to5 million for one run.

And the cargo would be worth something like 15 to30 million.

So they're transporting 15 to $30 million in a in a ship that itself is worth maybe three to five um I'm sorry the ship would be worth something like 15 million plus but they would earn 3 to 5 million for just one let's say two-month journey there and back.

So the what I'm trying to communicate is that the economics of being a ghost ship owner are so good that you don't need insurance.

In other words, if you just make uh several runs, you would earn so much that it would pay for the entire ship going down if it got taken out.

And since only two of a thousand ships got taken out, then the economics are h do I take this $3 million that I'll get in 30 to 60 days at the risk of I don't know maybe 1500 might be the risk of losing the entire ship, but you can pay for the entire ship in maybe half a year, which would be one of the best investments you could ever have.

So the problem is that the economics of avoiding sanctions even at the risk of losing your entire tanker, the entire tanker is still overwhelmingly good business.

And so I think a lot of the ghost tankers are uh sort of rusty old older tankers that they wouldn't they wouldn't care that much if it went down.

So, it looks to me like um well, here's another story along those same lines.

The Wall Street Journal has an article that says Russia is winning the drone war.

So, remember I've told you recently that Ukraine's only real advantage, maybe just one advantage they have, is that they seem to be ahead of Russia in building deadly drones and using them effectively.

Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, that has flipped and now Russia has a decided advantage in the drone war.

The one of the things that caught my eye is that uh this is from the Wall Street Journal today.

Quote, "Largecale maneuvering remains nearly impossible on a battlefield where masses of cheap drones can see and target movement by soldiers or vehicles." So remember, I've been telling you for a while that this would turn into a robot only war and it it wouldn't even be about people.

That's basically what the Wall Street Journal is reporting that you wouldn't even bother putting any vehicle into the war zone because it won't last 5 minutes.

So if you can't put human occupied, you can't do troops or a human driving a truck, it's going to be completely de depopulated in the the border war zone and it will be literally just drone on drone, robot on robot.

So we're very close to my weird prediction that this would be our first robot on robot war.

It kind of already is.

Not exactly, but it's heading that way.

All right.

Now, I'm going to um let's see.

I'm going to confess some stupidity if you don't mind.

Somebody said the other day that's one of the reasons they like listening to me is that I'm not uh I'm not overly wed to even my own opinions.

If if the evidence shows that I've got it wrong, then I don't have any hesitation to changing my opinion.

I'm going to do that right now.

So, I think I said the last few days that for the first time I could kind of imagine there could be a Ukraine Russia peace deal.

And until recently, I couldn't even imagine it.

And I'll tell I'll reiterate what I said before I tell you how wrong it was.

Okay.

So, my thinking was that some things have changed recently.

Uh there's pressure on Ukraine in the in the uh corruption um stuff and maybe that puts some pressure on Zilinski that his best friend is already being chased out of office um under accusations of corruption.

Um, and uh, I said, well, I had a few other arguments, but my my argument was that we might be closer to some some kind of negotiated settlement than people realize.

I'm completely going to change that today because I spent some time trying to figure out also using Grock for context.

I wanted to see um how close Russia was to economic defeat.

So, it's a war.

There's sort of a two-part war.

One part of the war is um killing humans and trying to be the last living humans.

So, that's, you know, that's one way to look at the war.

The other way is that they're both attacking each other's economies and that the real war is economic.

So, whoever can the other one economically will will be the winner.

And I was trying to figure out what would be a scenario in which Putin would be willing to make peace right now.

And here's where I think I was very wrong yet the other day.

There is no scenario in which it makes sense for him to stop the war.

You know, if he's only losing two tankers that, by the way, were not even owned by Russia.

The the tankers that get blown up are owned by wealthy individuals and different countries.

And Russia doesn't even lose anything except two out of a thousand tankers.

So there there is a uh according to Grock there there is definitely impact on Russian citizens.

So they've got eight or nine% inflation.

Uh their GDP is kind of flat and uh people are feeling the pinch but it's not the end of the world.

You know Russia is not in a any kind of a depression.

Uh, and it looks like they can kind of keep going on.

And one of the things that Putin has going for him is he doesn't seem to have to satisfy his public that much because he's going to stay in power and he can control his own media.

Um, and so if it doesn't get too much worse, he's better off just winning.

And if you factor in ego, you know, you have to factor in ego.

I don't see him quitting now because if he quit now, even if he, you know, even if he banked the gains and said, "Okay, we have the Donbass and we've got Crimea and we got a few things we wanted." Um, if he did, it would still look like a lot of war for not a lot of gain.

I think he has to probably gain more before his legacy is looks good and he can argue that it made sense to have the war in the first place because even though he doesn't need to make his population love him, you know, the way American politicians might, he still needs some kind of popular support.

So, I would say that Ukraine does not look like it could take out Russia's energy infrastructure before Russia could take out Ukraine's infrastructure.

Um, and I don't see anything changing that would make Putin want to make peace because all indications are he's slowly gaining and slowly winding down Ukraine and Ukraine is losing losing support.

You know, it's not going to be won't be supported financially forever.

So the part that I think I calculated wrong is that I just assumed without thinking about it well enough I guess I just assumed that everybody wants to end war but why would Putin apparently he's not too worried about the number of Russian being killed in the war.

So if he doesn't mind that and it's sort of moving in his direction, I can't see any reason he would end the war.

And the only thing that I can imagine changing it is something that changed things economically that somehow Russia would allow to happen to them without responding in kind.

Don't you think that the United States is holding back quite a bit?

Because if we go too far um with allowing Ukraine to have all the best weapons and stuff, if we go too far, some of that's going to come back on the homeland.

You know, Russia is going to not want to put up with that without responding and kind.

So, I don't see any way that as long as Putin's in charge, and it looks like he'll remain in charge.

Um, so I'm going to I'm going to re-up my older my older uh prediction that there's no way we get a piece within a year because there's just not enough happening that would change the balance of where we are right now.

Two out of a thousand ghost anchors.

I don't know.

