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, Perfect Climate Models, DEI University of Michigan, DEI Culture of Grievance, Joe Rogan, President Zelensky, President Putin, President Trump, Crypto Russian Support, ICC Members, Eric Weinstein, String Theory, Migrant Deportation Reality, Migrant Crime Rate, Tom Homan, Mayor Mike Johnson, Tulsi Gabbard, Rep. Van Orden, BlueSky, Paid Trolls, Los Angeles Times, Oliver Darcy, 2028 Democrat Candidates, Senator Fetterman, 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
Might not be obvious why, but it's because everything's awesome.
And you're going to have a good time.
Just wait.
You just wait.
All right, almost ready.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and darn it, you've never had a better time.
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 tankard, chalice, a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Delicious.
By the way, if you're listening later on Spotify, where this gets uploaded after I'm done, I hear the commercials are insanely loud compared to the content.
I don't think that happens any on the other platforms.
So you can always listen on a different platform.
Um, because the studio I'm using only sends one audio signal to all the different platforms.
So, oh, it doesn't send it to Spotify, though, does it?
I guess Spotify is adding the commercials on the platform.
So I'm not sure how to fix that.
I'll look into it.
Well, you would not be surprised, according to SciPost, that whole coffee cherry extract supplement might improve working memory.
Now, you might say to me, what is a coffee cherry?
And how do you take the cherry from the coffee?
And the answer is, the cherry is the coating to the coffee bean, I guess.
And normally, when you drink coffee, they remove that part.
But the part that I remove is awesome.
It's awesome.
So apparently if you were to eat the part that I remove, you'd have a good working memory.
Now, I don't take a chance.
So what I do is I grow a coffee tree in my backyard.
And then every morning I just go out and I lick the bark.
You know, the leaves.
And definitely eat all the cherries.
So that's what I do.
This would be a good time to remind you not to take any medical advice from me.
Not once.
By the way, if you notice behind me, Where you can almost read it.
There are the one, two, three, four, five best things you can buy as a gift.
I can promise you that if you know somebody who likes reading books, at least one of these books is going to work for everybody.
You can hit every person.
If it's somebody who doesn't know anything about me and doesn't know anything about Dilbert, you want to go for the Reframe Your Brain.
That just works for everybody.
And I'd have failed almost everything and still went big.
Those are guaranteed to make them happy.
If they're political and they like stuff like how to learn persuasion, Winn Bigley's book.
And if they're philosophical and they like to think about the nature of reality itself, then God's Debris of Complete Works would be the way to go.
And if they are Dilbert fans, but they don't care about the politics or the persuasion, then get the 2025 Dilbert calendar.
Now, the important thing Is that the calendar is only available at a link you can find at Dilbert.com.
The books are on Amazon.
So if you want the book, just search Amazon.
They'll all pop up.
But the calendar, I would get that right away.
Because I can't guarantee that if you get it a week before Christmas, it's going to show up.
Right?
So I wouldn't wait on the calendar.
We're making those as we get orders.
So sooner is better.
Anyway.
Scientists, according to NoRidge, have made magic polymers that can pull water from the thin air with less energy.
So there's all kinds of scientific breakthroughs in creating water out of the air.
But it all takes energy.
And this one takes way less energy.
So it's not going to power your city, but it might help you in an emergency.
Well, there's the first asthma treatment breakthrough in half a century, according to Kent Live News.
It's a game changer, they say.
Some kind of vaccination, they say, will substantially decrease your asthma tax.
Well, I don't know.
It might take a couple of years before that works its way through the system.
We'll see.
I'm skeptical of everything.
There's a prebiotic supplement of something called inulin, and of course, fructulogalacosaccharide.
I'm pretty sure I pronounced that exactly right.
And it boosts brain function in old people.
Huh.
But here's the interesting part.
What it does is it changes your gut chemistry.
And here's an actual sentence from the article.
See if this sounds familiar to you.
Quote, evidence for the close relationship between the gut and the brain is growing year after year.
Now, watch this part.
See if this sounds like me.
Some experts are now so convinced by the results they refer to the gut as the body's second brain.
What do I tell you almost every day?
Almost every day I tell you that your body is your brain.
There's no such thing as the brain in its own little closed-off area, and then your body is your body.
No, your body is your brain.
If you don't have all that chemistry right in your body, your brain isn't working.
Period.
So your brain and your body are one tool.
All right.
Reportedly, Elon Musk is going to use his AI called XAI and do a little standalone app.
So right now it only exists in X as Grok, but they're going to make their own standalone.
As far as I can tell, it seems way behind chat GPT. Because Grok, so far, doesn't have images and it doesn't have ability to talk to it.
There's a lot it doesn't do.
I don't know if it's going to catch up.
I keep seeing stories that say that Elon Musk's version is going to catch up to ChatGPT.
But it doesn't look like it's happening.
So, I mean, it could happen quickly if they make some big change, I suppose.
But I don't know.
Meanwhile, the oceans cool the planet more than we thought.
