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, Optimist Longevity, Mars Water, Battery Technology, AI Future, Presidential Cabinet Loyalty, OMG, Kamala Campaign, Anti-Woke James Carville, Anti-Tesla Law California, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Kash Patel, Military Recruitment, President Trump, Trump Fentanyl Strategy, Tariff Strategy, Anneke Lucas, PDB Interview, Anti-Racism Training, Government Family Policies, City Futures, 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 the official Coffee with Scott Adams t-shirt also comes with a hoodie.
If you're wondering where you could get yours, just Google Coffee with Scott Adams merchandise.
It'll pop right up.
I think you can see the link in my ex-bio as well.
Or no, you can see the link on the YouTube.
Thanks.
Just Google it.
Coffee with Scott Adams merchandise.
It'll pop right up.
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 this experience up to the levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tank of gel, sistine, 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, dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called, yes, the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, the best thing I've ever had.
Well, would you like to hear some optimistic things?
All right.
We're going to start with some optimistic science and breakthroughs, and we'll get to some optimistic politics, and then we'll get to our optimistic holiday coming up.
Everybody good?
Lots of optimism?
All right.
Starting in with, it turns out that there's a study that shows you, there's a paper written by Brandon Bouchillon.
He's an associate professor of journalism at the U of A. He found that the key drivers of loneliness, of course, is not being with people, but that you can solve your loneliness, not completely, but it helps a lot to have online friends.
So, if you don't have any online friends...
And you're lonely, you should try to get some.
For example, you could join Coffee with Scott Adams on the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com.
And for a very small subscription fee, you could get to hang out with all of us in the band cave pretty much every night after dinner.
And we just hang out.
And I didn't start it that way.
I started as just extra content.
I didn't know what it was going to be.
But it turns out that there are so many lonely people in the world That just knowing that somebody they recognize and likes them and is glad they're there can talk to you almost every day.
So if you're in it for the reducing your loneliness, you made a good play.
It's worth the money.
All right.
There's a study from, let's see, according to The Conversation, that's a publication, The future looks bright when you're optimistic.
So apparently optimism makes you healthier.
Did you know that?
Optimism makes you healthier?
It does.
Because if you're optimistic, you're more likely to have a better attitude and less stress.
And we know that stress causes you bad health.
And optimists are also more likely to do the things that you're supposed to do to stay healthy.
So if you know that eating and exercising and staying away from bad stuff is bad for you, the optimist will actually do that stuff.
Why?
Because I think it'll work.
If you think something's going to work, you're far more likely to do it.
So optimists live longer.
So one of the reasons you watch this show is that I make you more optimistic.
I do that intentionally.
And it makes you think, wait a minute, maybe I could lose weight.
Maybe I could exercise more.
Maybe I could be smarter about my vote.
Yes.
And there, I think I added about seven minutes to your life, just by that little bit of optimism.
Seven minutes.
You're welcome.
All right.
There's a University College London study that says that the language used by mothers affects the oxytocin levels of infants.
I'm going to give you an example of that.
And I'm going to see if you needed the science to tell you that the oxytocin would be better under one scenario than another.
Scenario one.
Oh, what's that you got there, little Bobby?
Oh, blocks?
Oh, it looks like you built a little fort.
Is that what you wanted to do?
Oh, good job.
You built a little fort.
Nice.
What are you going to do next?
Okay, that's one way.
Now compare this other style of parenting.
What the hell have you got these blocks all over the floor, you blockhead?
Geez, I'm going to step on one of these and break my ankle.
Get out of my sight.
You disgust me.
Now, if you compare those two parenting styles, which one do you think is creating a healthier child?
That's right.
Maybe you could have just asked me and not do that study.
I'm pretty sure that your oxytocin of your baby is better if you're nice to him and you show interest.
Yeah, do that.
According to the Daily Wire, there's a new study that says life may have existed on Mars because they found some rocks that have all the telltale signs that have been associated with water.
So you don't need to know the details, but apparently you can look at a rock and tell if it's been associated with water in the past.
And so they think maybe it is.
But I have a question.
Where does the water go?
Is that the dumbest question of the day or the smartest?
I actually can't tell.
Where does it go?
Now, I assume somebody's going to say, like, if the atmosphere can't hold it in, you know, if it's not insulated, it'll just go into space.
Does water go into space?
I mean, how could it?
How could it escape the, you know, even if it turns into vapor?
Can vapor escape the gravity of the planet?
I'm saying yes.
So if we did not have greenhouse gases...
Does that mean we would lose the water on Earth?
See, I understand evaporation, but evaporation is still a closed system.
It doesn't go anywhere.
It just changes form.
But does it really go into space and just keep going?
The thing I don't understand is how could it escape gravity?
I got questions.
I'm not sure that the fast answer is the right answer.
And it's funny that I don't know the answer to that.
Doesn't that seem like that would be sort of common sense?
Like everybody who had a good education should be able to answer the question, if Mars once had water, where'd it go?
I should be able to answer that.
I'm a little embarrassed that I can't, but I don't care about embarrassment.
All right, well, the price of lithium batteries apparently is going to plunge and keep plunging.
It doesn't matter why, but probably just supply and demand.
But lithium prices will plunge, making the electric cars way more compatible with Competitive with gas engines.
Because right now, if your battery dies in your electric car, that's not such a good economic situation for you.
But if the price of the batteries keeps going down, then you could lose your battery and just say, oh, well, $5,000 for a new battery, it's way better than a new car.
So it would be similar to the price replacing your engine.
So that could change things.
On top of that, there's a company, Radiant, which is looking to mass-produce portable nuclear reactors starting in 2026. So their CEO, Doug Bernauer, I guess had some experience in the Elon Musk world of engineering, so it's a serious person.
And I showed a picture of them.
So these one megawatt nuclear reactors, they look like the size of a bus.
So basically, one of them would be the size of a bus.
And you could put more than one of them next to each other.
So you could have one location, but you could have a couple of buses parked next to each other.
And it'd be one megawatt.
So you're basically powering a small city.
And they can just...
It looks like the entire...
Process would be easy to just drag one in there and hook it up and turn it on.
Do you realize what a big deal that would be if this works?
If they can really make mass-produced.
See, mass-produced is the key to it all because mass-produced tells you it's economical, it's easy, there'll be lots of them.
If they can really...
So it looks like they've designed it from the ground up With the purpose of being super safe, super cheap, and easy to produce and get approved.
What if this works?
And I'll bet it's not the only company.
I mean, Rolls Royce is in this space.
There'll be others.
This is gigantic.
It's one of the biggest things in civilization.
Meanwhile, Honda...
It's created some kind of solid-state battery that's going to be 50% smaller, according to New Atlas.
So it's not important that Honda has a battery that's way, way better.
It's just part of this bigger story, that battery technology...
This is the reason I give you a battery story almost every day.
If you didn't understand that the entire world of battery and electrical storage is so dynamic right now, It almost guarantees gigantic breakthroughs because it's just lots of good science, lots of prototypes, lots of money, and everybody knows that's where it has to go.