That doesn't seem like enough.

All right, what else we got going?

Well, that ladies and gentlemen is my full show and I appear to be back to full power.

I'm a little bit quiet today, but feel my full energy.

I was telling people before uh before everybody streamed in here that I'm going to do a separate video maybe today of dad gift ideas for Christmas.

I've got some really good dad gift ideas and it's based entirely on things that I have and you know I'm especially happy about them.

Uh Scott is wrong.

Zalinski is going to get arrested.

Well, that's that's not part of my prediction.

I don't have a prediction about Zalinski not getting arrested, but I also don't have one about him getting arrested.

I I don't think it matters what Ukraine wants or what Zilinski wants.

I don't think they're I think it's between the United States and Russia.

And um I don't think it matters at all what Zilinski wants.

So, that's just not part of my prediction at all.

Either way, whether he gets arrested or not shouldn't affect have any effect on whether uh Putin wants to keep going.

Well, you know, I wasn't going to mention the coffee warmer, but maybe I'll add that to the list.

Uh tankers are mo mostly owned by Greek companies.

I don't think that's true that the ghost tankers are mostly owned by Greek.

Uh I I do believe that there are a lot of Greek registered tankers, but I don't think mostly.

I think it's a grabag of basically all kinds of sketchy tanker people from around the world.

That's what Grock led me to believe.

Wow, that is so wrong.

I can tell the people I want to ignore the most, the the people who listen to my entire uh Ukraine prediction and then all they have to do is they say, "Scott, you should read up more." Or, "You're so wrong." That's not an opinion.

You're so wrong.

Tell me one thing I got wrong.

Anything.

Pick pick the top thing you think I'm misinterpreting or missing or not calculating.

Just tell me one thing that you think I don't know or I have not included in my opinion and uh you'll get really quiet right now.

All right, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm going to say goodbye for most of you and I'm going to uh talk to my beloved local subscribers, the best subscribers ever.

And uh I'll see the rest of you soon.

But let's see if I can get my technology to do what I want.

So, local supporters, beloveds,

Morning everybody. Come on in.

You're just on time. We're going to hang

out a little bit this morning because

well, you missed you missed each other

and I missed you two. Come on and grab a

seat.

So later, maybe later today,

I'm going to do a separate video with

some dad gift ideas.

Wouldn't that be great? Some dad gift

ideas.

Now, obviously, you know, you need to

get the Dilbert uh calendar for any dad

who's ever worked in an office. I

guarantee this is going to work for any

dad who ever worked in an office. Only

available on Amazon. Get them before

they sell out.

But I've got some other great ideas that

are not all my products. You'll love

them. You guys ready for this? Are you

ready?

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

your experience up to levels that nobody

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 jug

or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it

with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. And join me now for the

unparallel pleasure. The dopamine hit of

the day. The thing that makes everything

better. It's called the simultaneous

sip. Famous around the world happens

now.

Uhhuh. That was as good as I imagined it

would be. Wow.

Well, do you believe it or not? By the

way, I'll be doing a little bit more NPR

talk today

as I recover my full ability

and energy, which is moving in the right

direction. But there's a uh story

according to the cooldown which must be

a publication of some sort

that scientists have achieved a

breakthrough that could make batteries

obsolete.

It apparently has something to do with

um the barrier between salt water and

regular water. And somehow they can use

the difference the you know chemical or

electrical diff

between salt water and regular water. So

as long as you have the two of them you

can create electricity and apparently

lots of it. Do you believe that? It

sounds exactly like a April Fool's

prank. that you can make infinite energy

out of water [snorts]

just some of it has to be salt water I'm

going to say feels a little optimistic

but I remind you

that there seems to be a battery related

energy breakthrough almost every day so

sooner or later one of them will work

well in Chicago according to futurism

um I Guess there are two startups that

are have these little robots that are on

the sidewalks delivering things and you

know that's not new. You you know there

have been startups that tried to have

little robots on the sidewalks and uh I

guess none of them have really worked

but they keep trying. Uh but here's the

funny part of the story. The only the

only reason I'm telling you this story

is that people who don't like the robots

are putting their dog poop bag on top of

the robot. [laughter]

[gasps] So if you're out walking your

dog and you you don't want to carry the

poop bag around and a robot goes by,

[laughter]

you just put it on top of the robot and

the robot takes your poop away. Now, I

do not recommend this. It's kind of a

messed up thing to do, especially

if it's delivering food.

You wouldn't want your food to be

delivered with a poop bag on top. But

while I don't recommend it, and I

discourage it, it doesn't make it less

funny.

That's the important part. All right.

Um, I think I've seen this before, but

it's worth mentioning, I guess. Elon

Musk, I think he was on Joe Rogan, maybe

some other podcast, and he said that

Grock is the only AI that weighs all

human lives equally.

I guess some of the other AIs uh value

uh adult white males uh lower than the

rest of society.

And that's the technology that we're

we're letting loose on the world.

Yeah, maybe. Maybe. We ought we ought to

have a look at that. So, apparently

Grock's the only one

and uh that's based on an actual study.

Um

but uh that's pretty alarming is it's

alarming to even to even imagine that

that's an issue, right? Oh, what is this

behind my shoulder? Looks like product

placement. The Dilbert calendar is

sitting right back there. twice as good

as ever before.

Well, in Chicago, now this is a funny

story, too. According to the post

millennial, they're covering this. Uh

Chicago, I guess they tested UBI,

universal basic income where they

literally just give money to people who

don't have money and they try to, you

know, see if that'll make their life

better and make the world better. Well,

they they just ended up testing $500 a

month in cash. And guess what they

concluded?

Well, they concluded that people really

like getting $500 in cash for doing no

work.

So, they called it a success

and said they're going to do more of it.

That's right. the the standard for

judging whether it was successful

was whether the people who got the free

money were happy about it.

I'm not making that up. Turns out that

people are happy when you give them free

money. Who knew? Maybe you could have

asked me.

