Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Soros Funded Organizations, Sunny Hostin Ancestry, The View Legal Disclaimers, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Anti-Trump Election Interference, California Vote Counting, Seeing The Matrix, Hillary Clinton Playbook, Tulsi Gabbard, Economist Based Immigration Policy, Blocking Mass Deportations, Democrat Progressive Leadership, Democrat Identity Focus, Democrat Celebrity Endorsements, DNC Vice Chair Tim Martin, CNN Democrat Messaging, Jake Tapper, Fine People Hoax, Jennifer Rubin, HUD's Effectiveness, Government Funding Oversight, 5 Closest Friends Problem, J6 National Guard Delay, Steven Sund, Last-Minute Ukraine Funding, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
And that means an incredible show is ahead of you.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
Good morning.
Probably the best day you'll ever have in your life, but if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, 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 unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Oh, perfect.
Yeah, it's just perfect.
Well, good news.
Researchers from China and Brazil have finally given us the invention we need.
It's a robot dog that can search for fire ants.
So, I don't know if you have a big problem with fire ants.
You've got a robot dog solution that's coming that can recognize fire ants and do what with them?
I don't know.
Just spot them, I guess, so you can go kill them.
Now what I want is a robo-dog that can pick weeds and also pick vegetables and stuff from a garden.
So what I want to have is on the side of my house, I want to have a little high house, you know, greenhouse kind of thing.
And I want to have two or three little robots.
They have access to everything.
They can climb up and pick stuff and get rid of weeds and water things and check for problems.
It'd be smarter than I am, right?
If I looked at a leaf and it was dying, I wouldn't know why.
But AI would know why, and then it could go fix it.
So in theory, I could have my own little mini garden with a little mini gardener, and every day I'd just go in there and there'd be a basket of whatever the latest harvest was.
And then I'd give it to my robot chef, and my robot chef would cook it up for me, and I would just have the best food from robots.
That's the future.
Well, meanwhile, at MIT, according to Adam Zawi, he has an article on that, that MIT has developed some noise-canceling silk.
So it's a sort of fabric-y material that has two different elements to it, at least there are two different aspects to it.
Both of them will reduce sound.
And I'm thinking to myself, if you could make a piece of silk that people could stick in their ears and not hear their partner snoring, now you've got something.
I don't know if that's ever going to happen, but if this silk can cancel noise, it sure seems like you could make some earplugs out of it, and that would change everything.
Do you know one of the biggest secrets in America, and I'm guessing it's the same in other countries, is the number of married people who can't sleep in the same room.
It just isn't possible because one of them snores.
You really can't sleep with a snorer.
I learned that the hard way by being the snorer.
Yeah, nobody wants to sleep with a snorer.
Anyway, here's a funny story according to The Atlantic, Daniel Engber is writing, that there's this business school scandal that just keeps getting bigger, and the scandal is professors at the business school writing academic papers that are fraudulent.
Let's see, what terrible business school has that?
I mean, I'd sure hate to have a degree.
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine having a degree from one of these great business schools that you find out the professors are all a bunch of...
Let's see, what business school was it?
It was...
Oh, it was the UC... Uh-oh.
The UC Berkeley Haas School of Business.
Okay, that's where I have my MBA. But the joke's on them because I disown them for being racist already.
So I don't have to disown them for also having professors who are big liars.
I already disavowed them for being racist.
Oh, poor Haas Business School.
Anyway, there was one professor in particular who was just racking up the fake studies and got caught.
According to the New York Post, gun ownership has soared among Republican women, but has declined among Democrat men.
So there are fewer Democrat men with guns, and there are more Republican women with guns than there were recently.
Is anybody surprised by that?
I actually thought everybody would have more guns.
But apparently the men have decided they don't need them.
But the Republican women are strapped.
So since 2019, 33% of GOP ladies have been packing heat.
Is that true?
Is that true that one-third of Republican women are gun owners?
That's way more than I thought.
I would have guessed 10%.
That's pretty impressive.
That's up from 22% a few years earlier than that.
Pretty impressive.
Meanwhile, in SciPost, the creepiest of all scientific studies...
Are you ready for the creepiest of all scientific studies?
I almost wasn't even going to talk about it, but I think I can do it without going to jail.
So there was a study...
Eric Dolan is writing about this in SciPost...
So as a study published in Complementary Therapies and Clinical Practices, which of course you all read, that children who have ADHD can be benefited by massage.
So they made sure they had very professional, this is key, professional massage therapists.
And it didn't say so in the study, but I'm going to like to think that they were closely monitored by observers.
Because I hate to think that they were putting a bunch of children behind a closed door with a massage therapist.
I hope that didn't happen.
But assuming that they were properly supervised and there was nothing inky about the experiment itself, what they believe they found is that the kids who got regular massage therapy slept better and concentrated better and did better in school.
Now...
Do you know who would have guessed that without a study?
I would.
Do you know why I think this worked?
Because here's just the speculation.
I feel like there's something about ADHD that we don't fully understand.
Well, I guess that's an understatement.
I think everybody would agree with that.
But if you're distracted, and maybe I'm just speaking for myself, it's because there's something you're looking for that you need that you don't have.
Now, that's my take.
This is not agreeing with any scientists or anything.
I have no idea what the scientists say.
But my take, whenever I'm distracted, it's not so much that there's just too much in my head.
It's that I'm aware that there's something I need that I don't have, and I'm looking for it.
But I don't know what it is, so I don't know if I have it yet.
So I'm just sort of looking all the time.
But what I've discovered is, and I told you this before, that if I get a good exercise, and it fulfills my body's chemical needs, then my brain is fine.
Then my brain calms down.
So are you surprised that a massage, which would have similar benefits to getting some good exercise, would also calm the brain?
It should.
But I would also add this second thing.
In my own experience, that when I've got a good dose of oxytocin, which you can only get from physical contact with other humans, that I don't need much else.
So if you can be oxytocin, I'm not immediately thinking about working harder or exercising or solving a problem.
I actually have everything I want.
I just sit there thinking, oh, it's a good day.
I've got everything I want.
Glass of water?
It's all I need.