Also, according to No Ridge.
So, it turns out that the ocean gives off some kind of sulfur gas.
And that hadn't been totally understood.
And that sulfur gas cools the climate more than previously thought.
So, what they're doing is...
They're going back to all their climate models, and now they're using this new knowledge about the sulfur that's coming out of the ocean and how it cools things to modify their models.
Now, here's an interesting question.
Why do they need to modify the models?
I've been told quite reliably that 98% of all scientists say the models are telling us enough of what we need to know.
I mean, nothing's perfect.
But they're telling us enough of what we need to know that we can put trillions and trillions of dollars into it.
So why do we need to fix the models?
I thought you told me the models already worked because you asked me for trillions of dollars.
So why do I have a new story every single day about a new variable that they didn't know about that's very large and so they're incorporating it into the models?
Any of you who have lived in the real world as long as I have, you know what that means, right?
If you have a model that's telling you the truth, and then you keep changing the model by adding variables almost every week, and the variables are kind of big, and no matter what you do, you still get the same answer.
If you're 25, you think that means that climate change is real and they've got a real good beat on it.
When you're 65, the fact that they change it every week tells you that they don't know what they're doing.
It's a real big difference in experience.
Am I right?
Those of you who are older and have experience, when you see that they're adding a new variable to their complicated models and they're adding it every week, and they're big variables, that tells you it's bullshit.
There's no other explanation.
There literally is no other explanation.
But if you're young, you just think, oh, the models were good before, and they're getting better.
No, that's not what's happening.
All right.
Meanwhile, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation, America's most expensive DEI program is about to go away.
So apparently the University of Michigan had this, they've spent $250 million on DEI since 2016. And students and faculty have reported a deteriorating campus climate.
Racism is worse.
They have exactly the same percentage of black enrollment.
And they got absolutely nothing out of it except people feeling bad about each other.
So that's what they got for $250 million.
Hey, does anybody know how they could have saved $250 million?
Is there anything they could have done?
Anybody they could have asked, hey, we just need your advice.
Should we spend $250 million on this?
Well, they should have asked Scott because I would have told them, you know, if you divide people into groups and say that one of those groups is the oppressor and one group is the victim, what's going to happen?
What's going to happen?
Use my giant brain to predict into the future.
You divide people into groups and you make one the oppressor and one the victim.
How does that turn out?
Oh, you wasted your $250 million.
That's a quarter of a billion.
Do you think that university could have done anything useful with a quarter of a billion dollars?
Like teaching classes better and paying teachers more?
Stuff like that.
By the way, the university is talking about shake-handing the whole thing.
Because the program created, quote, a culture of grievance.
Huh.
Who could have seen that coming?
A culture of grievance.
Hmm.
Maybe they should have asked me.
Well, you can see that's all happening now.
If the biggest, I think the biggest employer isn't, is Walmart the biggest employer outside the government?
So the government is the biggest employer.
They're going to get rid of DEI under Trump.
If you count the military, they're going to get rid of DEI. Walmart, I don't know if they're the biggest company, at least employment-wise, but they got rid of DEI. And now the largest in the university world, in terms of spending and how much attention they gave it, looks like they're talking about just getting rid of it entirely.
Everything's going my way.
All right.
Meanwhile, according to The Hill, America's opinion of the Republican Party is on the rise, and America's opinion of the Democrats is on the decline.
Why?
Well, I don't know.
But in the poll, 45% of Americans said they feel favorable towards the Republicans.
Now, it's still under 50%.
So, it's not the best in the world.
But 45%, how does that compare to how people feel about Democrats?
Oh, not so well.
So, GOP went...
Who said they felt unfavorable?
Oh, so the GOP went down a little bit, but it's still bigger than the Democrats.
The Democrats are...
39% had a good feeling about their party, and more Republicans liked their party.
That makes sense.
I mean, nobody's surprised by that, right?
Joe Rogan made a little news again, as he does.
I'll tell you, the thing about Joe Rogan that is the least appreciated is the mistakes he doesn't make.
So you know how the dog not barking is the one you don't notice?
The mistakes that could easily be made that Joe Rogan doesn't make...
It's kind of impressive.
I'm more and more of the opinion that Joe Rogan is just one of the smartest people we've ever seen in the public sphere.
But part of what makes him smart is he doesn't act smart.
He doesn't rub it in your face or wear a robe or something.
He just lives his life.
But if you sort of follow him for years, as I have, and many of you have, Where are all the dumb things?
Have you noticed?
There's no dumb things.
Like, everybody who talks that much to that many people, they're going to have some dumb stuff in their catalog, right?
The dumbest thing that Joe Rogan has done has turned out to be right.
You know, like taking ivermectin and stuff like that.
So even the things he was criticized for the most, well, kind of turned out right.
But here's another one.
Apparently Zelensky...
Wanted to come on Joe Rogan's podcast.
And according to Rogan, he said Zelensky tried to come on.
Yeah, they tried to get Zelensky on, he says.