I mean, you're going to have to get to the point for sure.
That we can do electric and store it.
And store it economically.
So everything's heading in the right direction.
The free market's doing it.
Elon Musk is saying the F-35, our most expensive fighter jet, is maybe not as smart as having just lots of drones.
I think that's right.
It does seem to me that a drone Air Force is both inevitable and would be superior to fighter jets, just because you could cover the sky with drones and probably stop any fighter jet, I would imagine.
If you had a whole drone-like swarm, I imagine you could take out a very expensive jet Without too much trouble.
I suppose there's a height issue, maybe?
That might be part of it.
But he's probably right that we need to Save some money and turn ourselves into a drone force.
Speaking of Elon Musk, Starlink's new system now can connect to your mobile phone with no extra equipment or special app.
So I don't know exactly what that means, but I think you can take your regular existing phone and instead of saying, I'm using one of the regular phone companies, Can you now just select Starlink as your provider?
Or extra provider?
Is it in addition to?
Or is it instead of?
So I don't know the details of this yet, but imagine having a phone made by Elon Musk that actually had real security so the government couldn't get into it, if that's even possible.
Probably not possible.
But wow!
That's a pretty big deal.
All right, I'm gonna make an announcement, public announcement.
Are you ready?
Public announcement.
Number one, do not ever follow my stock advice.
I don't give advice.
But because I talk about big companies publicly, you know, as part of what I do every day, I feel like it is an obligation to you, my audience, that I tell you if I make any investment change in a company that I talk about.
So you already know that I own stock in Tesla.
So if you hear me saying good things about Tesla, what you should say is, oh, he probably would have said that even if he didn't believe it.
Now, the truth is, I don't think I would lie to you about a stock I bought.
But from your point of view, you should be skeptics.
You shouldn't assume everything I say is true.
I think it is.
I have no reason not to tell you the truth.
But your view should be other people are always sketchy when it comes to money.
It doesn't matter who it is.
Just assume all other people are a little sketchy when it comes to your money.
Now, I'm going to tell you what change I made, but I'm going to be really serious about this next statement.
Don't think it's a good idea for you.
Do you all get that?
Because what I'm going to tell you is probably the worst investment that I've Idea you ever had in your life.
I just sold all of my Nvidia stock.
I had quite a bit.
Now, I'm a recent buyer of it, so I didn't get the, you know, the 10,000% gain.
I got maybe a 75% gain.
So 75% in less than a year.
And so I sold it.
Now, I owe you an explanation.
But again, don't take my explanation as being credible or smart.
I'm not really good at investing.
I'm seriously not good at it.
There are things I do that I do well, and I'm happy to tell you what they are.
I love to tell you what my good things are.
This isn't one of them.
And what I mean by that is that there's not really people who are smart enough to pick individual stocks.
If you're going to listen to me, get an index fund.
So here's my reasoning, but I'm not confident in it whatsoever.
My reasoning goes like this.
I believe that the market of people who can buy these expensive AI devices will soon be saturated, It's not there yet.
So there's still probably plenty of room to grow.
So if you held yours, I would say probably smart.
But at some point, I think there's going to be a competitor.
And I don't know that they have the moats that I would look for in a company like this.
For example, If somebody comes up with a more clever chip and it's cheaper, the entire NVIDIA business model falls apart all at once.
Because if somebody could do the same thing and cheaper, what do they have?
And it does seem to me that there should be the highest level of technical experts would be trying to compete with NVIDIA because NVIDIA became the most Expensive company in the world in no time at all.
So, in theory, if the free market is working, then the smartest people in the world are creating whatever is the next technology that they hope will take over from NVIDIA. I also am worried that companies are going to start announcing in the next year or so that they overspent on AI. And what I mean by that is that they had high hopes for solving all their problems,
but once they got into it, and they really got deep into it, all they could do is make apps that they would try to sell to other people to solve their problems, but it doesn't.
So, AI so far is not a technology that solves problems.
It's a technology that people are productizing.
They're turning it into different apps and products, and they're selling it to you to solve your problem, but it's not solving any of your problems.
At some point, somebody's going to notice, hey, looks like we spent millions of dollars on this and everything's the same.
Now, there will be special cases where it works perfectly.
There'll be special cases where an AI app will just replace some people.
Save some money, everybody wins, does a better job.
But I think they're going to be the exceptions.
I think they might be the exceptions.
And I think that AI as an interface might become a commodity.
And that seems to be the only thing it can do.
The only thing AI does consistently is create art which will have no value.
Do you know why the art from AI will have no value?
Supply and demand.
You're going to have infinite art for no cost.
If you already own the app, you can make infinite art.
So it's great that AI makes art, but it's going to make art have no value.
Because everybody can make infinite art.
Supply and demand.
It's obvious.
So art will have no value.
At least the art the AI can make.
The part where it's really good at talking to you and understanding what you're saying and creating good sentences, that will continue to be useful.
But it's going to be a commodity.
It'll just be in everything.
And I can't believe that that drives NVIDIA's profits where they need to be.
And then there's the pattern recognition stuff, which might be great, like it can help with a programmer, but so far, and I don't see this changing by the way, so far nobody except a trained programmer can use AI to make a program.
Am I right?
Do you think you, with no training whatsoever and had a program, could go use AI and make yourself an app and put it in the market and it's commercial and everybody buys it?
I don't think so.
I've never heard of it.
I don't think it's happening.
So I think that a lot of the interest in NVIDIA is because people are thinking in terms of AGI, but NVIDIA is not in the AGI business.
I don't know that they will be, because nobody knows how to make AGI, so there's no hardware you can make to make the thing that nobody knows how to make.
Now, you can make little Leo chat bots and stuff, but at the moment, they don't really do much.
They're just too limited.
The battle between art and science has settled.
I didn't know there was a battle.
There's talk that SAAS will collapse because companies can just generate it with AI. Again, Owen, that's where common sense takes you.
Common sense tells you, hey, this AI stuff's going to replace all these obvious things that are suboptimal.
Except that I don't think you can.
We're not seeing it.
And the fact that AI still hallucinates, and I don't think that's been solved, how are you going to replace your SAS with something that hallucinates?
Because you'll get answers, but you won't know if they're real.
So, between hallucinating and the fact that AI doesn't seem to remember you, And there doesn't seem to be a technology where I can have my most personal stuff I wanted to remember to be local and away from the AI company so that they can't get my good stuff.
Because my perfect situation is I've got an AI and it sits on top of data that only I own and my AI only goes into it when it needs to.
But otherwise it doesn't know anything.
It only knows that it has access to the database.
That's not there.
So, here's the Warren Buffett reason for selling a stock.
If you have a reason for buying a stock, you buy it.
And if that reason doesn't change, you hold it.
For me, the reason changed.
Because I like monopolies.
So, NVIDIA is basically a monopoly right now.
But I don't see the moat.
I don't see how they can stay one.
So that's why I changed my investment.
But remember, I'm terrible at investing.
If you follow my lead, you'll probably lose money.
NVIDIA is already up today.