All right. Um,

apparently the State Department is doing

far fewer press briefings than than

before. To which I ask, why would you do

any? What What would the State

Department tell you that Trump wouldn't

tell you? It seems like if you have more

than one, you know, government entity

that's doing important press briefings

in addition to Trump that all it does is

create a opportunity for something to

look like a misinterpretation or or a

conflict. So why would you ever have a

press briefing from the State Department

as long as Trump can cover all that same

material, which he does you anything

that matters.

So yeah, that's the bar. Smart not to

have them.

Well, apparently the defense department

or the is it called the department of

war now? I don't know. Um they've

confirmed that uh 11 billion dollars,

which is only a small fraction of the

real number, has been stolen.

11 billion dollars since 2017.

Uh, and according to the GAO,

it's only a small fraction of how much

has been stolen of your tax money, just

just the stuff that was going to the

Department of Defense.

Um, so the the Pentagon,

which spends about a trillion dollars a

year, has never passed an audit.

Do you think we're better than um

Ukraine?

You know, I I've said this before, but

when you look at the number of expensive

homes and expensive cars, it doesn't

really map to my understanding of how

many legitimate jobs there are in the

world that you can make that much money.

It looks like I mean, I've been feeling

this for a long time that we're

primarily a corruption economy.

Not primarily, but that maybe something

like

I 20% of the entire GDP is criminal. I

don't know how big it is, but every time

we we look at any entity that has a

budget, doesn't it always look the same?

like every time there's a big budget, be

it Minneapolis, be it the uh Department

of Defense, be it the NOS's, be it USAD,

every time there's a big budget, it's

being stolen.

New York City's budget, the city

budgets, every time. If we could solve

one problem,

which is the ability to audit where our

money goes,

everything would be different. So, it

feel it feels like it feels like what

the Trump administration needs to do, I

don't even know if it's doable, is to

find some way to insist that nobody ever

gets a budget for anything

unless there's a really dynamic auditing

feature where everybody can see where

every dollar goes. Short of that, it's

just all being stolen. It doesn't matter

if it's money for Ukraine or money for

poor people or money for a disease or

money for COVID. Every single time,

every time it's being stolen,

a as a, you know, as a developed

country, we can't figure out how to

audit our stuff. I mean, it's crazy.

It's crazy.

Anyway, here are some examples. a uh

Pentagon contractor.

I guess one of the ways or maybe the

main way that this kind of money is

stolen is there's kickbacks

for

for sending money in one direction

versus another. There are all these

shell companies that are like fake

companies pretending to do things that

you would get money for but not really

doing those things.

Well, in other news, um, Gateway Pundit

is reporting that, uh, the US Treasury,

so that would be Scott Bessant is, uh,

is going to start seizing remittances.

So, remittances in this context is

talking about, uh, people who are

usually usually non-citizens. They don't

have to be non-citizens, but they're

sending money back to their home country

or wherever they came from. Now, on one

hand,

I like freedom and I think people should

be able to do whatever they want with

their money, you know, assuming it's

legally obtained. On the other hand,

there's a really good reason or argument

for limiting the ability for people to

make money in the US and then send that

money somewhere else.

That doesn't help us. It helps wherever

you're sending it, but it doesn't help

us. So, if you were to tax those

remittances,

um, you know, at least you get something

out of it. or if you were to block them

or cap them, it probably would be a good

idea for the United States. So, I don't

I don't know how big that number is, but

it's a lot of money. And if we could

just um if those dollars would simply

stay circulating within the US economy,

you know, you have a you have a

multiplier effect. So the dollar spent

goes to another American who now has a

dollar who spends it that goes to

another American. Well, if you take that

and you you create a leak where that

dollar just leaves our system,

then it never has any multiplier effect.

So you don't lose a dollar, you lose

like I don't know, the multiplier would

probably be 10 maybe 10 to one. I don't

know what the real number is, but it's a

lot. So just letting a dollar leave our

system to go back to the home country,

that $1 is like $10 in terms of GDP over

time.

So yeah, velocity. Exactly. Somebody

took an economics course. Yeah, velocity

is what we're talking about.

And let's see. So I guess they're going

to flag uh anything that's over $2,000.

That probably will go down over time.

That's a lot of money actually sending

back to the the home country.

Well, now Trump has uh put a pause on US

immigration

uh permanent pause. Well, I don't know

how permanent it is. Uh from third world

countries.

Now, do you remember when Trump tried

the uh the so-called Muslim ban

and that didn't work out? So, he

modified it and then it worked out. Um,

why did he never try third world ban?

It it does seem like that would capture

everything you didn't want.

You know, that the third world would

capture kind of all kinds of situations.

And if you needed, I suppose if you

needed to make an exception, it wouldn't

be that hard. But it seems kind of clean

to just say we don't let people from

third world countries in unless it's a

special situation

because I don't know how much is helping

us. Now the other factors that are

impossible to predict are the effect of

a decreasing population. you know, our

our reproduction rate is below

replacement. So, it's not like

we're going to be able to get away with

not importing people unless the robot u

revolution is so fast that we just never

need to import another person and then

we would slowly turn into a robot

country.

Uh-oh. I just realized that's probably

what's going to happen.

Okay. uh work with me here. So let's say

that uh we limit migration immigration

into the country and let's say that our

um our repopulation rate stays below

replacement.

There would be fewer humans every day,

but because we're at the beginning of

the robot revolution,

there would be more robots every day.

Now, in the beginning, we're going to

say humans are humans and robots are

robots and they're just tools. But as

those robots become more and more

humanlike, which is guaranteed, it's

going to happen fast, will we so easily

call the robots tools and the humans the

important thing when the number of

robots starts surpassing the number of

humans?

What happens

when the United States becomes 90%

humanoid robots doing all the things

that humans do and 10% humans?