I was like, what are you talking about?
And he does sort of a weird voice because he's just joking.
What are you talking about?
So that was exactly the right response.
No, don't put Zelensky on Joe Rogan's show.
So Rogan, quite correctly, realized this was a propaganda run and nothing good could come from it.
Now, remember, he wanted to talk to both the presidential candidates.
So if it was American business and it was political, he was all in.
He had Bernie Sanders on.
But Zelensky is not like the others.
He's just pure propaganda.
So Roga's like, no.
Again, if he had never told you that story, that Zelensky pitched it and he said no, I mean, think about how big the ratings would have been.
It's not like he was unaware that the ratings would have been monumental.
Of course they would have been.
And he still said, no.
That was the right answer.
I think he got the right answer there.
Let's talk about Putin.
So Putin's psychology game is, I was going to say second to none, but it might be second to Trump.
One of the reasons that I think those two bond a little bit, as adversaries, but they bond, is that they're also good at the psychology.
Just listen to what Putin says.
And I'm not going to try to convince you that Putin means every word he says and it's all completely honest.
We don't have to have that conversation, right?
We don't need any NPCs stormy in and saying, oh, you're Putin's puppet.
How could you believe what Putin said?
No, nothing like that's going to happen.
I'm going to tell you what Putin said.
I'm going to tell you what effect I think it had.
But I'm not going to tell you that Putin's the smartest person in the world and everything he says is true and we should do what he says.
So NPCs, calm down.
Calm down.
You can handle this.
So here are some of the things Putin said.
I guess he was at some event and made some news.
He said that Trump is intelligent and he will find a solution to the Ukraine war.
So, interesting.
Trump gets criticized for calling Putin smart and capable.
And his critics say, what?
How can you compliment that monster?
Don't you know he's your enemy?
Stop saying good things about him.
But there's the enemy, allegedly, Putin.
And he's doing the same thing.
He's returning the compliment.
That's a pretty big compliment.
You know, if Putin says that you're intelligent and you're going to find a solution to the war, like almost matter-of-factly, whereas the current president did not find a solution to the war and it doesn't look like there was any chance that was ever going to happen, you can see that Putin's trying to get on the good side of Trump.
Now, do you think Putin has intel that if he praises Trump and makes his ego feel good, that he might get a better deal?
Of course he does.
Because literally every person in America says, Trump just listens to the last person in the room and whoever kisses his ass the most.
Now, do you think anybody really knows that?
No.
Do you know why Trump listens to the last person in the room?
Does anybody know why?
Because at some point you have to be done.
You have to be done, make a decision at some point.
It's sort of like you find the lost thing in the last place you look.
Because the last place you look is where you found it.
So there's no place to look after you've found it.
So when the last person leaves the room, that's when he realizes that he's made a decision.
Because now he's heard both sides, but now he's heard the side he likes.
He wants to hear that one more time.
That's the one you want to hear before you make your decision, the one that you were leaning toward.
Just make sure it still sounds good.
So yes, it should be completely normal that in general you're going to agree with the last person out of the room.
It's probably pretty normal.
It doesn't mean every time, but a lot of times it's just the most normal way that anything works.
However, let's see.
Sorry.
Putin said he was ready for peace talks with Ukraine without preconditions, but on the same terms he laid out over the summer, which are preconditions.
So Putin says he wants to have a talk without preconditions, as long as we're taking all the preconditions into consideration.
The preconditions would be Ukraine decides not to be part of NATO and that basically Putin keeps the four areas that he already conquered and he already owns, basically.
So that sounds like exactly the deal we all know is going to happen.
So that's interesting.
Putin also said that he thinks Trump's life is in danger.
Was in danger and is now.
And even the cabinet members are at risk.
You know that Tom Holtman and at least someone else who was a cabinet pick got some death threats over the weekend.
So things are looking dangerous and Putin is warning that there's a genuine threat to Trump.
So here's what I want to know.
Do you think that Putin's intelligence, in other words, his intel departments, do you think that they know enough about the American government that they know that the Democrats or somebody is planning to try to kill Trump?
Because there's no way we would know whether he is just saying that for a fact or if he actually has information.
Because he wouldn't want to give away that he has information because that would give away his sources and methods, right?
So the thing I wonder is does Putin know more than we do about the threat?
Now here again, I compliment Putin for his psychology game Without being a supporter of him because he's a terrible, terrible murderer of people.
It's really smart for him to talk about the risk to Trump.
Because if nothing happens to Trump, then he's sort of a good guy who showed some empathy for Trump and warned him.
And if something does happen to Trump, he's the guy who warned him.
So warning Trump about the danger is just a smart play.
Like, it's good no matter what happens.
It's good for Putin.
It's not good for us.
And Putin went and he legalized crypto in Russia, and he slashed taxes on mining, mining from crypto, I guess.
I think that's what that means.
And he...
Trading income will be taxed at 13% and blah, blah, blah, more if it's more.
So basically, he's big on crypto.
What do you think of that?