So if you had followed my advice yesterday, you would already have lost money.
So say that as clearly as possible.
All right.
Alex Jones is saying that Sandy Hook was a Bloomberg op, not the crime itself, but rather the fact that Alex Jones was sued and basically taken down by that lawfare, and he thinks that that was all funded by Bloomberg, and that he was behind the whole thing.
It looked like it was organic, but it wasn't.
It was just to get to Trump.
So given that Alex Jones was a strong voice for Trump, it was one way that they could take him out.
Now, do you think that's true?
This is Alex Jones saying that this is new information that came out.
So I guess the court cases revealed who got funded for what.
Because here's what I've been wondering about Sandy Hook.
I understand that the parents would be diswrought because somebody in the media said something about their situation.
I get that.
But why does that let you sue somebody?
Where'd that come from?
Like, that doesn't sound organic.
Take today, for example.
Today, I'm going to talk a little later about fentanyl and some changes.
And when I talk about fentanyl, do you know that almost every time I mention it on X, somebody will come into my feed and tell me that it's my own damn fault that my stepson died from a drug overdose.
And that he deserved to die.
It was weeding out the ones we don't need.
And it goes like that.
Now, how does that make me feel?
Well, I'm a little tougher than the average public figure.
So I just usually block them and say, people are terrible.
It doesn't bother me a lot.
I mean, it bothers me a little bit, but not a lot.
Now, do I get to sue them?
Do I get to sue the people on X who say, oh, things that I think are not true?
I don't think I should.
It just feels like their opinion.
So to me, it seems like Alex Jones had an opinion, which he thought was true.
Nobody ever...
I don't think anybody ever proved that he thought he was lying.
Can you correct me on that?
I'll need a fact check on that.
There's no evidence produced anywhere that he thought he was wrong, right?
Now, I don't think he was right.
I don't think there was a fake event.
But there's no evidence that he thought he was wrong, and he did it anyway.
So...
I never really understood the lawsuit.
But now I do.
Now I do.
It had to be funded by some billionaire who wanted to just take out Alex Jones.
And if this is the answer, Mike Bloomberg was a billionaire and he was taking out Alex Jones, I'm not so sure I want to believe this completely.
But if it did turn out that Michael Bloomberg is behind that, God, he's a piece of shit.
If he's really behind this, he's a really piece of shit.
I actually backed him one time years ago.
I thought, well, he looks like he'd be pretty good in the national office because he did a good job in New York.
But, wow, he turned out to be not anything that I thought he was.
I'm very disappointed in him.
Rasmussen has a little poll that says that 55% of U.S. voters believe the president should choose cabinet offers he knows he can trust, compared to 39% who think it's better to pick ones with experience.
I think the public's getting it right again.
The public is doing a hell of a job.
Have you noticed that the public just sort of getting the right answer lately?
Yeah, the majority of the public seems to be getting the right answer on all the big questions.
And this is new.
I don't think they were doing this for the last four years.
But yes, If you have cabinet officers that you can't trust, it doesn't matter how experienced they are.
In fact, you'd want them to be less experienced, because if you don't trust them, you don't want them to use all their experience against you.
So yes, yes, yes, loyalty and trust has to be higher than experience.
It has to be.
Now, if it were not Trump, I might go the other way.
But we've seen time and time and time and time and time and time again that people come after Trump in every way they can.
So if they stuck any little spy in his campaign, well, it's going to be terrible for him.
So yes, loyalty, trust first.
And if you have to give up some experience, okay.
It's not perfect.
But yes, if you give me that choice, I'm going to take trust over experience.
Now, you can't pick a...
Don't give me a total clown.
I don't want a clown.
But if you tell me that Matt Gaetz couldn't have done the job, you're wrong.
He could have.
If you think that Pete Hegseth can't do the job, you're wrong.
I'm pretty sure he can.
I don't know character-wise or anything else about them, but yeah, there are enough permanent people in every organization to get the basic job done.
You just need somebody to handle the big ethical questions, basically.
And you could do that for sure.
So, the O'Keefe Media Group, OMG, got some new corporate guy in the NIH, National Institute of Health.
And let's see, it's Raja Kohlan.
He's the Chief of Health Data Standards.
With a very longer name.
I'll stop there.
So he actually said this on an undercover video.
I probably shouldn't be saying this out loud.
They might have funded a lab in Wuhan, China, and Pfizer and Moderna are getting a bunch of money from all of these vaccine mandates, he said to the OMG undercover journalist.
Quote, I don't even know if these vaccines stop you from getting COVID. They don't.
He said, we're all going to learn about the dangers of COVID vaccines when it's too late.
Yikes.
He said the six feet of social distancing was not based on any science.
It was completely made up.
He thinks that Trump's victory is worse for the National Institute of Health.
It would be better for a Democrat to be in office, he said.
Quote, we fly under the radar of really being scrutinized.
I don't think I have too much to worry about.
And then he says to the undercover journalist who is recording every word on the undercover recording, you realize that if he is being recorded in anything he said, he's in trouble.
And so he finishes his sentence with, that's not recording, right?
That's not recording, right?
Oh, yeah.
It was recording.
Got every word.
Got every word.
Now, by now, I don't think this is much of a scoop to know that people inside these agencies know that they were just making shit up and that greater scrutiny is really bad for them.
But are you saying it directly?
The Democrats won't scrutinize us?
That's pretty bad to be out there.
Meanwhile, Walmart, one of the biggest employers in the whole darn country, is going to get rid of its DEI program.
And they basically, they're going to abandon all the woke stuff.
They're going to get rid of controversial products for children and just get out of all of it.
And this is a big win for Robbie Starbuck, who's been the activist who's contacting Walmart specifically and saying, you know, just giving you some warning, you're next.
Because if you get the Robbie Starbuck treatment, a lot of people on the internet are going to say, whoa, we're going to target you now.
What are you doing there?
You racist.
So Walmart's getting ahead of it.
I would say that, well, I'm going to give the credit here to Robbie Starbuck primarily.
This is more of the Trump effect, isn't it?
This is the Trump effect.
Because I think if Kamala Harris had won, I don't think Walmart would get rid of DEI. I think they would think, oh, damn it, we're going to have some problems with the government if we get rid of it, and we might need the government now and then.
Big companies all need the government now and then.
So I call this a Trump effect.
You know, working its way through Robbie Starbuck, who's doing an amazing job.
So James Carville is not too happy with Jon Stewart.
So I guess Jon Stewart said that the identity politics shouldn't have been the reason that Harris lost because she was not running on woke identity politics.
Does that sound right to you?
That Kamala Harris was not running on woke and identity politics?
Well, your common sense might say, well, that's crazy.
That's everything she was doing.
But I think John Seward would say, if you actually listen to what she said during the campaign, she seemed to have walked away from it because it was sort of a losing proposition.
But still, she embodied it from top to bottom.
Not only Was she an identity pick?
The most clearly, obviously, nobody's trying to hide it.
Identity pick.
Her boss said, I'm picking her because she's a black woman.
Identity pick.