Are we destined to become a robot only

country?

you know that could happen right

in in the real world there's a

possibility that sometime maybe even in

your lifetime uh well not in your

lifetime probably but there's a real

possibility that the United States will

be only populated by humanoid robots

that can also reproduce

what would stop that from happening

right all the trends are in that

direction Our population will reduce,

our immigration will go to zero, and the

number of robots that are, you know,

indistinguishable from humans basically

will start at zero,

but it's going to go to millions, you

know, within just a few short years. So,

robot nation coming up. There is a rumor

this morning that I do not believe is

true. There's no confirmation for it,

but I'll just tell you the rumor. the

rumors that uh Venezuelan leader Maduro

uh may have tried to escape Venezuela in

an airplane

that apparently is known to be his

airplane, but there is no confirmation

of anything of the sort. So, the news is

not treating it like that's a real story

yet. So, I would say that is unlikely to

be true.

Um, I also wouldn't understand

how Maduro's plane could be flying over

Venezuela,

which is what the rumor said, that it

landed landed somewhere near the

Brazilian border. And some people were

saying, "Oh, that's how he can escape

the country."

Um, but didn't Trump put a um what would

you call it? a a total cap on airline

flight above Venezuela.

You know, didn't Trump say that we would

enforce that? So, how can it be true

that the US would put a flight ban over

Venezuela, but also that the leader

plane could be flying around? Because

the last thing I would want to do if I

were Maduro is get in an airplane when

we've just had we'll basically shoot

down planes that are in the air. Uh

yeah, I don't think he's on that plane.

Anyway,

um have you heard the update on the

so-called burn bags?

So, did you know that the FBI found

these bags that were meant for burning

documents that were sensitive? Uh, and

they just simply had not yet burned

them. So, they put them in the burn bag

and then I guess when the bag is full,

they would burn it. [snorts] But there

have been some burn bags found that were

not burned.

And uh Cash Patel says that it they

involve the Trump Russia hoax, you know,

the Russia collusion hoax, and that

they're found in a secret room and they

will be shown to the public.

And Cash Patel says, quote, "You're

going to see everything we found in that

room in one way or another, uh blah blah

blah." And uh so I saw this Cash Patel

was uh on an interview uh for the Epic

Times and Yan Yelik was talking to him

and it kind of felt like Cash was

suggesting there's something in there

that's

going to amaze us or shock us or confirm

maybe confirm something we suspected.

But I don't know when we're going to see

that. But I can't wait to see the burn

bags. Burn bag. Open them up.

Well, according to Breitbart News, uh

Warner Todd Houston's writing about

this. There's a new documentary out

uh that shows that uh Gavin Newsome and

Karen Bass did nothing as the LA and

Pacific Palisades burned.

Now, do you believe that? Well, I

believe there's a documentary, but uh

you know how I always tell you that the

documentary effect must be guarded

against. The documentary effect is um if

you if you make a documentary

and it's entertaining

and people watch it for the let's say

the hour that it lasts or whatever, they

will be convinced of whatever it is

you're trying to sell or whatever

narrative you're putting forward. they

will think is true. So if you were to

watch this documentary,

which clearly is designed to show the

California politicians failed, do you

think you would come away with it with

any other opinion than oh my god, they

massively failed the, you know, the

state? No. So, I would warn you, um, I

haven't seen it, but I also plan not to

see it because I already know it will

convince me that the politicians are

crooked or incompetent,

um, and there will not be showing the

other side cuz, you know, even if it

looks super obvious that the politicians

were at fault, it looks like it to me,

uh, even then

there's always another side, you You

know, if if you sat down with Newsome

and said, "All right, you know, why

didn't you do X? Why didn't you do Y,"

he might have some explanation that even

though you're not like a fan of Newsome,

even though you're positive he could

have done better, even though you're

sure

the state failed you, still everybody's

got a, you know, they've got their

version of events. And if you're not

going to hear the other side,

I don't know if you should spend too

much time hypnotizing yourself on one

side. So, just beware.

That said, I do think the state failed

failed uh the residents.

All right. Well, I guess Charlie Sheen

did an interview with Megan Kelly. Um

Blaze media is writing about it. And uh

what was interesting is uh that Charlie

Sheen used the word hypnotized

and he talked about himself and he said

that he had been quote hypnotized by

staterun media and that when he realized

by looking at you know different news

outlets he somehow unhypnotized himself

um to understand that they're you know

two sides to the story basically and

that He wasn't as, you know, anti-Trump

or anti-

conservative as maybe he thought he was.

But here's why I thought this was

interesting. Um, I I went to Grock and I

asked it.

Has the word hypnotized

been used as often as it is now? And

Grock said, "Oh my god, you know, big

difference." Um the word hypnotized

would rarely come up you know let's say

10 years ago uh I think I said 10 years

but that in the past 10 years when

people talk about politics they do

actually use the word hypnotized

and uh it is said according to Grock

that hypnotized as a word used in

politics went from being obscure

to being fairly common s such that

Charlie Sheen would just, you know, have

that as a go-to.

Um, I've told you before that one of the

things I do is try to track my own

influence on events. And one of the ways

I do it is by tracking uncommon word

usage.

And hypnotize

is sort of the word I introduced about

10 years ago talking about persuasion

and whatnot. And so I asked Grock, and

I've asked I've asked other AIS this,

but I had not asked Grock, um, if I

personally

uh, was the reason that hypnotized

is a common word where it used to not be

common. And uh with a few follow-up

questions, Grock did say

that uh I'm responsible for creating a

narrative of Trump being persuasive.

That is the common way we see him today.

And uh they actually credited me for

that change. A change from looking at

policy when you're talking about

politics to looking at persuasion. and

it mentioned my book win bigly and and

it said I had relentlessly hammered on

it.

Um

and then Grock said that what I did for

the let's say the narrative is that I

gave people this is Grock's wording I

gave people a vocabulary to understand

Trump as a persuader.

And if you have a vocabulary for

something, that's a way of saying you

have a narrative or a framework for

understanding things. And then as new

events happen, you can attach it to the

framework and that would be called a

narrative. A a way of seeing the

information as opposed to the

information. The information is attached

to the narrative. The narrative is the

way you interpret it. Right? So

apparently, at least according to Grock,

um I changed the narrative

from being, you know, the common

narrative of policy and I don't know,

character, the things we would normally

talk about with politicians to one where

people understand it um as a persuasion

framework.