Well, you know, Trump is pro-crypto compared to any prior president.
And I've heard some people say that crypto is the only way the US ends up financially okay.
And what I mean by that is that if you own some crypto, let's say Bitcoin specifically, it's odds of going up in value, the smart people say, it's almost guaranteed.
Now, the counterargument would be there's something that we find out that we didn't know about.
And that's a pretty big risk.
For example, finding out that there's some way to hack or steal your crypto wallet that nobody could have seen coming and no way to fix it.
Now, I haven't seen that.
But you could sort of imagine that something that's a technology, there might be some vulnerability that you haven't seen yet.
But if that doesn't happen, that alleged hypothetical vulnerability that nobody has quite seen yet, all of the signals say that crypto will just keep going up basically forever.
So, if you had, for example, a bunch of cash investments and you had a little bit of crypto, your situation should be that your cash will inflate away to zero.
And your crypto will make up all the difference.
So if you had, I don't know what the percentages would be because nobody knows what the future is, but I'll just give you numbers to like kind of tell the story, but don't get caught up on the percentages, okay?
So if, for example, 80% of your wealth was in cash-like things, you know, like stocks and bonds and cash, that could actually go to zero.
Over time.
I mean, not tomorrow, but it could go to zero over time just because of inflation.
So not actually zero, but it could become so little that, you know, you wish you didn't own it.
Crypto could make up all of that difference.
So if you had 20% crypto and 80% regular cash, you might find that the one going up is about matching the one going down.
But I'm not smart enough or wise enough to say that 20% crypto is a smart number.
It's not what I have.
I have less.
So I'm not giving you any advice on crypto.
This is not financial advice.
But if you're trying to figure out how in the world does the United States survive...
Crippling debt that just can't be paid back, basically.
It can't be paid back.
Let's be honest.
We're not going to pay back any $35 trillion.
$36 trillion.
Nobody's getting paid back.
We're going to inflate it away.
And people will wish they didn't own it, basically.
So it could be that the only way out is crypto.
If the government owns some, as well as all the citizens, then we could pay our taxes in it, etc., So then if you take that context and then you look at Putin legalizing crypto and trying to get ahead of crypto, could it be that Putin knows, because he's a pretty smart player, that Russia also has to have crypto or else they're doomed?
Or maybe he needs to own crypto to have some kind of leverage over the West.
So when I see Putin going hard at crypto, It makes me think that he might be thinking a few moves ahead of us.
So having Trump in office surrounded by smart people who are pro-crypto, it feels good.
I'm glad that the Trump administration, not Trump specifically, he's no crypto expert, but he's certainly surrounded by people who are going to advise him well on that, I think.
Meanwhile, France has announced that NetYahu is entitled to immunity from the International Criminal Court because they're not a party to the court.
Now, why did it take me until today to realize that?
So the International Criminal Court...
There's a bunch of countries that signed up, but it does not include the United States, and it does not include Israel, for, I suppose, obvious reasons, because basically we'd be the only ones taken to court.
But France is saying, we're not going to arrest somebody who never signed that treaty, to which I say, oh, why did it never occur to me that you wouldn't arrest somebody who wasn't part of the treaty so they couldn't have broken it?
Makes sense.
Now, obviously, that was just a workaround because France doesn't want to be enemies with Israel.
But it's just funny that I didn't see that obvious play, that you can't arrest somebody who didn't sign up for it.
It's worth a shot.
Eric Weinstein agrees with me on physics.
The difference between us is that he is deeply, let's say, deeply invested and educated and experienced in the domain of physics and has his own well-educated, smart thoughts about string theory.
And his well-educated thoughts match my own thoughts for the past 20 years.
For at least 20 years, I've been saying, you know this string theory thing?
It sure has every signal for being bullshit.
Now, obviously, I have no science background whatsoever, but everything that I kept hearing about it, every time I heard something about it, I thought, you know, I don't think that even looks real.
It just doesn't even look real.
And Eric Weinstein says that string theory is sort of Been the dominant thing people were trying to look at for the theory of everything to tie everything together.
And then because it was so dominant as a promising direction that it blocked any real breakthroughs for 40 years.
And that at least Eric is confident or optimistic, I'll say.
He's optimistic that after 40 years of not getting the job done, that a physicist might be willing to To look past it now.
And if they look past it, suddenly the possibility of major, major breakthroughs might be better.
Now, this is sort of one of those hunch kind of ideas, because you don't know what the future looks like.
So, you know, you don't know that there's something out there that's better than string theory and that we have access to it and it'll make a difference.
We don't know that.
But to me, it's a warm feeling to know that somebody who is as deep into this topic as Eric is, has exactly the same opinion I did as just somebody who can spot bullshit pretty easily.
The only thing I claim is not that I know what is true, but I can often spot what isn't.
So that's my only comment on string theory is like, I don't know.
Every time I read a story about this, it's not that I think the science is wrong.
It's that everything about this just smells wrong.
Just everything about it.
I agree with Eric.