So what I'm wondering is, did the massage therapy give the youngsters some oxytocin, that feel-good-I've-got-everything-I-need chemistry?
And that's all it was.
So that's my hypothesis, is that it wasn't the physical manipulation or the relaxing, although that should have helped because it pretty much helps with everything.
So if it didn't help, I'd be surprised.
But maybe the bigger thing is that people don't have enough oxytocin.
So here's what I would study to find out.
I'd take a bunch of kids who have ADHD, and then I would ask them questions like, when was the last time you got hugged?
Huh?
Because I'll bet you'll find that the kids with ADHD probably got hugged less, and they had less oxytocin.
Just a guess.
It's speculation, pure speculation.
All right, I see a weird meme going by with Dilbert and the Tesla.
Anyway, there's a topic I don't know if I want to talk about, but I might.
Yeah, I'm just going to go for it.
So I wasn't going to talk about this, but I will.
So somebody that I don't know, who says they're fans of Dilbert and fans of mine, have created a crypto that I guess is called a Dilbert, and they've asked me to promote it.
I'm not doing that.
I'm asking them to take it down and dismantle it if there's any way to do that.
I don't know if you can reverse it.
Here's why.
Well, on one hand, I take it as a great compliment that somebody wanted to boost Dilbert somehow and boost me and their fans.
You can't create a sketchy financial product and associate it with my name and my brand and then push me to boost it.
Do you understand that?
You put me at great financial and other risk.
Because if other people see the Dilbert name on it, they're going to say, well, that's probably endorsed by Scott, and therefore it's probably safe.
He probably looked into it.
I did not look into it.
And I have no idea that it is safe, and I'm not even sure who's behind it.
So, no.
I do not endorse it, and I need it to be taken down and dismantled immediately.
Because I don't want to be in a position where my reputation and my brand Is riding on the good work and honesty of people I've never met.
In the sketchiest of all realms, the shitcoin crypto area.
So, if you would please stop spamming all of my comments on X and on my live streams, trying to get people to buy this token.
I will advise everybody who's listening, do not buy this token.
And if you did, I'm sorry, but I had nothing to do with it, and it would be a huge mistake to be involved with it in any way.
Now, if it turned out that it's completely on the legit and somebody was just doing me a favor, it doesn't change my response.
Because you don't get to decide what I'm associated with.
It's not your decision that I'm associated with this financial product.
My decision is I'm going to sue the fuck out of you if you don't take it down.
Because I can't abide with that being up.
So you need to dismantle it.
And if you're just fans, then no hard feelings if you didn't know.
I will accept a I didn't know that was going to be a problem.
That would be perfectly acceptable.
I just can't have it exist.
So you need to get rid of it.
Got that?
All right.
So I didn't really even want to talk about it, but stay away from that thing.
All right.
Here's a study from Gilmore Health News.
Pursuing happiness as a goal often fails to make people happier.
Here's why I think that makes sense.
The reason you can't pursue happiness is it's not a thing.
You can't pursue happiness.
You could pursue a wild animal.
You could pursue a ball that's rolling down a hill.
You could pursue a car.
You could pursue a dog.
Because those are all real.
But happiness you can't pursue.
You could end up happy, but you can't pursue happiness.
There are two things you can pursue that will get you there.
You can pursue meaning.
Meaning.
So you're doing something that's helpful to other people usually.
It's usually being useful.
You're either having children and you're doing a good job of being a parent, or you're doing a job that's important to the world, or you're inventing something, or you're doing what Elon Musk is doing, trying to save the world from debt, or at least the country.
And those could give you meaning.
But if the only thing you did were hard work, it wouldn't make you very happy either because you'd just be burned out and wouldn't be much left of you.
So here's the Scott formula for happiness.
You can't chase it.
Don't chase it, but you can let it happen by doing other things that are right.
So I would say you want to spend about 80% of your time Chasing meaning.
Now that could include the time it takes you to tie your shoes and put your clothes on and shave in the morning or put your hair together, because that's all important to getting anything done.
But the 80% should be making sure that it's directed at some kind of useful something.
Now, if you're young, you don't have as many opportunities.
So I would say if you're on a dating app and you're trying to date and your ambition is to someday have a family, that's great.
Then dating is exactly what you should be doing.
Even if it doesn't look like this specific date is working out, you're chasing meaning.
That's still good.
If you're chasing meaning 80% of the time, And then 20% of the time you're chasing pleasure, you're going to be fine.
If you chased pleasure 80% of the time, you're going to be Dan Bilzerian and eventually say, you know what?
Turns out that sleeping with five women a day made me a lot of pleasure, but not a lot of happiness.
So he's trying to figure out the happiness part now.
So 80-20 is your best target.
80% trying to either be part of creating more people, which is good for the world, or doing something, something useful.
And 20% pure pleasure.
Now, if you don't get your 20% pure pleasure, you won't, you just will fall apart.
We just require some pleasure every day.
If you get too much, you won't be happy.
If you get too little, you won't be happy.
80-20 is a good mix.
Adjust accordingly.
Well, apparently, according, Mario Nafal is reporting on this.
There's some, according to Science Daily, there are ancient hot springs on Mars that reveal that the planet might have been once habitable.
Wouldn't it be cool to find out that there was a whole civilization on Mars and that they built the pyramids?
Here's my hypothesis on the pyramids.
You ready for this?
Everything about the pyramids is just recreational belief.
I don't know what happened.
I don't know why it seemed like all these ancient civilizations could build these giant structures and others couldn't.
But here's one possibility.
That the aliens from Mars or somewhere else were very advanced, got stranded on Earth, so they didn't have the technology to get off of Earth and get home, but they thought that someday they'd like to be found.
So they used the technology they had to build the pyramids, Because the pyramids are the proof that high intelligence existed on Earth a long time ago.
And you could see it from a very long distance.
So if they wanted to say, well, if somebody can find me someday, I will arrange these pyramids in the shape of the star system I came from.
And then if somebody looks and goes, hey, wait, there's three artificial things.
Oh, hold on.
They're in the shape of the star system from us.
There's no way.
These must be our people.
Let's go get them.
So it could be that the pyramids are a help signal.