And apparently that's me.

I seem to have changed the entire way

[laughter]

[clears throat] I I seem to have changed

the entire way that people look at um

politics. So you you can have a

different opinion and uh believe that I

was just a I don't know just describing

something that was there anyway.

But what was there anyway is that there

was always persuasion. I didn't invent

that. But what I invented was the

narrative of seeing it through that

lens.

And I think I actually did that. Um, and

when I see Charlie Sheen using the word

hypnotized,

and I know that that would have been an

obscure use of the word 10 years ago,

which is exactly when I started talking

about this and talking about persuasion

and Trump. Uh, I think that's me. I

think that he would not have used the

word hypnotized

if he had not been, let's say, opening

his eyes in a world that I had partly

created.

[laughter]

I'm [clears throat] kind of curious if

you're buying this at all. Are you

buying this? How I'm looking at your

comments now. How many of you believe

that I made a big enough difference that

it changed the entire way people look at

politics all the way through to

affecting Charlie Sheen's choice of

words?

Do do you think that's credible?

I'm looking at your comments. Most of

most of you think it's credible. And I

would bet that the longer you've been

watching my podcasts, the more credible

it seems. Now, some of that is the

documentary effect. So, beware. Beware.

If you're watching my content and you're

not seeing anything else, that's

probably not good enough. You probably

need to, you know, you you need to see

the other argument from stuff I do, too.

So, it's not just about, you know,

it includes me. Let's just say I'm part

of the documentary effect. So, beware

and be skeptical of everything,

including me.

All right.

We'll give you some persuasion lessons

as we go here today. Um, so are you

following the story that the Washington

Post has this exclusive story? Hm. the

Washington Post, the one that is usually

accused of being a CIA tool. H maybe um

I mean they're accused of that. It's an

allegation, but the Washington Post has

a story that allegedly, and I believe

this is whistleblowers. Let's see. The

Washington Post

and whistleblowers.

If you didn't even know what the story

was about,

would you trust it? It's the Washington

Post [laughter]

and it's based on whistleblowers.

That's That's pretty low credibility

right there. That's pretty low. Doesn't

mean it's false. It could be true, but

if you were going to sort of handicap

how likely it was and the only thing you

knew about it was that there were

whistleblowers, nah,

it's not quite good enough. But let me

tell you the story if you haven't heard

it. So, the accusation is that the at

the very first uh Venezuelan drug boat

that our military blew up that there

were a couple of survivors from the

attack and that the order went out to

kill them all, you know, quote, kill

them all and then there was a second

strike that finished them off. Now, that

I believe that would be a war crime if

true. Now, at the same time that you've

got the six Democrats, the sedicious

six, suggesting that the military should

not follow

what would be illegal orders. This would

probably be an illegal order if it

really happened. And if it really

happened is, you know, the big part of

the question. So, do you think it's a

coincidence that the Washington Post H

allegedly a vehicle used by the CIA and

deep state for their messaging that they

have a story with whistleblowers h

whistleblowers and it happens to

perfectly match the narrative that the

Democrats are putting out right now,

which is there might be some illegal

orders. What would you do if you got the

illegal orders? So, does it make you

think about

illegal orders? Yes, it does. So, is

that a coincidence?

Is it a or is it a deep state CIA

persuasion play which would look exactly

like it?

Now, I don't have any confirmation or

special information that would say that

the Washington Post story is literally

just made up to convince people that

there's a big risk of illegal orders. I

don't have any proof of that. What I do

have is some pattern recognition.

And when it's the Washington Post

and it's a story that the anti-Trump

world would like you to see and it fits

perfectly with the narrative and it's

based on whistleblowers.

That's a lot of pattern recognition

going into that that looks like it's

just part of a persuasion op from

anti-Trump forces. But I I hasten to

remind you I don't have any proof of

that. It just the pattern is a little

hard to ignore. So keep an eye on that.

Now

let's look at uh the front page of a

publication called The Hill.

So keep in mind the context I just gave

you. the sedicious sex. Then

coincidentally fitting perfectly in

their narrative, there's a story about

allegedly Haggath gave the order to what

would be illegal orders. H

um at [clears throat] the same time, The

Hill had a number of stories in the

front page, and I wanted to see what uh

what that looked like. Um, and here are

some of the things that uh were on their

headlines. All right, so this is from

The Hill today.

One of the stories is titled five ways

Republicans are breaking up with Trump

or breaking with Trump. Now, I didn't

read the article. Uh, this is about

looking at the the bigger picture,

right? So, five ways Republicans are

breaking with Trump. So that would be a

story to suggest that Trump's popularity

is falling within his base. Even though

the numbers suggest he's the most

popular president within his party of

maybe all time, he has like 87% support

within Republicans. But five ways

Republicans are breaking. Another

another headline also on the Hill same

day. Reagan judges surfaced as

unfiltered assessors of Trump. Oh, so

there are Republicans who are even more

Republican than Trump because they're

Reaganapp appointed judges and uh and

they have unfiltered assessments of

Trump. Oh, so in other words, there are

some very credible Republican types,

these judges who are trying to block

Trump. So that would suggest that

Republicans are not all exactly on the

same side. So that that headline is at

the same way at the same time as the

headline, five ways Republicans are

breaking with Trump. Let's see. There's

another headline.

Trump approval rating drops to new low

according to a poll. Okay, that is three

headlines just on the Hill just today

suggesting that Trump is losing his

popularity.

Now put it all together,

Washington Post,

whistleblowers,

right? sedicious six. Uh, don't follow

um, you know, don't follow the orders of

you any illegal orders if you're in the

military. And then, oh, look at all the

ways the Republicans are abandoning

Trump.

In other words, making it easy to

abandon Trump because you feel that

other people are doing it. What would be

persuasion in this case? Repetition.

Repetition.

Repetition.