I think that's the way it's going to go.
But it's a hunch on my part, not based on any knowledge.
Well, as you know, Trump is planning to do this largest deportation ever by Axios reports, and I was waiting for this to happen.
I kind of suspected that sooner or later the news would start telling you the following thing.
You're not going to get many illegal people.
So I and Holman and Trump and everybody smart said the same thing.
They said, we're obviously going to focus all of our resources on getting rid of the criminals.
And we don't know how long that's going to take.
And there's so many of them.
But it turns out if you put all your resources on it, yeah, you might get a few.
There just aren't many.
And Axios has a story here.
I won't go through the details.
You can read it yourself in Axios.
But for example...
There are a whole bunch of people who are felons who have been convicted of horrible things like homicide and sexual assault, but you can't deport any of them until they finish their jail sentences.
So you've got 29,000 people who are the most hardened, worst criminals, and we have them in custody, and they're not going to get deported because they're already in jail, and jail is the place, I guess, the law says they've got to be.
And then there are a few other examples like that.
Where there are people who are sort of here legally, etc.
So it's possible that Holman won't be able to find big busloads of people to send anywhere.
So maybe what you're worried about where you're seeing the military round up giant groups of people and keep them in detention centers until the military transport can get there and take them back.
It's a terrible visual.
You don't want to live in the country where you're seeing your military carrying anybody away, like for anything.
It's just a terrible look.
I'm pro-deportation, for the criminals especially, but it's a bad look.
So I don't think we're going to have that look.
I think there might be an anecdotal here or there.
There might be a bus full of people or a detention center that's there temporarily.
But my current feeling is if we stop the new immigrants, the new illegal immigrants, if we stop that pretty well, and I think Trump will do that, that the gigantic migration, immigration, even if we try as hard as we can, It's just hard.
And I think it'll be half bustles, and it just won't be that much of a visual problem.
That's my guess.
So my prediction is you'll see a few anecdotal reports, so there will be some reports of too much deportation.
But they'll be so limited and so just, you know, temporary that it's not really going to change the public view of things too much.
That's what I think.
There is also the claim that immigrants do less crime than Americans.
And that's offered as the argument that you should not deport.
So does that argument work with you?
That the average immigrant...
Let's do two takes on this.
So here what we're going to do is just work through the thinking.
So we're only talking about how to think about it.
Should you say, hey, let's have more immigration because on average they lower our average crime rate?
Does that make sense?
Let's lower our average by having more immigration because apparently the more immigrants you have, the lower your crime rate is because they have a lower crime rate.
Do you buy that?
Let's say it's true just for a moment.
Let's say they do have a lower crime rate.
There are also 29,000 felons who are convicted of homicide or sexual assault.
That's 29,000 people who would be alive if we didn't have illegal immigration.
29,000 people would be alive or not raped.
Doesn't that feel like a lot?
I mean, I know it's a big country and the 29,000 would be over multiple years, but Doesn't your government and your citizens, do not your citizens have the right to say, I don't care that they have a better rate.
I want them to kill zero people.
If somebody comes into your house and slaughters your family, and the police say, whoa, turns out that the odds of somebody coming into your house and slaughtering your family are way low.
So stop worrying about it.
You'll be like, but, but, they slaughtered my family.
I know, but as a percentage of all the crime, it's very low.
But my family's dead.
I think you need to be a little less racist about this.
Yes, they did get slaughtered by somebody, but as a percentage, it was very unlikely.
So if you could just get over it.
Yeah.
So I think that both things can be true.
I did look a little bit at some of the studies, and I would say that there is some good evidence that the recent immigrants are lower at crime.
Now, what they said was, I know what you're going to say.
Don't say it.
I know what one of you is going to say, because there's always at least one.
Somebody here is going to say, Scott, The American crime rate is not like one average.
Are they doing more or less crime than black Americans?
More or less than white Americans?
More or less than Asian Americans?
Well, I saw one study that said that they do less crime than white Americans.
Do you know they left out?
As they always do, Asian Americans.
Do you know how often these stories just act like there are no Asian Americans?
All right, now let's ask the question again.
I'm an Asian American, and you tell me that I'm bringing in immigrants, but don't worry.
Their crime rate is less than the white people.
And as an Asian American, I say, what?
It's less than the white people?
Is it less than Asian Americans?
No, no.
It's more than Asian Americans.
But it's less than the white people.
How do you feel about that?
So you're going to increase the rate of crime in my community?
Yeah, but it's still less than the white people.
I'm just amused that the Asian Americans do such a good job of staying out of jail and making money and staying married and basically doing everything right, just continuously, and then get left out of the conversation because they do everything right.
Anyway, good job, Asian Americans.
But here was one of the hypotheses about why the immigrants are less likely to be involved in crime.
And here comes the kill shot.
Are you ready for this?
This is not going to make you happy.
I'm going to give you a reason.
Now, this is just one person's speculation, but it sounded so good, I'm going to embrace it as my own.