And then, when there could have been some kind of a process to see if she was the best pick, they got rid of the process to keep the identity pick.
And then...
And we assumed that the companies would have to keep with DEI if she had been elected.
But James Carville is not taking any of that bullshit.
And he said, quote, Bill Maher, he said, John Stewart says it couldn't have hurt because no Democrat ran on it in order to escape any responsibility.
They said that stuff was never used in 2024. And James Carville says, you're fucking wrong!
It was used!
In politics, if you have a bad policy, you may throw it away, but the other side gets to play.
That's right.
So it didn't matter that she tried to run away from it in the closing hours of the campaign.
It only mattered that the Republicans were going to make hay with it.
And they did.
You know, the trans-related commercials especially were called out.
So it didn't matter what Harris did.
The Democrats had spent years creating this environment, which the Republicans had every right to say, there's too much of this and you're going to get more of it if you elect a Democrat.
So yeah, you can't run away from the house you built.
It's like she built a house and then she lived inside it and said, I'm not building a house right now.
But you're living inside the house.
I know, but I built it earlier.
But you built it.
But I'm not building it right now.
I haven't even mentioned it in two weeks.
So yes, if you build the house and you live in it, The Republicans are going to notice.
And James Carville is going to notice that the Republicans noticed.
He's not a happy guy.
Anyway, and according to the Vigilant Fox, they had some News Nation show.
So Cuomo had one of the biggest donors for the Democrats, this guy named John Morgan.
He's called a mega-donor.
And he thinks that Kamala Harris' political life is over because she misused the money that she got.
She said it was spent so recklessly they're wasting money on ads in Florida.
So she was running ads in places that she couldn't win.
Interestingly, Trump also spent campaign money in states he couldn't win.
So, I'm not sure this donor's on the right page, because the reason Trump did it, I think, is that he thought he had a good chance, based on internal polling, of winning the Electoral College, but his mandate would only be useful if he also won the popular vote.
So, he would go to states like New York and California, he couldn't possibly win, but if he could gather up some votes from people who had a low propensity to vote, maybe he'd get the popular vote.
And he did.
So why would Trump's strategy that worked not work for Harris?
If she advertised in Florida because she just wanted to boost her total numbers?
I think we have to figure out who are the smart people here.
Because the mega-donor sounds like he doesn't understand how the campaign works.
Now, I'm not defending Harris.
I'm just saying that you can't have an article that says going to the states you're going to lose is brilliant if you're Trump, but going to the states you're going to lose is a bad idea if you're Kamala Harris, because that's what's out there.
Like, it can't be both a good idea and a bad idea at the same time.
So...
I don't know.
Maybe the argument is that her internal poll showed she wasn't going to win the swing states, so don't work on the popular vote if you're not even going to win the swing states.
But we don't know what her internal poll said, and neither does he, so I don't know.
Meanwhile, California, it turns...
Well, it's a California story.
Do you think it's going to be positive?
No.
It's like California just tries to come up with what's the dumbest fucking thing we can do to show that we're not even serious about fixing anything.
So they've dropped the EV incentive.
There was some tax incentive for building EVs in California.
But did you know there's only one company that builds an EV in California?
It's called Tesla.
Yeah, it's just an anti-Tesla law.
Why would you...
Why would a state just come up with an anti-Tesla law just because Musk is working productively with Trump now?
I tell you, it feels like there's not anything that California does that isn't just absolutely fucked up.
Like, we need to get rid of our leadership so much.
I mean, it's just so bad.
It's embarrassing.
I don't get embarrassed, but if I did, this would do it.
Anyway, it looks like Trump will have persevered through all of his lawfare odds, as he likes to say, he's persevered.
And if you don't know, let's see, Jack Smith is dropping all of his claims.
And I guess that keeps them alive should they want to re-up them after he gets out of office, which is a messed up thing to do.
If you're going to drop him and he's a certain age, You should, you know, drop them in a way that they're not coming back.
So kind of messed up that they'd keep that risk over his head.
But this, so the stuff that got dropped is the 2020 election interference and the classified document case.
So Trump still has the 34 felonies or whatever they are for his New York City bullshit lawfare trial where the bank made him a good loan and got paid back and they were happy.
So he's a felon because he did what everybody does when they get a loan with property.
He overstated the value of the loan knowing that the lender would check it on their own and the only thing that mattered is what the lender checked anyway.
So I'd love for him to get rid of these 34 felonies, just so people don't have to say it anymore.
The rumor is...
That Kash Patel will be named FBI director.
Post-millennial is talking about this.
It's still in the rumor phase, unless it happened this morning, I guess.
What do you think of that?
Is that going to happen?
Now, I don't know a ton about Kash Patel.
I only know this.
Trump never leaves Kash on the table.
Boom.
I've been telling you that for years.
He never leaves cash on the table.
He always picks it up.
And here we are with Kash Patel.
So if I judge from just the videos I've seen of his ability to talk in public and answer the right questions and have the right opinions and see things through the right frame seems strong.
So my first impression is strong.
According to the National Pulse, recruitment in the military is sharply up, and they think it's because P. Hegseth got nominated.
And apparently, if you're the anti-DEI person...
People want to get into the military again.
And if you're the anti-war person, that's too strong.
But it's part of the, you know, the Trump world is anti-war, let's say.
So if you think there's fewer chances you'll be killed and more chances you'll be promoted and fewer chances you'll be treated like garbage for some DEI reason, I would say that would make sense that people would be signing up to be in the military.
Makes sense.
Meanwhile, here's more maybe Trump effect.
The IDF is looking to wrap up their military missions in Lebanon, and they want to get everything wrapped up in the next 60 days, because after that, Trump's going to be in office, and he's going to wrap it up for them.
So there's the Trump effect.
So the Trump effect seems to...
Have increased people joining the military, and it seems to have simultaneously decreased the odds that there will be a World War once he's in charge.
So that's pretty good.
Meanwhile, here's more Trump effect.
The Haitians that were very numerous in Springfield and caused the meme about eating the cats and dogs, which as far as I know is not based on any serious reality.
But apparently a lot of the Haitians that were in Springfield are self-deporting because they think that Trump's election would put them in jeopardy if they stay there.
And maybe they're right.
So you've got Ukraine and Russia waiting for Trump, obviously.
You've got Israel waiting for Trump, obviously.
You've got the Haitians waiting for Trump, obviously.
And they're all correcting.
And then you see people joining the military because of Trump.
Stock market is up because Trump's coming.
Do you notice a pattern?
It's almost everything is better.
Almost everything.
And to me, the funniest reason that the Democrats can't figure out what they did wrong is that it was everything.
From top to bottom.
There wasn't a single thing.
If you go head to head, what did Trump's campaign do?
And what did Kamala's campaign do?
Head to head, Trump was extraordinary.
But on every dimension, except one, which was raising the most money, Kamala failed.
So she raised the most money, but apparently she used it so poorly that it ruined her future in politics.
So the raising the money...
You don't get credit for if he wasted it and it destroyed your hope of ever being in politics again.
So that's again, Trump raised less money and underspent it and won a landslide.