So the more they say, uh, Trump is

becoming less popular, uh, Republicans

are breaking with him, you better not

agree with him if he gives illegal

orders. They're they're creating a

narrative, and there's that narrative

word again, a framework in which you can

imagine that Trump is becoming less

popular. Once that narrative is

established, then anything in the news

that's anti-Trump or shows somebody

disagreeing with him or anything that

they could, you know, stretch to make it

look like it's an illegal military

order. Now, they all fit in that same

narrative that he might give an illegal

order and his popularity is shrinking

within his own base, even if that's not

necessarily true.

All right. Now, let's look at Politico.

Uh, one of the headlines is how Trump's

base could break.

Okay.

So

you you can start to see that if it's

true, and I don't know that it is, but

if it's true that our our publications,

our mainstream media is at least partly

just propaganda by deep state

intelligence assets. If that's true,

what would it look like?

Wouldn't it look exactly like this?

And I remind you, if you don't know what

a color revolution is, you need to study

up on that because I'm not sure we're in

one, but I know that if you were doing

pattern recognition and you were say,

well, what what would it look like? A

color revolution is how the US

intelligence

uh and our other assets have overthrown

some number I don't know what the number

is but multiple other countries and the

accusation is that the same technique is

being used internally by some presumably

anti-Trump

forces to destabilize the Trump

administration and put back I suppose a

a Democrat lead thing.

So,

so a color revolution would include

um suspiciously funded street protests.

Do we have that? Do we have recently

suspiciously funded treat street

protests that look sort of sort of

dangerous? Yes. Yeah. Um they're not all

dangerous looking. the the no kings

stuff is not especially dangerous, but

we do have um we're looking at the

funding for Antifa, etc. So, it does

look like there's some kind of sketchy

funding for protests. That's what you

would expect we would do to another

country if we were trying to get rid of

them. There would also be

uh if you were if you were suffering

from an externally imposed color

revolution, you there would also be the

press would have a pretty unified

attack on the leader. Do we see the

press going after the leader, Trump?

Yes. More than we've ever seen the press

go after anything. So, we got the

sketchy street protests. We've got the

media

maybe influenced by intelligent sources.

We don't know, but it looks like it. And

uh attacking the leader

and uh

yeah, so those would be some of the

hallmarks of it. So, it looks like it,

but we wouldn't know. And then there's

the part about

following illegal orders. And there's a

part about trying to jail the current

administration

because you always need you always need

some

um excuse to jail the person who's in

charge so you can install your own

person. That's what that's how we would

do it if we're overthrowing another

country. Um and that's exactly what was

happening to Trump. The lawfare was not

trying to beat him electorally.

It was trying to put him in jail. And

there was also, it looked like to me, a

huge effort to put his supporters in

jail, and anybody who supported him,

anybody who tried to be his lawyer,

anybody who was a close confidant. So

all the elements are in place for what

would be a color revolution that was

aimed by our country at our own country.

Um but the the part that uh is missing I

think is who's in charge?

Who's in charge? I think I saw um

I I've seen speculation that you know

that Obama is still in charge and he's

running the things from behind. I

haven't seen the proof of that or that

John Brennan is still in charge. Haven't

seen the proof of that. Um so I think

one thing that's missing from the

narrative is a sense of who's in charge.

Like I if we are undergoing a color

revolution, is it just a bunch of people

who knew what to do but they didn't need

any central coordinating or is it

actually centrally coordinated

by who? The CIA,

all of the CIA, some corner of the CIA,

um some other intelligence assets.

Don't know. So I I think I would say

we're short of

proof that there is a um organized color

revolution, but all the elements are

there. The the part missing would be who

the hell is doing it?

You know, we we could speculate about

that, but I don't think there's any

smoking gun that I'm aware of. Now

certainly if you looked at the Russia

collusion hoax and if you said hey

whoever was behind that Russia collusion

hoax unless they're in jail

they'd be just doing that same stuff

more of it and that would suggest Obama

and it would suggest Brennan and Clapper

and uh all the uh all the guys that we

know were involved guys and gals that we

know were involved. olved in that hoax

because they're still they're still

operating. I mean, nothing would stop

them from doing more of it if they were

doing it.

On another topic,

um I am quite intrigued

by what uh Alan Dersuit has said. I

don't think this is new. I think he said

this for a while, that he knows exactly

who's being protected by the non-release

of the Epstein files. and he promises us

that it's not Trump, but that there are

some number and I don't know the number

of important people who are being

protected by the non-release of the

Epstein files. Now, Durowitz says he's

not guessing because he uh because of

court cases he was involved in, he

actually knows who the people are.

But what he doesn't tell us is how many

of them there are. Is it three people

who are being protected? Because the way

he talks about it, it sounds like it's a

lot. I don't know what a lot would be.

Like any one would be a lot in this

particular con uh context. But how many

people do you think are being protected

and what type of people? I I think he

also suggested it's um all manner of

important people. They're all important,

but they're not necessarily elected

leaders. They're not necessarily any

specific kind of rich person. There are

just a variety of important people who

are being protected.

Does that sound right to you?

I have to say that sounds completely

right to me.

can't be sure, but it does feel like

there's more than, you know, more than

one person being protected. It's

probably probably several countries

involved. And I'll bet you that the US's

relationship with those several

countries is kind of dependent

[clears throat]

on us keeping our damn mouths shut about

what their leaders were up to. So, you

could do you could do your own uh your

own speculation about what countries are

involved, but uh I think Great Britain

is at the top of my list. Don't have any

proof, but if I had to guess who we

would try so hard to protect,

it feels like Great Britain, doesn't it?

Now, I know some of you are going to say

Israel because that just gets thrown

into every conversation. But I don't

have any specific reason to think that

Israel's

um being protected. You know, that they

may or may not have been involved in

some Epstein blackmail intel thing. That

would be separate. So separate from

whether Israel had any Epstein

involvement is a question of whether any

prominent Israelis

are being protected. And that I don't

have any I don't have any specific

reason to think that would be the case.