There is a reason that recent immigrants are more likely or less likely to do a crime.
You're not going to like it.
Here's a reason that recent immigrants are less likely to do crime.
You ready for it?
Because they're more likely to be employed, married with children, and in good health.
Oh, no.
No!
No!
No.
No, no.
Is that true?
Is it true recent immigrants are more likely to be employed, married with children, and in good health?
Because those things are very predictive that you're not going to do a crime.
I think these are true.
You know, anecdotally, Anecdotally, it's true.
Every time I think of somebody in my own life who was born in another country, they're married, they're employed, they have children, and they go to church.
Damn it.
Damn it.
They're Republicans.
Let me say it the fast way.
Yes, the reason that immigrants do not commit as many crimes is because they're Republicans.
They don't know they're Republicans.
They just act like it.
Get a job, get married, have kids, go to church.
Republicans!
So if I said to you, immigrants tend to be Republicans, with all that comes with it, Getting jobs and getting married and staying out of jail.
That's easy to accept, isn't it?
If I tell you that immigrants don't have a high crime rate, your first reaction is, ah, it's not the rate I'm looking at.
I'm looking at 29,000 people in jail for murder and rape.
But if I told you we brought in a million people who are basically Republicans, And I say, whoa, whoa, whoa, a million people?
What about all the crime?
And I say, yes, there's definitely crime because any group of people would have extra crime.
But they're essentially the same rate of crime as Republicans.
And then what do I do?
What do I do then?
Because let's say I'm a Republican and I like Republicans and I agree that they don't do a lot of crime.
Anyway, so as I often say, if somebody tells you the raw number of something and doesn't tell you the percentage, they are a propagandist.
That's brainwashing, and they're not trying to tell you something useful.
Likewise, if they tell you the percentage but not the raw number, They're propagandists.
They're trying to brainwash you.
They're not trying to have an honest conversation.
You need to look at both every time, or you don't know anything.
And I think it can be 100% true that on average, we're bringing in a pretty high class of people, at least in terms of cultural compatibility with America.
At the same time, we're bringing in a whole bunch of criminals.
They can both be true.
We simply have to do a better job of everything that we're already doing.
And I think everybody agrees with that.
Meanwhile, Tom Holman, who's going to be the head of the border stuff, he was challenged by, I guess, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston Because Mike Johnson said he's not going to let the citizens of his city who are maybe undocumented,
he's not going to let them be rounded up and taken to jail and that people like him will be putting their bodies in the way, basically protesting in a physical way.
And he doesn't care if he has to go to jail for it.
He's willing to go to jail to defy Trump's deportation operation.
So somebody asked Tom Holman about the fact that the Denver mayor is willing to go to jail to stop deportation.
And Tom Holman, without cracking his smile, says, and I paraphrase, well, at least we found something we agree on.
He's willing to go to jail and I'm willing to put him in jail.
And may I drop my mic?
There, mic drop.
Yes, Tom Holman.
That was kind of perfect communication right there.
Yeah, Tom Holman is good in general.
He's a good communicator.
But every now and then he'll hit like a, you know, just a base-clearing home run.
That's a base-clearing home run.
Yep, we agree.
You're willing to go to jail.
I'm willing to put you there.
What's next?
Nicely done.
Communication-wise, I'm talking about.
I saw a video of Tulsi Gabbard, and I didn't remember she did this, but when she was talking about why she was leaving the Democrat Party, she mentioned they were warmongers, which didn't make sense for her, and that they were too woke, but also she said directly that they were anti-white racists, the Democrat Party.
I don't remember her saying that directly.
But I'd like to thank her, because that's both honest and true.
So, yes, the Democrats are an anti-white racist party.
I see them as racists, primarily.
Anyway, so speaking of being verbally good, there's this representative, Van Orden.
He was being challenged by a CNN guy.
CNN host was asking about Trump's tariffs and that Trump's tariffs would increase food prices.
So how would you answer that?
Because everybody's worried about the price of eggs and whatnot.
So food prices are, you could argue, are number one, you know, really Main Street kind of issue.
And Trump's talking about tariffs, and tariffs would increase prices.
Everybody understands that.
And here's what Representative Van Orden said, quote, I'm willing to pay more for guacamole if it means fentanyl poison doesn't come across our border.
Oh, wow.
Oh, wow.
Now, that's some good communicating.
Now, is it sort of accurate?
No, well, no.
No.
I mean, it's not guacamole to fentanyl.
If it were only guacamole to fentanyl, we would all eat fewer avocados and we wouldn't notice because we just eat other stuff.
But the bigger problem is that all food price or enough of the food goes up in price that it hits everybody.
So it's certainly not as easy as avoiding avocados.
However, When Representative Van Orden puts it in that term, it is so linguistically excellent in terms of an argument.
So this is just a persuasion lesson.
I'm not talking about the policy, just about the persuasion and the communication.
So nice job.
So this raises my flag.
So I've never heard of Representative Van Orden before, but he said a second thing.