You know, just something that can be seen from a very far distance from a very advanced civilization to say, whoa, we better go pick those guys up.
Of course, they're long dead, so it's too late.
Just speculation.
Alright, here's something I liked hearing from Vivek Ramaswamy.
He's saying that healthcare is a critical frontier for DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency.
And he met with some of the other incoming appointees in the Trump administration.
He says they're serious about reducing costs.
And here's the important part.
He said they understand innovation is a key part of the solution.
Innovation is a key part of the solution.
That's what I want to hear.
Because if you tell me you're just going to cut my costs, I don't want to hear that, because you probably can't do it.
If you tell me you can restructure it, re-engineer it, rethink it in a way that you could almost make your assumptions from scratch and build it up, and that you could do it at a far lower cost, I think you could.
I'll bet you could.
You know, I spent a lot of time, just way too much time, thinking about ways you could lower healthcare costs.
And it turns out that the hard part is that 90% of the healthcare costs come in your last year of life.
And if you don't fix that, you can't really fix healthcare costs.
And I don't know if anybody has any great idea for that, except for, you know, doctor-assisted suicide, and I don't think we're going to go big for that.
So I don't have any ideas, but I hope somebody does.
Here's a question.
In the publication in Red State, Ward-Clark is writing about how there are these Soros-backed charities that are really working hard to help illegal immigrants get into the United States.
And here's my question.
How could it be that there are public entities that are backed by Soros that are not hiding?
You know, there's no secret about it.
That are aiding and abetting illegal acts in the United States, specifically illegal entry as a non-citizen.
Now, my first question is, is there not some normal mechanism by which this could be shut down?
How is it not illegal to aid and abet in a crime?
Is there some kind of crime you can help somebody do and you're not in trouble?
Does operating from another soil make you safe if you're doing it from another country?
Is that enough to not be illegal?
And if it's legal, why is our CIA not having them assassinated?
Because isn't that what we pay them to do?
If there was some entity that was not in the United States, or even if they were, and they were trying to do something that was terribly damaging to the United States, and we couldn't do anything legally, wouldn't we be sending our worst people off to kill those people?
Because that's how you protect the United States?
I mean, if you look at all the horrible things the United States has done under the umbrella of self-defense, this would be the smallest thing we've ever done.
To stop people from sending criminals into our country.
Criminals in the sense that they're not going through the legal system.
I'm not trying to say anything bad about the immigrants.
The immigrants I completely understand.
I'll say this as plainly as I can.
If I were in their position, I would try to get into the United States illegally.
So, in that same position, I would break the law.
I wouldn't feel any guilt about it.
Because I'm just trying to make things better for myself and my family.
So, yeah.
But it's still illegal.
Doesn't mean we can be for it.
Scott, this just makes you sound uninformed.
Well, you fucking asshole.
You could use some of those letters to say what it was I was missing.
Or you could just be one of those dicks who just say, you sound uninformed, which helps nobody.
So while you're being useless and rude and disruptive, great job there.
So you know that 80% of the time we were working toward meaning?
You're not in the 80%.
You're not being useful.
So how about we stop ever saying, oh, there's something you need to be educated about.
If only you were as smart as me, different words would be coming out of your fucking mouth.
No, how about you shut the fuck up, unless you have something useful to say.
Is that okay?
Now, I'm completely open to what it is that I don't know, and I think you've watched this show enough to watch me change on the fly when a comment comes in and says, oh, you forgot this, or you're not looking at this.
So do some of that, and I'll actually be happy for it.
But this, you're making yourself look ignorant.
I just figure you're a fucking idiot.
That's the only impression I get when I see that comment.
It doesn't matter who it's coming from.
From anybody.
Somebody here is saying that this is because I didn't get enough sleep last night.
You're so right.
You're so right.
I was telling the locals people I didn't get enough sleep last night.
That's mostly what this is about.
But it's still bad for them.
Just don't do it.
Anyway, so I think there should be some way to stop the illegal thing.
Now, if what you're going to say is, Scott, Scott, you don't understand...
That the CIA and the government wants them to come in.
Is that what you were waiting for?
Did you think I didn't know that the government wants them to come in?
Oh, you're probably just waiting for the second issue to drop.
No, I know that there's way more than this.
Of course I know that.
It must be your first day here.
Anyway, have you seen the video?
I don't know how old it is.
I feel like it maybe has been around a while.
But one of the hosts of The View, Sonny Hostin, was on that show where you find out who your relatives were, your DNA gets checked, and then they check your background.
And she found out that she was completely wrong about her own background.
She thought she was Puerto Rican or half Puerto Rican, but it turns out that might have been a Spanish part of the family from Spain, and there were slave owners.
That's right.
Sonny Hostin of The View comes from a family of slave owners.
And watching her learn that she's from a family of slave owners...
Was something I had to watch 20 times in a row.
I just kept playing it and replaying it because there was a part where she tried to laugh about it, but the smile and the laugh was so fake that it was just hilariously uncomfortable.
You have to see it.
It's in my X feed if you're looking for it.
So that was fun.
But even more fun than that, apparently, so there now, I think there now have been three separate times in the last week.
I'll take a fact check on this.
Three separate times in the last week when The View had to read a legal disclaimer.
So apparently they had to do it Four times in Friday's episode?
Is that true?
Did she have to stop four times and read a legal clarification?
I think she did.
It's telling me that the lawyers for the view just hate the hosts.
Because the lawyers are probably trying to figure out, how can we stop them saying things that are clearly going to get us in trouble?
And the host can't stop lying.
Because their entire show is built around lying about what people did.
Basically, it's a show about lying about Republicans, basically.
So if they can't lie about Republicans, they don't have content.
Because that's all they have.
So the lawyers are like, you can't just lie about their legal situation.
Maybe you can lie about reading their minds, but you can't lie about whether they were convicted of a crime.
You can't lie about that.
So it looks like the legal staff is trying to put the view out of business.
Like actually, literally, it looks like they're trying to force them out of business, which might be what's happening.
The New York Times has an article by Samuel Moon, who's a lawyer.
Now, what's interesting is that this article is in the New York Times.
And as others have pointed out, it seems like they're admitting that the lawfare against Trump was not based on the law, but was lawfare.