But I love the fact that all of us are

wondering who is being protected. But

Duruitz actually knows. Can you imagine

being him? Can you can you imagine being

one of the few people on earth who don't

have to wonder? He actually knows. He

knows the actual names of the people

being protected. And I I think he's

telling the truth. So I think he does

know the names. It's kind of weird.

Anyway, um Ukraine had uh some military

success, I guess you'd call it, um with

their uh sea drones. So that would be

water-based drones. uh blew up two empty

um oil tankers that were apparently part

of what's they call Russia's ghost

fleet.

So if you read the news as I did and you

found out that two um tankers now there

are oil tankers involved in the avoiding

sanctions.

So, Russia is under sanctions, but there

are these all these sketchy, usually

rusty old um tankers that have been

getting around the sanctions. Now, if I

told you, as I just did, that Ukraine

had blown up two of them in one one day

in the Black Sea, would you think that

that would make a difference?

What's the What's missing in the story?

Well, what's missing is how many tankers

are there? If they blew up two and there

were only five,

[laughter]

that's a pretty big story. But if you

had to guess, how many how many ghost

tankers do you think Russia is using

every day? Not not over time, but just

every day. How many tankers are either

carrying an illegal load of Russian oil

or returning empty to get a load? If you

had to guess, so I'm looking at your

numbers. Uh 18.

Well, if if Ukraine took out two of 18,

that would be a lot for one day of of

work, right? Somebody's saying 200. So,

I went to Grock, which by the way, I I

don't understand any stories in the news

anymore unless I've checked with Grock.

Now, Grock could be hallucinating,

right? Could be hallucinating. So, grain

assault, but um according to Grock, over

a thousand

uh tankers are part of this ghost fleet.

Don't you think that should have been

right at the top of the story?

Now go check the stories.

Is that propaganda?

Because if you said to me, "Oh, they

they took out two of a thousand." I

would say, "Oh, so they did basically

nothing and they were empty, so it

barely even polluted, right?"

Um, but if you thought the number of

total ghost tankers was some lower

number, maybe in the low hundreds, then

suddenly two of them being taken out one

day starts sounding like, whoa, maybe

those Ukrainians are doing well. So ask

yourself this. Is it bad reporting that

they don't give you the context of how

many how many tankers there are total?

Is it just bad reporting?

Or is it intentionally trying to create

a narrative that Ukraine has more of a

chance of winning or at least, you know,

pressing the war than they do?

What do you think? Is it is that a

coincidence? Do you think it's just a

coincidence that the most important

number isn't in the story?

Or or maybe they don't know. Even if

they don't know how many uh ghost

tankers there are, shouldn't they say

that? As in, well, two of them went down

or at least they were damaged. I don't

think they went down. Uh they were

damaged and we don't know how many uh

there are total.

That feels like something that story

should include, right? So, the fact that

it's not in the story

tells me that we're seeing a narrative.

We're not seeing reporting.

Um, then I asked Grock, and remember

again, Grock doesn't have to be right

all the time, but I'll tell you what

Grock said because it's interesting. Um,

I've told you before that one of the

ways you can predict the future is by

looking at insurance.

And so I wondered, are these boats

privately owned? Not boats, ships. Are

are these tankers privately owned? And

if they're privately owned, are they

insured?

And the answer is, you know, there are a

variety of situations, but some of them

uh well, let me cut to the important

thing. I asked Grock how much a tanker

can earn making one run of, you know,

let's say a a full uh ship of oil.

And the answer is about $3 to5 million

for one run.

And the cargo would be worth something

like 15 to30 million.

So they're transporting 15 to $30

million in a in a ship that itself is

worth maybe three to five um I'm sorry

the ship would be worth something like

15 million plus

but they would earn 3 to 5 million for

just one let's say two-month journey

there and back.

So the what I'm trying to communicate is

that the economics of being a ghost ship

owner are so good that you don't need

insurance.

In other words, if you just make uh

several runs, you would earn so much

that it would pay for the entire ship

going down if it got taken out. And

since only two of a thousand ships got

taken out, then the economics are h do I

take this $3 million that I'll get in 30

to 60 days at the risk of I don't know

maybe 1500 might be the risk of losing

the entire ship, but you can pay for the

entire ship in maybe half a year, which

would be one of the best investments you

could ever have. So the problem is that

the economics of avoiding sanctions even

at the risk of losing your entire

tanker, the entire tanker is still

overwhelmingly

good business. And so I think a lot of

the ghost tankers are uh sort of rusty

old older tankers that they wouldn't

they wouldn't care that much if it went

down.

So,

it looks to me like um

well, here's another story along those

same lines.

The Wall Street Journal has an article

that says Russia is winning the drone

war. So, remember I've told you recently

that Ukraine's only real advantage,

maybe just one advantage they have, is

that they seem to be ahead of Russia in

building deadly drones and using them

effectively. Well, according to the Wall

Street Journal, that has flipped and now

Russia has a

decided advantage in the drone war.

The one of the things that caught my eye

is that uh this is from the Wall Street

Journal today. Quote, "Largecale

maneuvering remains nearly impossible on

a battlefield where masses of cheap

drones can see and target movement by

soldiers or vehicles." So remember, I've

been telling you for a while that this

would turn into a robot only war and it

it wouldn't even be about people. That's

basically what the Wall Street Journal

is reporting that you wouldn't even

bother putting any vehicle into the war

zone because it won't last 5 minutes. So

if you can't put human occupied,

you can't do troops or a human driving a

truck, it's going to be completely de

depopulated

in the the border war zone and it will

be literally just drone on drone, robot

on robot. So we're very close to my

weird prediction that this would be our

first robot on robot war. It kind of

already is. Not exactly, but it's

heading that way.

All right. Now, I'm going to

um let's see. I'm going to confess some

stupidity

if you don't mind.

Somebody said the other day that's one

of the reasons they like listening to me

is that I'm not uh I'm not overly wed to

even my own opinions. If if the evidence

shows that I've got it wrong, then I

don't have any hesitation to changing my

opinion. I'm going to do that right now.