Who handles money better?
Duh.
So on every single dimension from communication to policies to strategies to money used productively, Trump.
Everything.
Every single thing.
And, you know, even if you look at the media, even though the media, the so-called mainstream media, was strongly in favor of Harris, they themselves did such a bad job that people lost trust in the media and the candidate.
So I've never seen anything like it.
The media became essentially part of the campaign.
So when the campaign lost, the media lost the same amount.
Their traffic just went through the floor.
And it's because the public saw them as just the campaign.
We don't need the Harris campaign anymore.
That's what you are.
So don't need to watch it anymore.
Well, according to a Gallup survey, 86% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they're optimistic because of Trump's election.
86% of people who lean right are optimistic.
But how about the people who lost?
76% of Democrats said they were afraid as a reaction to the election.
They feel angry and devastated.
Do you remember the story I told you earlier in the live stream here?
That people who are optimistic live longer and they're more successful.
They're healthier.
I can actually feel this.
Like the level of optimism that I've seen and also experienced in other people that I interact with is so high.
I would be amazed if it's not good for our health.
I feel like my health was suppressed for four years, and now suddenly I just feel great when I wake up.
Every morning I wake up feeling great.
I don't think that was the same.
It just feels different.
So I guess I feel bad for the Democrats because they're affecting their own health at this point.
Apparently, Don Jr. is making some provocative news.
He's suggesting that the White House is considering, instead of doing the press releases where you've got all the mainstream media asking stupid questions that nobody cares about and not getting answered, that they might replace at least some of the press room with independents.
They used Joe Rogan as their example.
Blaze Media is writing about this, by the way.
And John Jr. seems to be confirming that this is at least a serious discussion.
Now, my idea was to have a rotating press secretary.
This is better.
You remember I told you that sometimes brainstorming is about the bad idea?
Because the bad idea might make you think of the good one.
Here I can see that mine was the bad one.
So the bad idea was to get the celebrity, if you will, to just do the job of standing in front and trying to represent the president.
But since the celebrity would not be as informed, maybe they wouldn't take that seriously, and maybe it would look too much like a joke.
And people would say, get back to being serious.
So that was my idea, and it has some warts on it.
But it would possibly make you think of the idea, well, wait.
Instead of changing the press secretary, why don't we change the people asking the questions?
Oh, now we're good.
That's way better than my idea.
It's way better.
Now, I'm not saying that my idea led to that idea.
I'm just saying it could have.
Like, in the real world, that's a normal way things could happen.
So that's why the bad idea is such a good idea, because it leads to good ideas.
So I'd love to say this.
Now, I don't think they need to get rid of all the major media, but if you stuck in some independents and actually got them to ask some questions, I would love that.
Because my biggest thing with the press conferences, they don't always ask the right questions.
But you put the independents in there, and they will.
So, love that.
All right, here's a story that's sort of close to my heart.
As you know, my stepson died of a fentanyl overdose in 2018. And I have been very vocal about what we should do about it and very anti-China and anti-Mexico, etc.
And during Trump's first term, I had great optimism that he would make something happen in that domain.
He did not.
He did not.
And it's one of my biggest disappointments.
Now, later, my take on it was there wasn't anything you could do, because unless you're going to attack China, they will just keep doing what they're doing, sending their precursors to Mexico.
And unless you militarily attack Mexico, the cartels will just keep doing what they're doing, and they're all making money.
So if they're all making money, and the only thing you can do is threaten to attack them, then you've done nothing.
Turns out, Trump doesn't like to lose.
And he definitely lost on fentanyl, and they definitely made him look like a chump.
Let me say that directly.
China made Trump look like a chump by promising to do it and doing nothing to stop fentanyl.
And Mexico...
It has a little explaining to do, too.
I mean, the cartels are the primary pushers of it.
So apparently he's decided that that's not going to go down this way this time.
So here are the things he's announced so far.
Trump is going to put a big tariff on both Canada and Mexico because they're not doing enough to control their borders, partly because of fentanyl.
So he's just basically going to take trade out of it.
Now, hold on, hold on.
I'm waiting for the NPCs to rush into the comments and say, Scott, Scott, don't you understand how tariffs work?
Don't you understand that tariffs are paid by the American company that wanted to buy it?
Why do you not understand how tariffs work?
You can't threaten Canada because it's really just coming out of the pockets of the American companies.
Okay, you're totally wrong.
If you did one tariff that affected one American company, yeah, it would just be coming out of the American company's pocket.
If you do a broad tariff about all their goods...
You're going to start finding that the market starts to adjust to that.
So what you're playing for is the market adjustment.
So suddenly, somebody in America who didn't think they could compete might say, wait a minute, if I make you here, it's going to be 20% cheaper than Canada?
Oh, wow, it's a new market.
So the long game is that Trump is telling you, you know your car market?
We're going to put you out of business.
The whole industry.
We're just going to take it out if you don't cooperate.
Same with Canada.
You like selling your, I don't know what they sell, milk and butter or whatever.
Do you like that arrangement where we buy your farm goods?
Okay.
In nine months, we're not going to buy any of your farm goods because they'll be priced out of consideration.
So, is it true that That Canada is not the one paying for the tariffs.
Yes.
The American company that wanted to import it, or the customer basically, pays for it.
But the reason you do the tariff is so people will stop buying it and they'll look for another source.
So in the short run, is it just a tax on consumers and is it just a cause of inflation?
Yes.
We all understand that.
Are we on the same page now?
Are the NPCs happy?
Everybody understands that in the short run, the American company pays for it, so you're not charging China or Canada or Mexico.
However, if you commit to that being your long-term situation, You take the entire market away from those countries and they're not going to put up with that because they need to sell cars and they need to sell shit.
So it's a negotiating tool and it's a good one.
So he's basically told Canada and Mexico, you're our most important trading partners.
But it's not going to stay that way.
Because you're not doing the basics.
You're not controlling the border.
You're not controlling the cartels.
You're not doing the basics.
So if you want to be our long-term trading partner, we're going to change that long-term.
Short-term, it'll cost us some more money.
Long-term, fuck every one of you.
Long term, you're all fucking dead.
And we don't even need to do a thing for you.
So you need to do this.
Now, here's what I've said.
I've said this about China and fentanyl, that we should close our embassies.
China, if you promise you're going to stop the fentanyl precursor trade and you don't do a fucking thing, we should withdraw our embassy and say, look, this is the price of talking.
You do this first, because this is not fucking negotiable, right?
They're acting like it's negotiable.
No, killing 50,000 Americans a year is not fucking negotiable.
You've got to do that before we have anything to do with you.
Now, of course, we have so much business with them, you can't do anything quickly.
But if you start giving them a general 20% tariff, they're going to get the idea that in the long run, you're fucked.
Because you can't do this.
It's the opening.
It's basically the ticket to the show.
Get rid of fentanyl and you can be in the show.
If you don't get rid of fentanyl, we will squeeze you until there's nothing fucking left.
Because you've got to start there first.
That's what I think Trump's doing.