So here's a sentence in the New York Times by Samuel Moon, a lawyer.
He said it wasn't bad luck they did not put Trump in jail.
Well, I'm paraphrasing that part.
He said, quote, the more uncomfortable truth is that our search for political salvation primarily through the law has backfired.
Let me read that again.
The more uncomfortable truth is that our search for political salvation primarily through the law has backfired.
Is that admitting that they were using lawfare because they didn't have another way to stop Trump?
That's how I read it.
And others are reading it the same way.
And so I appreciate that.
I appreciate the complete sincerity of that.
Now, Mike Davis, you might know him as a Republican with some legal background.
He says, even the liberal New York Times is admitting the Democrats ran lawfare and election interference against President Trump, because I guess it would be election interference, wouldn't it?
And he says, now the Trump Justice Department should open a criminal probe under, and he gives the law, and apparently there's some law that Would be a conspiracy against rights.
A conspiracy against rights.
That sounds exactly like the right law, doesn't it?
Does it seem like there was a conspiracy of various elements in the government to prevent Trump from having the right to, first of all, be a free citizen, and second of all, to run for office?
I mean, without being a lawyer...
If you tell me that there is a law that says you can't have a conspiracy to deny somebody their rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the first thing I'd say is, okay, that seems like that should be a law.
Shouldn't it?
I mean, it should be a law.
So if it is a law, how could you possibly imagine it doesn't apply here?
It would clearly apply.
And here's Here's a Democrat lawyer who's saying, well, it looks like the lawfare didn't work.
I feel like what happens after that has to be criminal indictments.
Because if everybody can see it as plainly as we can, you've got to at least dig around there and see if there's a case.
I think there might be.
But again...
I don't want to see any lawfare and revenge.
It better be a good case, because we don't want to lawfare the lawfarers.
I know some of you want to, but I don't think that's a good place to go.
Apparently, there's a study that says 86% of US asylum seekers are not legitimate.
So I guess the federal government did a review of that.
Now, does that surprise you?
I thought it was higher, actually.
I would have guessed 90 to 95%.
But it's interesting that we know about it, and we just still keep this program open the way it is.
It's, I mean, I think this gets back to that earlier comment, that it's super obvious that the government wants to just let in as many people as they can.
Like, to imagine that this is a mistake, that would be imagining a lot.
It's not a mistake.
They're using a technical loophole to open the border.
That's all that is.
Did you know that California is still counting the votes?
For 18 days, we're still counting the votes.
And believe it or not, Nancy Pelosi's daughter is involved in that.
And it's called Curing Ballots.
I think that what that means is if you have a ballot that looks like it's filled out wrong or something's missing, you have the option of calling the person and saying, you know, did you mean this?
Is this a real vote, etc.?
And then you can count it if you can confirm it's a real person with a real vote.
So they've been doing that for 18 days, and it looks like they might flip two seats in Congress from red to blue because of 18 days of curing the votes.
You going to feel comfortable with that?
18 days of curing the votes?
Yeah.
I see there's some kind of a fight going on on the comments here.
Let's see what that's all about.
I just want to take a look at what all the fighting is about.
I can't see.
Never mind.
Well, Elon Musk is having a great time on X. He seems quite addicted to it, which he's admitted today.
And he asked this question.
He said, how old were you when you realized others couldn't see the matrix?
So I'll ask that question to you.
How old were you when you realized others couldn't see the matrix?
Now, the way I interpret that is that others...
How old were you when you realized that basically everything's a lie?
I went with 11. Have I ever told you my story at age 11?
I've written this in my book, so some of you have heard this.
Now, I'll start by saying that I'm pro-religion.
I think you've heard me say that before.
I'm very pro-religion.
I think Christianity, and not to pick a favorite, but just to pick one as an example.
Christianity and others, Judaism, etc., They have a lot of benefits for the people who practice it.
Islam, if it's not related to any terrorists or anything, if you're just practicing it happily and minding your own business, probably great.
So I'm very pro-religion, I just don't have one.
Because I don't think you can make yourself a believer.
I just don't have an ability to enter that space.
So when I was 11 years old, and my parents would send us to Sunday school, it was called.
It was a Methodist church.
And we would go there and we'd learn all our little Sunday lessons.
And one day when I was about 11, the lesson was about Jonah being swallowed by a whale or a giant fish, I guess.
And he lived in the whale's stomach for a while, but he prayed and God saved him.
And the whale spit him up and he was none the worse for being in the whale or the big fish's stomach.
And I remember I called a meeting with my mother.
Because that's when I realized I was in the Matrix.
And I said, Mom, now I'm paraphrasing because obviously I don't remember my exact words at 11, but it was something like, today I learned that a giant fish ate a guy and apparently the stomach acids of the fish weren't operating and this particular guy got out because he prayed to God and And then I said,
Mom, are you aware that this is all made up?
And she never answered me.
I think I tried a few times, like, but you know, you know that these couldn't possibly be true stories, right?
You know that I read comic books.
You've seen it.
You've seen me reading comic books.
What would be the evidence that Spider-Man exists that would be different from the evidence?
So that's sort of the direction I went.
To her credit, and then I said, I'm resigning from religion.
And at 11, I told my mother I wouldn't be participating anymore.
And to her credit, to her everlasting credit, one of the greatest things she ever did, she said, okay.
And we never spoke about it again.
Because I tried it.
If I'd never tried it, then we would have had a longer conversation.
But the rule was you don't get to be a quitter.
No, don't get to be a quitter.
If we put you in baseball, you know, if we put you in Little League and you don't like it the first two weeks, you don't get to quit.
If you play for three years and decide you don't want to play a fourth year, yeah, yeah, then you've tried it.
So the fact that I'd already gone to Sunday school for now, what, five years or something, and that I'd worked it through and I had an argument and I had a position that And I called the meeting and I staked down my position.
And she said, okay.
Never talked about it again.
And by the way, I never even learned what my parents' religious beliefs were.
Still don't.
They never talked about it.
I mean, they attended a little bit of the church activities, but they weren't regulars or anything.
Anyway, so...
So I call that the matrix.