So, I think I said the last few days

that for the first time I could kind of

imagine there could be a Ukraine Russia

peace deal. And until recently, I

couldn't even imagine it. And I'll tell

I'll reiterate what I said before I tell

you how wrong it was. Okay. So, my

thinking was that some things have

changed recently. Uh there's pressure on

Ukraine in the in the uh corruption um

stuff and maybe that puts some pressure

on Zilinski that his best friend

is already being chased out of office um

under accusations of corruption.

Um,

and uh, I said, well, I had a few other

arguments, but my my argument was that

we might be closer to some some kind of

negotiated settlement than people

realize. I'm completely going to change

that today because I spent some time

trying to figure out also using Grock

for context. I wanted to see um how

close Russia was to economic defeat.

So, it's a war. There's sort of a

two-part war. One part of the war is um

killing humans and trying to be the last

living humans. So, that's, you know,

that's one way to look at the war. The

other way is that they're both attacking

each other's economies and that the real

war is economic. So, whoever can

the other one economically

will will be the winner. And I was

trying to figure out what would be a

scenario in which Putin would be willing

to make peace right now. And here's

where I think I was very wrong yet the

other day. There is no scenario in which

it makes sense for him to stop the war.

You know, [clears throat] if he's only

losing two tankers that, by the way,

were not even owned by Russia. The the

tankers that get blown up are owned by

wealthy individuals and different

countries. And Russia doesn't even lose

anything except two out of a thousand

tankers. So

there there is a uh according to Grock

there there is definitely impact on

Russian citizens. So they've got eight

or nine% inflation. Uh their GDP is kind

of flat and uh people are feeling the

pinch but it's not the end of the world.

You know Russia is not in a any kind of

a depression.

Uh, and it looks like they can kind of

keep going on. And one of the things

that Putin has going for him is he

doesn't seem to have to satisfy his

public that much because he's going to

stay in power and he can control his own

media. Um, and so if it doesn't get too

much worse,

he's better off just winning. And if you

factor in ego,

you know, you have to factor in ego. I

don't see him quitting now because if he

quit now, even if he, you know, even if

he banked the gains and said, "Okay, we

have the Donbass and we've got Crimea

and we got a few things we wanted." Um,

if he did, it would still look like a

lot of war for not a lot of gain.

I think he has to probably gain more

before his legacy is looks good and he

can argue that it made sense to have the

war in the first place because even

though he doesn't need to make his

population love him, you know, the way

American politicians might, he still

needs some kind of popular support.

So, I would say that Ukraine does not

look like it could take out Russia's

energy infrastructure

before Russia could take out Ukraine's

infrastructure. Um, and I don't see

anything changing

that would make Putin want to make peace

because all indications are he's slowly

gaining and slowly winding down Ukraine

and Ukraine is losing losing support.

You know, it's not going to be won't be

supported financially forever. So the

part that I think I calculated wrong is

that I just assumed

without thinking about it well enough I

guess I just assumed that everybody

wants to end war

but why would Putin apparently he's not

too worried about the number of Russian

being killed in the war. So if he

doesn't mind that and it's sort of

moving in his direction,

I can't see any reason he would end the

war.

And the only thing that I can imagine

changing it is something that changed

things economically

that somehow Russia would allow to

happen to them without responding in

kind.

Don't you think that the United States

is holding back quite a bit? Because if

we go too far

um with allowing Ukraine to have all the

best weapons and stuff, if we go too

far, some of that's going to come back

on the homeland. You know, Russia is

going to not want to put up with that

without responding and kind. So, I don't

see any way that as long as Putin's in

charge, and it looks like he'll remain

in charge. Um, so I'm going to I'm going

to re-up my older

my older uh prediction that there's no

way we get a piece within a year because

there's just not enough happening that

would change the balance of where we are

right now. Two out of a thousand ghost

anchors. I don't know.

That doesn't seem like enough.

All right,

what else we got going?

Well, that ladies and gentlemen is my

full show and I appear to be back to

full power. I'm a little bit quiet

today, but feel my full energy. I was

telling people before uh before

everybody streamed in here that I'm

going to do a separate video maybe today

of dad gift ideas for Christmas. I've

got some really good dad gift ideas

[laughter] and it's based entirely on

things that I have and you know I'm

especially happy about them.

Uh Scott is wrong. Zalinski is going to

get arrested. Well, that's that's not

part of my prediction. I don't have a

prediction about Zalinski not getting

arrested, but I also don't have one

about him getting arrested. I I don't

think it matters

what Ukraine wants or what Zilinski

wants. I don't think they're I think

it's between the United States and

Russia.

And

um I don't think it matters at all what

Zilinski wants.

So, that's just not part of my

prediction at all. Either way, whether

he gets arrested or not shouldn't affect

have any effect on whether uh Putin

wants to keep going.

Well, you know, I wasn't going to

mention the coffee warmer, but maybe

I'll add that to the list.

Uh tankers are mo mostly owned by Greek

companies. I don't think that's true

that the ghost tankers are mostly owned

by Greek. Uh I I do believe that there

are a lot of Greek registered tankers,

but I don't think mostly. I think it's a

grabag of basically all kinds of sketchy

tanker people from around the world.

That's what Grock led me to believe.

Wow, that is so wrong.

I can tell the people I want to ignore

the most, the the people who listen to

my entire uh Ukraine

prediction and then all they have to do

is they say, "Scott, you should read up

more." Or, "You're so wrong." That's not

an opinion. You're so wrong. Tell me one

thing I got wrong. Anything. Pick pick

the top thing you think I'm

misinterpreting or missing or not

calculating. Just tell me one thing that

you think I don't know or I have not

included in my opinion and uh you'll get

really quiet right now.

All right,

ladies and gentlemen. I'm going to say

goodbye for most of you and I'm going to

uh talk to my beloved

local subscribers,

the best subscribers ever. And uh I'll

see the rest of you soon. But let's see

if I can get my technology to do what I

want. So, local supporters,

beloveds,