He said about fentanyl, he said everyone is now one degree of separation from somebody who died from a fentanyl death.
I think that's close to true, that pretty much everybody knows somebody.
I mean, in my case, my stepson, but you all know me.
So every one of you who knows me knows you're one degree away.
And most of you know somebody else who's one degree away.
Now, both of those sentences are really strong.
Of all the things you could have said about this topic, Van Orden reached into the middle and picked out two of the best.
That probably is not a coincidence.
So what I'd ask you, just keep an eye on this guy.
Because this is unusually good communication.
And when you see that, it's usually a leading indicator you're going to see more of this person.
So keep an eye on him.
Rob Reiner has allegedly deleted his account on X after Trump won.
Breitbart News is reporting this.
And we think he's probably going over to Blue Sky.
I think he's...
Is that confirmed?
I don't know.
But Blue Sky is the new competitor to Jack Dorsey's new product.
And apparently the uptick is pretty good.
It's getting a lot of people.
But I just want to point out something that somebody pointed out in the comments to me earlier.
You can be on Axe.
Or you can be on blue sky.
What would be the initials for blue sky?
If you're going to use an acronym.
Blue sky.
Well, I would use the B. I'd probably use the S from sky.
That would be...
Oh.
It's literally BS. All right, but here's the thing I think is funny.
If Blue Sky had started in a, let's say, an organic way, where it was just a product and everybody had a chance to use it, and if they liked it, they used it some more, they would probably have a normal mix of, you know, left and right political people, because everybody would have seen it as just a product.
So it's not political, it's just a product.
But because we're highly politicized, especially at the moment, people see blue sky as where the good and noble Democrats can go, and they see X as that polluted right-wing conspiracy place.
So, presumably, blue sky now has the greatest number of people with mental health issues of any platform ever.
And I mean that seriously.
I would bet you, any amount of money really, that if you just looked at the percentage of users of any other platform, Facebook, X, anything else, anything else, Rumble, that you would find that Blue Sky probably has just through the roof therapy and mental health meds and every kind of anxiety and depression and Let's just say that they wouldn't know their whole body
is also their brain.
Have you noticed how many people on the left who seem to have defective brains?
And by defective, I mean either they're not very bright, which is, that's a problem that's on the left and the right, of course.
There's always some people who are not bright.
But the ones who seem crazy, have you noticed that their bodies also look deformed?
Have you noticed?
You have noticed, haven't you?
Yeah.
You look at their bodies, and then you listen to them, you go, wow, the things that are coming out of their brains sound just crazy.
It's not their brain.
Their body is their brain.
If your body is destroyed, as many of the people on the left have destroyed their bodies, you're going to get just crazy stuff coming out of your mouth.
And that would be a very typical, predictable, scientifically compatible prediction that you can feel pretty confident about.
That if you have one group where their bodies are a mess and one group on the right, especially young men who are very interested in keeping their physical fitness going, You should have one group that's happy and one group that's sad.
And I think because of the weird situation of everything being politicized, that the people with the worst brains, not necessarily born the worst, but because their body is their brain, if they didn't take care of it, it's just not working very well.
And they all ended up in blue sky.
So I'd be real curious if I'm right, that if you went to Blue Sky, it would look like a mental illness festival.
And it wouldn't have if it had just been a non-political time when it was launched.
So, we'll see.
But at the same time that Rob Reiner left, all of my paid trolls are gone.
I don't know if you were watching the fun, but for the past year or so, they're very obviously paid.
And the way you know they're paid is that they show up like it's time for work.
So if I would do a post that made any good point against Democrats or for Trump, the first comment, 100% of the time, the first one would be a troll.
And the way you can know they're a troll is that they have maybe four or five messages that they repeat that are not the ones anybody else ever says.
It's obvious that at some point in time, somebody made a list of all the things you say to Scott.
So you say to him, oh, Scott, your opinion of politics is as good as you're taking care of your stepson who died of fentanyl.
That was one of them.
Very common.
Oh, I guess that's why you're divorced.
Which would have nothing to do with politics or anything I said.
And I guess that's why you're cancelled.
So they would go for what they thought was the most psychologically destructive thing they could say.
Completely divorced.
From whatever point I tried to make.
So in other words, they weren't saying, oh, have you checked the source?
They were not saying your facts are wrong.
They were not saying, have you considered this?
They were not saying, here's the fact check.
They were saying, what can I say that will make this guy not want to spend another second on X and want to get a high-powered rifle and do something bad?
And then they would pick that.
It's very obvious that there were like five things on the list and that it was somebody's job to sit there and when it goes bing, they know I've gone and they quickly go to their list.
They go, ooh, Adams.
Five things.
Marriage, fentanyl.
I'll pick number three.
It was very obvious because nobody else was doing it except the first comment of everyone that was a political post.
And if I posted something that was just interesting or fun, Nope.
Don't show up.
So these were not political actors.
And I could tell they were not political.
In 2016, I have to admit, I couldn't tell.
I just thought there were terrible people on the internet because there are terrible people everywhere.