Now, of course, it was a very long trip to find out that all of the news is fake and most of the science is fake, too, and that everything we learn about history is made up.
Now, that took longer.
But once I realized that something kind of basic could be just a story that people tell.
Now, if you prefer and say, but, Scott, you're wrong, because the Christian religion is all correct.
You would certainly agree that all the other religions are wrong.
So it ends up being kind of the same point.
You just might think you got the right one.
Anyway, here's a matrix example.
In The Matrix, do you remember why Tulsi Gabbard was being called a Russian asset and still is by some of the Democrats?
That came from Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton also, of course, tried to make Trump the Russian asset.
I think Hillary's calling card is she always tries to get a twofer.
So Hillary hates Russia and Putin, and often she'll hate somebody else.
So if she hates somebody else, she'll just say that they're a Putin puppet, so that you can take out the person that you hate, but also keep the pressure on Putin.
So apparently she did that trick, the same trick that she did on Trump.
She tried on Tulsi Gabbard, and that's part of the matrix.
So if you're a Democrat and you think that the news is real and somebody like Hillary Clinton says honest things, then you think, oh, I guess I know what's going on now.
Look at all these Russian puppets.
But if you know you're in the matrix and you know that nothing that public figures say should be taken as true, then you go, oh, that's just Hillary Clinton doing what Hillary Clinton always does.
Oh, Hillary Clinton always says somebody's a Putin puppet.
So now I wouldn't worry about Tulsi Gabbard.
I saw a conversation on X in which people were saying, were disagreeing with somebody who said we should vet people and make sure that we're letting in immigrants who are not criminals and can add something.
It turns out there are a number of people who, in the comments, said very clearly that all immigration is bad.
And the reason is that they're coming in from other countries and other races and cultures, and they're going to outnumber the people who are here eventually, and then put pressure on the people who are here who will become, I think it's mostly white people who are worried about being minorities.
And I was saying that economists should decide who comes in and what kind of people come in and what numbers.
And I still believe that.
But a number of people disagreed with me and said that all of the immigration is bad.
And then somebody said, oh, look at how much I'm being dunked on in the comments.
So I looked at the comments and I thought, how would anybody dunk on that?
To the best of my knowledge, 100% of economists from both sides are on the same page, which is that there is some number of immigrants that's good for the country, and there's some number that would be too much.
Am I wrong about that?
That 100% of economists would agree.
They might disagree on the number and even the type, but they would all agree with the concept that there's something that would be called too few, especially since we're not reproducing at the rate of replacement, and there is something that would be too much.
I don't think that's even controversial.
But other people were saying, no, it's basically just race.
They just don't want to be outnumbered by High qualified people or low qualified people.
And there was a disagreement because I said everybody's better off if the economy is good because we brought in people who could do good things.
Now I'm going to double down on my comment.
If we didn't have immigration, you wouldn't have Elon Musk.
You wouldn't have Vivek.
I mean, I think maybe his parents.
Right?
You wouldn't have most of Silicon Valley.
Do you know how many unicorns were made by people who were not born in the United States?
Maybe it's more obvious when you live where I live, because I'm, you know, sort of Silicon Valley adjacent, so I'm mired in that population.
But immigration is...
Really, really important to America keeping its economic lead.
And if you think that you could take a hit on the economy and you'd still be okay, I don't think you're thinking this through.
There's a reason that every economist thinks that some amount of immigration is good.
Every.
Everyone.
So, I think some people think that they specifically...
Would have some negative outcome.
But again, that has to do with the rate.
If you suddenly said, let's bring in 100 million people from India without checking them out, that would be too much.
Too much.
If you said, can we skim the smartest, brightest people from their best institutions who want to work in America?
Yes, please.
Let's see if we can get as many of those as we can.
Let's see if we can get as many German scientists after World War II as we can.
We really do need the best.
We need that pretty badly.
So I'll agree with you that there's some amount of anything that's too much.
But no, you can't not have immigration and expect the country to remain prosperous.
Well, Elon Musk also making news because he said that even mayors will be arrested for stopping mass deportations.
Because he said that anybody who's trying to aid and abet the illegal immigrants is going to have some questions to answer.
And he says that even mayors could be arrested.
And I think that was the mayor of Denver who almost immediately said, well, I probably wouldn't try to stop it.
I didn't see that story too closely, but there's some mayor who did a little backtracking.
But I agree with this.
I agree that mayors should be put in jail if they try to stop the federal government from doing what is legally authorized and, I would argue, is mandated by the election.
So yes, I think a mayor should go to jail if they get in the way.
Now, I don't know if they should stay in jail, But, you know, maybe you need to put them in there overnight while you do your deportations or something.
But, you know, I'm not in favor of the lawfare.
No lawfare.
But we have to get the job done.
Anyway, Patrick Beddavid was having a good time mocking CNN and MSNBC. Apparently, the Hallmark Channel beat them both in viewership recently.
And Patrick Beddavid says, quote, imagine you wake up one day and your producer comes to you, says, guys, Hallmark just beat us.
To which I say, well, being the third best out of fiction isn't that bad, is it?
See, because Hallmark is fiction, and CNN and MSNBC are fake news, so they really are direct competition.
What would happen if they had real news, and then Hallmark continued doing fiction?
Although Hallmark does some real stories sometimes, don't they?
Well, I think it's pretty funny.
Now, I do think that their viewership will rise again when Trump takes power because they'll have something to attack and people who want to hear it.
At the moment, I think everybody's weepy because they found out they were on the losing side and their team all lied to them, but they'll get over it.
And I think they'll get back at least half of what they lost in audience in the last few months.
It'll be after the holidays, maybe.
Everything's slower over the holidays.
Anyway, so Glenn Greenwald is always good at reminding us which networks are associated with the CIA. And he says, how corporate media like CNN is nothing but a blind mouthpiece for the CIA. And he gives this example that CNN's Katie Bolilis,
she was going after Tulsi Gabbard, Because Tulsi had once supported limits on NSA domestic spying and something about Edward Snowden.
And then Greenwald points out that Katie Boelis repeatedly slips in, quote, intelligence sources tell us to maintain the facade of neutrality.