So he makes a phone call to the new president of Mexico, and suddenly the Sinaloa cartel is killing fentanyl makers themselves, and he's saying he's going to...
So even the cartels are trying to get out of the business faster than the government wants them to, I think.
And Trump basically says he's going to release U.S. knowledge about the Mexican government being owned by the cartels unless they do what he says.
To which I say, yes.
Now that's a serious play.
Please stop sending fentanyl.
That's not serious.
But we're going to take you out.
That's serious.
He's basically threatening the government of Mexico that he's going to take them out of power, because that's what would happen if he released the information about the cartels.
Now, that's serious.
And then he says he's also going to send the special forces down to basically just kill all the cartel assets and put them out of business.
Now, will he?
I don't know.
He will if he needs to.
So I'll say that if he needs to, yes, he will.
100% chance.
You know, there's some things I say that Trump won't do, like deporting 20 million people.
I don't think he's going to do that.
But would he use the special forces if they ignore him again?
I think he would take out the government and then he'd send in the special forces and just mow the lawn.
Because I think he's fucking done.
He's second term, and he's done.
I think this is the most humiliating thing that ever happened to him in office.
I think China and Mexico humiliated him by ignoring him, basically.
And now he's going to say, you can do what you want, but I'll tell you what you're not going to do is enjoy it.
Do whatever you want, you're not going to enjoy it.
And you're really going to be wishing you hadn't done it.
So that's the current situation.
That's the Trump effect.
So China would get an extra 10% on top of the tariffs that he wants to give them for other stuff if fentanyl is still shipped to Mexico.
All right.
Now, I watched a video that Patrick Bette David had in which he was talking to an author of a book which describes, allegedly, her grooming as a Sex spy in an elite satanic pedo ring.
Now, if this is the first you've heard of this, elite satanic pedophile ring running the world, your reaction should be the same as mine.
That's probably not true.
I mean, there's probably not a...
This is where I've been for most of my life.
I don't think there's an elite pedophile ring running the world.
Certainly there are elite pedophiles.
That's definitely true.
Because there are pedophiles in every domain, so some of them are going to be elite.
But I didn't think they were organized.
And I didn't think they actually ran the world.
I just thought, oh, well, some rich people doing some heinous crimes.
That's not a big surprise.
But are they organized?
And actually running the world?
Well, If you've seen the video and I recommend it, you can find it pretty easy.
Patrick Bet-David, the PBD broadcast, and it just happened, so you can find it pretty easily.
I want you to look at it, but I want you to do the following experiment.
Turn on your BS indicators to maximum, and then watch that whole thing, and see if your BS meter gets tripped.
Because mine was edged like crazy, but it didn't trip.
You know, if you know what I mean?
Like, my BS meter was going...
And it was ready to go into the red, where I was ready to say, all right, none of this is true.
This can't be true.
And then it was over.
It never went into the red.
It had all kinds of signals, all kinds of signals that I was like, I don't know.
I'm not so sure I believe that.
Never got into the red.
I sure expected it to.
So take this as a lesson on trying to determine BS. I'm going to tell you what was starting to trigger me, and then I'll tell you why it didn't.
The first trigger is it's too extraordinary and too on the nose.
Because it just sounds like an InfoWars episode.
Just too on the nose.
We keep hearing about the elite satanic pedophile rings.
So the first thing against it...
It is too on the nose.
It would be a good way to sell a book.
The next thing is the documentary effect.
This one's important.
I talk about this a lot.
If you see a documentary that makes one claim and never shows you the other side, or you don't even know if there is another side, it will be persuasive almost every time.
Because otherwise you wouldn't even see it.
They're going to make the thing, and if it's not persuasive, they won't put it out there.
And if they do put it out there and it gets any attention, it's because it's persuasive.
And I always use the Michael Jackson documentaries as my example.
There's a documentary that says, oh, Michael Jackson definitely did terrible things with children.
And then there's another documentary that says, this is obviously all made up, and here's the reasons that it's all made up.
They are both 100% convincing.
And they can't both be true.
It can't be true that it happened and true that it didn't happen.
But they are 100% convincing.
You have to go through this experiment or you won't understand the world.
If you don't watch both of them, it should be easy to find them.
You just Google.
Find out the two Michael Jackson documentaries.
That's the way documentaries work.
I still love documentaries.
But to imagine that you're hearing the truth...
That's probably the rarest thing.
Probably a documentary is always spun in one direction or another.
So you've got the two on the nose, and then you've got the documentary effect, which you shouldn't trust in general.
And then there's one person talking, and I'm not hearing from anybody else, but she referenced a knowledge of a wide number of other...
Victims.
They were victimized exactly the way she was.
But we didn't hear from them.
So again, that's another red flag.
If even one other person had said, yes, here's the video I made.
Everything she says is true.
I was there at the same time, etc.
I don't know.
Then there was the names that she mentioned.
So she acted like it was not her intention to name names, but PBD got her to do it pretty easily.
The first name she mentioned was, and again, so that I don't get sued, I'm not accepting that this is true.
I'm not accepting that it's false.
I'm saying I can't help.
So none of these are my claims and I don't want to be responsible for them.
But her claim is that when she was six years old, she was basically sold to David Rockefeller.
And from like the age of six to nine, she was brainwashed and trained to be a sex slave at that age.
Actual sex slave at that age.
And he was trying to make her a celebrity in France so that she would be sort of a manufactured singer celebrity because apparently he thought he had the clout to do that.
And that she would then therefore get into sexual trysts with famous people because she would be famous and then politicians, etc.
And then he and his pedophile network, allegedly, would be able to control the world By having the right kind of blackmail assets in place.
Now, that's the sort of story that, you know, PBD did a great job, I thought, asking enough details.
So if she couldn't give you any details, you'd say, hey, hey, why aren't you giving me more details?
One of the questions was, she said that she didn't know that that was David Rockefeller until he died.
Which was well after she was a child.
So her claim is that she spent years going from house to house in David Rockefeller's care.
He basically was like the guardian or something for a while.
And that she never heard the name Rockefeller.
She only called him David.
And it never occurred to him who he was.
Now, PBD showed some skepticism.
As in, really?
Really?
I mean, nobody else mentioned the name at all.
Like, that doesn't sound credible.
She somewhat angrily pushed back that she was a child.
And that of course she knew who Kennedys were.
Of course she knew who the Rockefellers were when she became an adult.
But it never connected to her that the guy named David was a Rockefeller until he died and she saw his picture and was like, holy hell, that was a Rockefeller.
Does that sound real?
That one's hard to believe, right?
That's hard to believe.
But is it impossible to believe?
Hmm.
It's not impossible.
It's not impossible.
It's hard to believe.
So I would say that's one little check in the box that says, hmm, it's too on the nose.
I don't hear another witness.
Now it's starting to be a little shaky, right?
And then PBD asked another great question.
He said, how in the world Could you, at the age of nine or whatever, be hanging around with this adult and nobody asked any questions and it wasn't obvious what your role was?
And she said, yes, there were two of the servants in one of the houses who were fully aware of what was going on, she assumed.