If you hear intelligent sources tell us, what should you do with that story?
Not believe it.
Intelligent sources, they're the professional liars.
If you're an intelligent source, you're allowed to lie.
It's actually right there in your job description.
It's not even immoral or unethical.
It's their job.
It's their job to lie to anybody they need to lie to to get the job done.
So, yes, it does look like CNN's got a little influence there from the, quote, intelligent sources.
I don't believe any non-named sources.
I'm seeing there was an article saying progressives need a new leader.
How in the world are they going to do that?
So this is one spokesperson in the Democrat Party.
At least one thinks that the progressive left is better without a dominant figurehead.
So the Democrats don't have an obvious leader now.
It seems like Obama will still emerge at some point.
But at the moment he's quiet because he's on a losing team.
And then, there's another view that instead of having no dominant leader, which, by the way, is a losing proposition, If you're ever involved in an organization who says, well, I don't think we need a dominant figurehead.
We probably need to just share the power.
You should quit immediately because literally nothing works if you don't have a powerful leader.
Now, the powerful leader should certainly be taking lots of clues from the people being led.
That's what Trump does.
But you still need the powerful figurehead to get anything done.
You can't share power.
That's never going to work.
And then somebody else saying that, this is my favorite one, the Democrats need an opposite and equal force in terms of celebrity, somebody named Turner said.
So imagine them saying, okay, we figured out what we did wrong.
Trump was such a good candidate, such a powerful, strong, you know, almost like a cult leader persuasion capabilities, that if they could come up with their own celebrity, powerful, charismatic person, that they could win elections too.
So two of their theories are we should not have anybody like that.
And then their other theory is, wow, we need somebody just like that.
So when I say that the Democrats are lost, oh, wow, are they lost.
They are so lost.
It's almost like the people who know how anything works already became Republicans.
So there's nobody left who can figure out easy stuff.
You know, just basic, easy strategy stuff.
Anyway, I'm starting to think that there are no Democrats who have the skill to fix this.
And if they're trying to figure out why does it work for the Republicans but not us, do you think I should tell them?
Do you know why the Republicans got a bigger tent and they gained in every single category?
Does anybody know why?
I'm going to give away the secret.
Because Republicans focused on the Constitution, The law, the religion in many cases, and an emphasis on family.
If you do those things, which category of human beings don't like it?
None.
Every category of human beings likes that.
Oh, you've got a very clear set of rules that were made by people.
They've lasted hundreds of years.
Oh, let's just follow these rules, and then everybody will be good.
So the Republicans have created, probably by accident, as much as anything.
Well, obviously the Constitution is intentional.
But even when the Constitution was written, it wasn't exactly an egalitarian document.
But it became one over time.
And it seems to me that the Republicans have created a big tent vacuum cleaner, meaning that if you get anywhere near the big tent, you hear this noise, you know, a vacuum cleaner coming on, and you get sucked in.
And then when you're on the inside, All those people you thought were horrible racists, they're offering, hey, how can I help you?
Can I remove the snow from your driveway?
I got a few minutes.
And you learn that everything that you knew about the Republicans was wrong.
And that as long as you follow the rules that they follow, they love you.
They love you.
You just have to follow the same rules.
That's it.
It's easy.
But the progressives are over there trying to decide, huh, should we be progressives?
Should we be more DEI and really identity politics?
Or should we be more like Bernie?
Or what?
Those are all, they're not even the right questions.
They're talking about personnel.
Republicans are talking about process.
One is system, one is goal.
The system is going to beat the goal every time.
So if the Democrats don't figure out how to create a system, which they don't have, they can't beat the system.
So here's what I mean.
So, Democrats have a goal of having power and everybody gets this equity stuff.
Yeah, everybody does well.
That's a goal.
It's a pretty good goal, right?
Of course, they want power.
They think they're the good guys.
They want everybody to do well.
Good goals.
Then you look at the Republicans.
They have systems.
Hey, we've got to make sure we're following this Constitution, and that's why we've got to make sure that the Supreme Court is filled with what we call the originalists, the people who are going to follow the Constitution the way it was written, not make up stuff.
That's the system.
That system, among other things, caused the abortion question to be sent to the states.
How did that work out?
Well, it worked out really well for Republicans because it kind of took it off the table for the federal election, which was a better system.
And at the same time, the local people in the states have majority female voters in almost every state, so they can kind of get what they want over time.
That's a system.
The goal was for them to get all the abortion rights they wanted right away.
They will get all the abortion rights they want in each state.
Eventually, the system will work through it and they'll get exactly what they want.
But the system of just making sure you're picking meritocracy, you're following the law, you're following the Constitution, and that you're actually doing a primary, that's another system mistake, right?
So the Republicans said, we're going to have a competitive primary, and they did.
The Democrats said, oh, we'll just push this dying guy through.
No, we'll replace him.
No, there's no system.
So the system people are going to just absolutely dominate the goal people.
I think forever.
I mean, unless one of them changes completely, this is a permanent dominant situation.
And the fun part is that the Democrats can't figure it out because they're locked in an identity world.
You know, they're locked in their own form of the matrix.
In their matrix, there's identity, and that matters, and then there's bad Republicans.
If that's how they frame the world, they can't ever get a solution.
So I would expect it to be kind of a bad time to be a Democrat for a few years.
Former Obama speechwriter, Ross O'Keefe, according to Washington Examiner, says that the celebrity endorsements are good for Democrats.
But, it's careful to say, and here's where I respect this opinion, because at first I thought, that's dumb.
But then when I read the nuance, the nuance is that nobody really changes their opinion because of the celebrities.
But you might get people more interested in showing up to vote.
If it improves your enthusiasm, Okay, maybe.
But nobody changed their vote because of Beyonce.
So I agree with the Democrat speechwriter.
Okay, yeah, the celebrities are not changing votes.
But maybe they give you some energy.
However, I would note that both sides use celebrities.
Right?
So they both used every celebrity they could get.
Trump did it, too.
But what was different about the way that Trump did it?
Trump used celebrities too, but what was different?
Here's what I think was different.
Trump's celebrities were often people that looked like Democrats.
So when you see Joe Rogan, who's got a long history of progressive Democrat-looking opinions, say, you know what?
I'm going Trump.
You've got professional athletes, especially professional male black athletes, putting on the hat and saying, you know what?
I've listened to both arguments.
Going Trump.
You watch all the UFC fighter types, every different race and religion, and you see how much they love Trump, and you say to yourself, huh, that's a lot of people who like Trump, all different kinds.
Here's how Trump did it.
When I look at Trump's celebrity endorsements, here's what I see.
Big tent.
Big tent.
Hey, it's a big tent, and you're welcome.
Everybody's welcome.
When the Democrats put a celebrity on, they're going to tell you that the Republicans are shit, and you should try to crush them and stay away from them, basically, that you're the good people and the other people are shit.
And people are like, well, I'm not so sure.
Because my neighbor's a Republican and he just mowed my lawn for free.
Like, but you're telling me he's bad.
Like, how does that work?
So I think that Trump quietly...
Just quietly doing what makes sense, common sense, attracted people from every domain who appreciate common sense, such as having border control.
So you get some Joe Rogans, you get your RFK juniors, you get your Tulsi And suddenly it's hard not to notice that everybody who likes common sense solutions seems to be moving toward Trump and it doesn't matter what their color or race or religion is.
And I think that Trump did it the right way.
So he used the celebrity endorsements as evidence that it's safe.
His biggest problem was making it safe to say that you're on his team.
And that's what the celebrity endorsements did.
And by the way, that wasn't Trump making it happen.
I've said this before, that I think the public dragged Trump across the winning line, the finish line.
I don't think he pushed himself over.
I mean, he did a great job.
So taking nothing away from Trump's performance, it was amazing.
One of the best you've ever seen.
But still, it took...
People taking big risks in their personal and professional lives to say, you know what?
I'm putting this hat on.
And, you know, Musk was the biggest one, the biggest risk.
Maybe he will be the biggest winner.
But when you watch other people take a big risk like that, it's very inspiring.
So I think Trump used it the right way by kind of ignoring it and letting it happen on its own, and then it formed on its own.
And then it helped drag him across the winning finish line.
Anyway.
So the DNC vice chair, according to The Hill, Ken Martin, he criticized the party for losing.
And he said, quote, we don't know how or why we lost.
So...
Now, that's the most honest person.
Like, he's the one I'd listen to.
Because he goes on, I think he was on CNN with Jake Tapper, and he said this directly, this is a direct quote, we don't know how or why we lost.
Now that is exactly right, because I'm observing everybody's speculating, like maybe we should have done this, maybe we should have done that.
But when you put all that speculation together, the summary is, we don't know how or why.
And I don't think that they can find it.
Because think of the irony of this.
So this is the DNC vice chair, and he's appearing on CNN. And he's talking to Jake Tapper, and he's saying, we don't know how or why we lost.
He's on CNN. He's talking to Jake Tapper.
People get the news from CNN and Jake Tapper.
CNN decided what people saw, and MSNBC decided what people saw.
So it almost didn't matter what the Democrats were doing if there's somebody else who decides what people see.
So I don't think that he was quite realizing the irony that he was talking to the problem.
Jake Tapper.
Now, not specifically Jake Tapper, but CNN. So if you appear on CNN and you say, I don't know why we lost, and CNN is one of the primary formers of your message, I think maybe you should turn a little bit of that scrutiny on the media and say, maybe it's the person I'm talking to.
Maybe if you had not pushed the fine people hoax, which Jake Tapper did, maybe people wouldn't be leaving for that reason.
Some of the most important people who left the party...
Say directly, and they say it out loud, is because when I found out the fine people hoax was a hoax, that's when the whole matrix opened up and I could see that the Democrats were just lying.
So Jake Tapper was part of a big part of pushing that and other hoaxes.
If you can't recognize that the media is the ones causing the Democrats to fail, how could they possibly recover?
And they can't tell the media that the media is the problem because then the media won't invite them to be on anymore.
It's an unsolvable problem.
I can't see any system or tweak or anything.
The only way you can solve this problem is replacing all of the people at the same time.
And, of course, there isn't any way to do that.
All right.
Colin Rugg had a little video and a post on X about Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin.
She was mocking Trump's because his nominations were too white.
And she said when they looked at the page of the nominations, there were a thousand shades of white.
Ha ha ha.
She said, I have to comment.
When he put up all those faces, there was a thousand shades of white.
Have you noticed that?
Well...
I'd like to do a call out to one of my followers, Mike Burt.
Mike Burt, what are you going to say about that?
That's sort of an inside joke.
We have a Within locals, I've authorized one person to be inappropriate as much as he wants.
You know, not too bad.
So we have one court jester who's allowed to say the things you really shouldn't be saying.
But we've allowed one person to do it.
Because it's actually fascinating.
If you cut yourself off from the opinions that differ from you, you're not going to understand the nuance.
But this was funny for reasons that you won't totally understand.
But I would note that they're not entirely white.
I think there are some Asian Americans, there's some other flavors, and there's some Hispanic Americans.
I think there's at least one, some Middle Eastern American type.
And Scott Turner was selected for head of HUD. So HUD has a black guy who was part of the executive team over there, I guess.
He's got a good resume.
Now, What do you think?
Do you think that the HUD appointment was a DEI appointment?
Just so Trump could say, well, they're not 100% white.
Well, I don't know.
I don't know.
I also don't know if HUD needs to exist.
Can anybody tell me why HUD exists?
Is there anything the HUD does that couldn't be replaced by something far more efficient?
I think they have tens of billions of dollars of funding that they kind of allocate, but couldn't that be allocated more locally?
So here's my take on what's wrong with every urban development problem.
So somebody says, if only there were a big bunch of money And then somebody says, all right, here's your big bunch of money from the government.
And then it's allocated to people who apparently just steal most of it.
How do you stop that?
So if you have a system that's good at producing money and delivering it, but then once it gets delivered, it's stolen somewhat reliably, or it's given to the wrong vendors who can't get the job done, you're never really going to fix it.
So it seems like that what we need is to fix the funding oversight.
I feel like the decision of how to spend money locally should be not in the hands of the elected representatives.