And so PBD asked them, like, why did you think they knew what was going on?
And she looks at them and she says, They saw us in bed.
And that just killed me.
Apparently, they were servants, the kind who would bring you something while you were still in bed.
And her claim was that they would come in and just do their work and they were very nice to her.
But that she would be in bed with them.
And it would be obvious why she was in bed.
And apparently they had been well vetted or well paid.
And they just rolled with it.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that two servants could be co-opted to keep their mouth shut about that?
Coming into his room and seeing him in bed with a nine-year-old?
Does that sound true?
It does, because you can get people to do anything.
Unfortunately, that's not much of a hit on the credibility at all, because if any of this exists, if any of it's real, it requires lots of people to do things that unfortunately people do.
Now, her take was that this is definitely satanic, That the whole thing had a satanic kind of structure to it.
But then not all the people involved were satanic believers.
So some of them literally were doing performances to sell their soul to Satan.
Others were just sort of going along with the Satan thing because they were just pedos.
Now that part sounded real.
Because there's a nuance there.
It's like, yeah, no, they weren't all Satanists, but they were willing to act like it if it helped them.
So I thought, hmm, that does sound real.
The story where she said that they saw her in bed, that sounded real to me.
Because that was a detail.
And if she were lying, it would have been smarter to say something like, oh, we made sure that nothing happened in front of anybody.
That would be like a normal lie.
But to say that, no, they came in and saw us in bed, that's a detail.
And it doesn't sound like one you made up.
Now, she also named a couple other people.
Now, because it's already a public thing, I'll mention them.
She accused Justin Trudeau's father, who was the boss in Canada at the time, of using her services.
That he's a pedo.
But that his specific preference was actually murdering children.
So that she couldn't satisfy him because she wasn't there to be murdered.
That's a hell of a claim.
So I'm not going to give you my opinion of whether that's true or not.
That's one person's claim.
She claims that Rockefeller had to take her to meet with a Rothschild to ask permission for his plan to groom her into a super sex spy.
And she said that the Rothschild guy, whoever it was, Was not a pedo, but he was definitely somehow in charge of the world.
So he was the one who had to tell Rockefeller that he could do his plan.
But how did she know that that guy was not a pedo?
Well, maybe he just didn't express it in her case.
I don't know.
Then, the part that bothers me the most in terms of the credibility...
Is that she talked about recovered memories a lot.
As in, I didn't remember this, but then I remembered it.
I didn't remember it, and then it came back.
That is the biggest tell for hypnosis and fake memory.
Generally speaking, I would not take anybody serious who said they had a recovered memory.
Because recovered memories aren't real for the most part.
So there's a fine line between, oh, suddenly I got a recovered memory that somebody did something bad to me.
Those are usually not real.
But if your regular memory captured most of it, but maybe you suddenly remembering some details, maybe, maybe, but all the recovered memories The ones that came to her later?
That is a gigantic signal for not being true.
It's not a signal that she's lying.
Because she did not put off a tell of lying.
She looks like she believes what she's saying.
But there could be two explanations.
One is false memory, which is very common, by the way.
And the other is that it's real, and some things were so terrible that she forgot them until it came back.
Now, I'll tell you the scariest part.
The scariest part, believe it or not, there's something worse.
The scariest part is that she said she was given some German guy in Germany and stayed there to be brainwashed.
And that the way she was brainwashed is that he would choke her to unconsciousness and say, look at this face.
So that she would associate his face with being choked to death.
And that was just one of the things he did.
So apparently, torturing her, so they would give her a test of seeing if they could recognize somebody's sexual preference by looking at their face, which is, of course, something a human can't do with regularity.
Maybe you can guess some of the time.
So it looked like it was a test that was set up to make sure that she couldn't do well on it.
And then the reason for that is that they could choke her or torture her and then associate themselves as the torturers.
Now, the reason for that was that she would be frightened to death of these people, because if you do it when she's young, this is what they call the, I call it the Indian elephant training trick.
If you've ever seen an Indian elephant trainer, you'll see him sometimes with a big stick, and he'll be like wailing on the elephant, and the elephant will just be like, oh, oh, sorry, I didn't mean that.
Okay, all right, all right, all right.
And you say to yourself, wait a minute, that elephant could just grab that little guy and just pound him into dust if he wanted to.
Why doesn't he?
And the answer is that the little guy trained the elephant when it was a baby.
So he beat the elephant when it was a baby.
And then the elephant grew up and didn't realize that it had power over the little guy.
It just thought the little guy still could beat it up.
So basically, they used the Indian elephant trick on a child to hurt her, she claimed, and associate that hurt with not getting things right for them.
So it just became like programming.
Now, Here's the problem with that.
If she were not an expert in persuasion, she would not be able to explain so well the most effective and dark form of persuasion you'll ever hear in your life.
So everything she said about how that works, tracked.
They tracked.
Doesn't mean it happened.
I can't say that it happened or didn't happen.
I don't know.
But it all fit together.
And that would have been really hard to do for somebody who hadn't been through it.
They wouldn't even know how.
If I had to ask you, hey, just describe how to brainwash somebody to become a sex slave.
And I said, how do you do that?
How many of you would come up with choking them to unconsciousness while giving them a test that you knew they were gonna get a lot of wrong answers to?
Who would have come up with that?
Right?
It'd be hard to come up with that if you were just using your common sense.
She seems like she knew about something, like having been there.
And so I'll tell you.
So I'll reiterate.
I couldn't tell if it was real.
It's certainly in the category of things that could be completely made up.
Because she's making money for a book.
She had a mother that apparently had severe mental illness.
Could be genetic.
But it could have been something that just messed her up by the things that happened in her life.
Probably she was sexually trafficked.
Probably.
But maybe she added things to the story.
That's what the memory stuff would be.
It would be, there was something bad, no doubt about it, but maybe the story got bigger because she was a child.
Children can imagine things in detail and then think that they were true all their life and never experience them.
So I don't know.
I'm solidly right on the fine line between this is real and this is not real.
I can't tell.
So I give this just as an example of what to look for.
This is a rare case where if you look for everything and you can even identify the things you should have found, you still can't tell.
So this one really has me, my brain is scrambled on this one.
I'm usually confident, I'm not right 100% of the time, but I'm usually confident in a case like this if somebody was lying, like that I could tell if they're lying.
I can't tell.
This one's a puzzler.
Well, there's another study that says that, according to some NCRI study, they looked at trainings from people like Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, who were part of the woke, white people are bad part of the world.
And they wanted to see if anti-racism training made people more anti-racist.
What do you think happened?
Scott's rich guy fetish is annoying.
Am I supposed to talk about people who didn't do anything?
I'm pretty sure that the guy who's doing doge is more interesting than your gardener.
Your gardener's a fine guy.
I have nothing against you, Gardner.
But if you think I'm going to do the show and talk about your fucking Gardner instead of interesting people who are doing massively important things to the world, well, you're an idiot.
So go troll somebody else.
Anyway, they found that the anti-racism training surprise made people more racist.
Do you know how they could have saved some money on this study?