And I know that sounds opposite of what makes sense.
But if a small city can elect a mayor who then can make sure that the contracts go to their brother-in-law and anybody else who's going to give them a kickback, we don't have a workable system.
See, that's your system problem again.
So what I like to see is Vivek and Ilan coming up with maybe some ideas collectively for how we can make sure that if money is sent to an urban place for urban development, that it just doesn't get stolen.
Because if you don't fix that, there's no point giving anybody any money for anything.
And I also worry that That Republicans maybe have written off the inner cities.
Because they're not getting many votes there.
And I don't think you can fix it.
It doesn't look fixable to me.
So the trouble is, if you put too many people who have too many problems in one place, I don't know that you can ever fix it.
You would have to move the people, which would be illegal.
And if they don't want to move, then how's that going to work?
I think you could take, if you took, let's say, a teenager who's in this bad environment, there's gangs and there's crime and there's, you know, the schools are bad and everything.
If you took that one teenager and say, all right, let's see what happens if we put this one teenager in a safe place with a good school and no gangs.
Probably you'd get a pretty good outcome.
But if everybody is in this one place and they all have the similar problems, they're not going to feel like they have to escape because they're just sort of living the same life as everybody around them.
And I don't know that that's fixable.
I mean, you almost have to distribute...
The people who are in the same bad situation so they don't reinforce each other's bad habits.
You've heard the thing, you are the average of your five closest friends, right?
What happens if you live where your five closest friends are gang members?
Do you really have a chance?
Not really.
So how much money could you send into that situation to fix it?
There's no amount.
There's no amount that fixes that.
In fact, the more money, the worse it would get.
So you're going to have to fix the five friends problem first.
And I don't know how.
The only thing I can think of would be a massive improvement in mobility.
And the mobility would have to include, can you go somewhere?
Can you afford to move?
Can you get a job if you go there?
And do you have enough school choice that you can move at least the school?
So if you could move the options for any one person to say, you know what?
I need to get where I can get five good friends around my teenage kid and maybe those friends will influence them.
Now that would be a real solution.
But sending money?
No.
I mean, if Trump decided that HUD didn't really have a future, I wouldn't be surprised.
Anyway, I saw Chamath talking about on the All In pod, Chamath, I think I say his name wrong.
It's Chamath, right?
And then I never try to say his last name because I'll just embarrass myself, but it's like, Pelopatea?
Jason, are you watching?
If Jason is watching, you're laughing at me right now.
There's some names that I really try hard, like every time I read his name, Chamath's last name, I read it and I sound it out, and then I try to memorize the order of the letters and stuff.
It never works.
It doesn't last a day.
Anyway, but Chamath said, can you imagine if these guys, talking about the people working on Doge, can you imagine if these guys basically used Doge as a mechanism to shrink the tax code, create a flat tax potentially, The idea of just cutting this all the way down and finding through that the process of what they actually need.
And he says, I think America could get 100 to 200 basis points of GDP growth.
It could be an economic renaissance.
I agree.
Now, I don't think flat tax will ever work in America.
There's just no way.
Because it's good for rich people, it's bad for poor people.
No way.
You're never going to get a flat tax.
So just forget about it.
Right?
I mean, it's great to talk about, but you're never going to get a flat tax.
However, If you could reduce your taxes and make sure the taxes have the right incentive and you get it down to a minimum and you cut the cost of the government so you don't need as much taxes, could you get 100 to 200 basis points, meaning that instead of growing by 3.5, you would grow at 5.5, which would be incredible?
Yes.
Yes, I think you could do that.
Is it hard?
Oh, my God, it's hard.
Is it possible?
I think it is.
So I have the same intuition as Chamath.
Less faith that a flat tax could ever even be, you know, within a mile of being viable.
And I just think that's because the way our brains work, we just couldn't handle it.
Flat tax would just make everybody complain too much.
Good for rich people.
So now we know much more about the January 6th and that the National Guard was delayed three hours and 19 minutes when everybody knew that there was going to be a problem.
And it looks like we got real problems.
So Chief Stephen Sund, who was at, I guess he was in charge of the Capitol Police, and he's noting that we now know that there was this over three-hour delay.
And if they'd sent the reinforcements, it would have looked completely different.
Does it look to you like the delay was intentional to make the optics as bad as possible?
Maybe.
You know, you can't rule out incompetence, but it certainly has the look of an op.
And you can't ignore that.
So certainly the January 6th committee are at the top of my list of people who need to be looked at to see if there was a crime there.
Now, I don't believe in lawfare.
It has to be a real crime.
But if they were hiding evidence and lying under oath or any of that stuff, these are really bad consequences.
I mean, what happened to the country?
People in jail for it?
If there's nobody on the January 6th committee that ends up in jail, I feel like I'd be disappointed.
But if they didn't break a law, that's the way it's got to be.
Anyway, California is making it harder to produce gas in California, so we're all dead.
Forget about that.
So the story about Biden doing this last-ditch effort to send all the money they have to Ukraine was that Anthony Blinken said, President Biden has committed to make sure that every dollar we have at our disposal will be pushed out the door between now and January 20th.
So that really doesn't sound like somebody who's taking care of America, does it?
We're going to make sure that we push every one of your dollars out the door before the government changes.
That doesn't sound like they're on our side.
It really doesn't.
So, I mean, there's a tone problem there.
But the way it's being framed is that these moves are designed to make sure that Ukraine is in the strongest possible negotiating position when Trump takes over.
Really?
Really?
Is that why they're pushing all that money through right now?
Is to help Trump get a good outcome?
Is that why?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
No, I think that there's a massive money laundering operation, and they're pushing as much money through it so they can suck as much out of it as they can, and basically robbing Ukraine and robbing the United States while they leave office.
That's what it looks like.
That's what it feels like.
I don't have any proof, but it sure looks and feels like it's a money laundering, money stealing operation.
But nonetheless, it could be true that it would keep Ukraine strong enough to negotiate well as well.
So that's good.
All right.
That's all I got for you for my prepared remarks today.
I'm going to go talk to the To the people and locals who haven't yet banned me.
And I will see the rest of you on Rumble and YouTube and X tomorrow, same time, same place.