Yes, they could have just asked me.
How would I have known that anti-racism study would make people more racist?
Same way you did.
It's the most obvious thing in the world.
If you make somebody think of things in a certain frame, They will.
Wait for it.
Think of things in a certain frame.
If you tell people, well, your environment is full of racism.
Look, there's some.
There's some.
There's some.
Let's talk about some.
Tonight, let's talk about some.
At your job, let's talk about it.
When you go home, let's talk about it.
If you fill your head with the idea that racism is everywhere and it's coming to get you, what are you going to see in the real world?
Racism everywhere coming to get you.
You didn't have to do a study.
Of course it made things worse.
Of course it did.
And it's also the opposite of optimistic.
Oh, your systemic racism can never be fixed.
All white people are racist.
What could you do?
So, no, it was obvious that the more you make people think about racism, the more racist they'll be, which brings us back to the wisest thing that, what's his name?
Actor who plays God.
Who's the actor with the, who's the black actor who's about 85 now and he always plays God?
Tell us his name.
You know who I'm talking about.
There's a little lag in the comments, so you'll tell me in a second.
I'll tell you what he said, and then you'll remember who it is.
Morgan Freeman, thank you, thank you.
So Morgan Freeman was asked, maybe it was on 60 Minutes many years ago, what do you do about racism?
Like, how do you address it?
And he says, stop talking about it.
Just stop talking about it.
Just let everybody be people.
And the first time you hear that, you say to yourself, well, that's an easy thing for an actor to say who hasn't put in the work.
He hasn't researched the literature.
That's easy for you to say.
Oh, you've already made your money.
Oh, great.
You've made your money, so you don't have to worry about it.
But the rest of us should just stop talking about it, right?
Just stop talking about it.
Well, it turns out he was exactly right.
The talking about it is what makes it a problem.
I do believe that systemic racism is real.
Of course it is.
Of course it is.
But I also believe that if you act like it's real, you're going to fuck yourself.
If you act like it's not real, or that it's not going to stop you if it is real, you'll do fine.
It's the thinking it's real that is the problem.
It's not even the racism.
Because if you acted like you didn't even know it existed, You'd end up like Zuby.
He's got a great life.
Zuby just pretends it doesn't exist.
And for him, it doesn't.
If you've watched him, all of his interactions, what kind of people are drawn to him, it's not like 100% black people.
It's just a full complement of just people.
And why is that?
Because he is very consistent.
And saying that he's not being discriminated against.
But is he?
I don't know.
Maybe.
Maybe in some small way that I'm not aware of.
But if you act like you're not, you're not.
That will be your reality.
Even if, technically speaking, you are being systemically, you know, somehow damaged.
Just act like you're not.
And that's how you get past it.
So, just could have asked me about that one.
All right.
I saw a hypothesis, and this was on the X account, Foundation Father, Foundation Dads, that's the account.
And he's talking about an Oxford anthropologist who has this named J.D. Unwin.
Oh, what a terrible last name.
His last name is spelled U-N-W-I-N. So instead of being a winner...
He's J.D. Onwin.
Oh, that's so sad.
Terrible last name.
Anyway, he's smart and he's studied 86 societies and civilizations to see why they collapsed.
And he says that within three generations of sexual debauchery, your civilization will collapse.
So we've got like maybe half a generation left because we're already in this sexual debauchery.
Now, the way he defines it is if your country values virginity until marriage and then values staying together after marriage, even if it's not easy, Then your society will thrive.
And that would be the United States in, say, the 50s.
You know, pretty much that model.
But he says that once people say, I don't need to get married or be a virgin.
I want to just go have some fun.
That what happens then is you basically fall apart.
And that's where America is right now.
Now, Here's my take on that, because you need some optimism.
Today's Optimism Day.
That pattern is very clear, but we don't know what is cause and what is effect.
Is bad management of the government the reason that families fall apart and therefore there's more sexual perversions or whatever?
I don't think they got this cause and effect right.
See, if the government did not make it easier to get divorced, Wouldn't people stay together?
Unhappily, but they stay together.
If the government did not have a way to keep you alive, unless you got married, doesn't that create more single people?
So I'm not sure it's the people change and then that collapses the government.
It seems to me that the government changes and says, yeah, go do your thing.
And then when you go do your thing, everything falls apart.
Because you can't replace people, and if the family unit falls apart, you get more bad children out of that who do bad things.
So here's the good news.
I think that the United States in the current...
The current time has the ability to do something like Doge and something like electing President Trump and something like sending reusable rockets into space.
We are sort of in a place where things that never worked before could be made to work.
That doesn't mean it will be.
So I'd keep an eye on this virginity marriage thing.
It's probably important.
But we do have the ability to say, how about you had a robot?
How about nobody gets a financial benefit from getting a divorce?
How about the children who have the most likely chance of contributing get raised by a group of people plus their parents?
So that you would never let anybody just have bad parents.
If they had bad parents, you'd say, wait, you've got a good kid that seems to have potential, but I've got one bad parent or two bad parents.
So we're going to layer on top of that a lot of contact with some high-functioning, successful people so that that kid can get some good advice too.
So you could imagine...
And I'm not saying I've got the right ideas for it, but you could imagine that we're smart enough and we have enough different kinds of options and resources that we could find a way around it in a way that no society had ever done in the history of humanity.
Because we've done that a bunch of times, right?
By now we should have run out of oil, but we figured it out.
By now we should have run out of food.
But we figured out how to make fertilizer and, you know, GMOs and stuff.
So we may be at a point where we can engineer our way out of things that would have destroyed any prior civilization.
And I say that also because of communication.
Today, there aren't that many cities that are like major cities that just disappear.
Because those major cities have communication with all the other cities in the world.
So if their prices of real estate goes down enough, then people who communicate with them around the world say, wait, what's the house cost in Detroit?
Really?
$25,000 and I could have my own house?
There's a lot of crime, you say.
Well, it's still worth it for that cheap house.
So as long as you have communication and a free market, most cities can decline, but then they'll decline to the point where they're a good value, and then there's a chance they can come back.
Now, that would never be the case in the ancient world.
If you started losing your food source, well, you're screwed.
What are you going to do about it?
Ship more food in from China?
Nobody's shipping any food anywhere.
So you're just going to die.
Or let's say the Mongols come in and they want to burn your city and destroy it.
Well, we're watching that, you know, Gaza is being completely destroyed.
But it's still going to be there in 20 years, probably.
Because when the war winds down...
It's probably a place that they're going to rebuild.
So, and probably most of the same people will be there.
So, I don't know if the situation exists where entire cities or civilizations can disappear.
I think they'll morph, but they're more likely to find a solution to whatever their biggest problem is than any time in history.
The seed of Satan down below.
Didn't see that.
All right, so as far as I can tell, everything's going our way.
It's hard to see the exceptions to that.
And that's all I got for you today.
Everything's going your way.
I think the economy is going to do better.
I think the government debt is going to get under control.
I think robots are coming.
It's all looking good.
All right, I'm going to go talk to the locals people privately for a little minute.