I thought, whoa, some of these are more terrible than others.
But once I understood that, was it from?
I guess that's, was that the name of the guy who organized the trolls for the 2016 cycle?
So we knew actually, after the fact, after the 2016 election, we knew who hired the trolls.
We knew the budget.
It was exactly what it looked like.
What I couldn't tell then is whether some of the people were just organically bad and some of the people were paid, but I couldn't tell which are paid and which are organic.
But this last cycle, the paid ones were just so obvious.
So every time they did it, I would just respond, paid troll.
How many times did you see me do that?
Because it was almost every day.
Paid troll, paid troll.
And it was always the first comment.
Anyway, I'm glad they're gone.
It's really different on X now.
Heather MacDonald was doing some writing recently in, I forget what publication, but talking about how men and women generally differ and how they prioritize safety and inclusion versus accepting conflict.
And it goes to point out that there may be a Maybe some evolutionary reason where men handle conflict differently from women.
And the observation is this.
I've made the same observation, which is that men can fight and go at each other like crazy, but if they find a reason to agree and work together, they can almost instantly get over it, like the past just goes away.
And we shake hands and And we apologize and we accept apologies.
And we say, oh, well, that was an ugly moment we had there together.
Glad that's gone.
And now we're friends.
Or now we're allies or co-workers or whatever we need to be.
So the thought was that men knew that their best survival mechanism was to not turn every enemy into either dead or you stay an enemy, but sometimes just get them on your side, and then you have an extra person on your but sometimes just get them on your side, and then you So having an extra man on your side is going to keep you alive.
So the thinking is that we're just evolved, that men are easier to say, all right, I'm over it.
Let's move on.
And that women would be less likely to get over it and sort of keep it as a permanent source of at least mental conflict.
So, in other words, when men hear a provocative speech, they might enjoy the debate, enjoy the fight, and also be able to get over it instantly.
Whereas women, if they go online and they see a debate, they might also be drawn into the debate, but they're not enjoying it, and they're not getting over it.
So it's a whole different approach.
So the point of this is that there might be a male warrior hypothesis, and it might be hardwired biologically.
That fits with my observation.
So my observation is that men can get over disagreements pretty easily.
All right.
The LA Times owner...
Was doing an interview with ex-CNN star Oliver Darcy.
I didn't know Oliver Darcy got fired from CNN or did he quit?
He was terrible on CNN, but he went on his own now.
So the LA Times, as you know, has some rich owner who didn't want to endorse Kamala Harris.
He wanted to try to find some middle ground where he thought newspapers should be.
So he got a lot of pushback from that.
And apparently one of the new things he's doing is he wants to change up his LA Times editorial board and he's hired Scott Jennings.
So Scott Jennings, the viral superstar on CNN, the Trump sporting guy who embarrasses the other clowns at the table on a daily basis, was selected to be part of the LA Times editorial board.
So Good job, Scott Jennings.
Again, another Scott doing well.
But apparently the billionaire owner of the LA Times ended the call because Darcy just kept giving him a hard time about hiring Scott Jennings.
And apparently, Darcy ended up going full TDS, and the owner of the newspaper and his handler, whoever it was, was like, oh, we're done here.
Basically, they just dismissed him as not even a serious character, which was the right thing to do.
Now, I should tell you that the LA Times, when Dilbert was in newspapers before I got canceled, The LA Times was the only one that was canceling Dilbert or editing it, censoring it, actually.
LA Times was the only newspaper that routinely censored Dilbert.
Back in the days when Dilbert ran in every newspaper, the LA Times would just sometimes just not run one.
And it was just like laughably predictable.
I'd do a comic that was just a little bit edgy, but still rated G, because you can't really get past G in a newspaper.
It's still rated G. And the LA Times would say, oh, can't say that.
Every other newspaper would say yes.
So, I'm very up on this new owner.
It looks like he's trying to do a serious job.
Of improving the newspaper, and they certainly needed it.
Well, I read, I think it was in The Hill, they had a story about the Democrat bench for 2028. I'll tell you, when you look at what the smart people think are their best next politicians for running for president, it doesn't look like they have a chance.
So here are the names that are floating as their best candidates.
Kamala Harris.
Seriously?
Literally the worst campaign of all time, and she's running first.
Gavin Newsom.
Seriously?
Gavin Newsom?
He's like right at the top of your list after destroying California.
Gretchen Whitmer.
Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, and J.B. Pritzker.
Do you think any one of those could be a capable Republican?
And I can name, I don't know, probably 10 Republicans who could be any one of these people.
Am I wrong about that?
Am I wrong that there are at least, there have to be at least 10 prominent Republicans that could be everyone on this list?
These are not competitive.
I don't think Democrats have any understanding of what would even make their side competitive.
And the entertainment which I'm getting in watching them not understand anything, they don't understand anything.
It's really amazing.
I'm looking at some of your comments.
Those are weird.
Fetterman, you know what?
I don't think the Democrats would push Fetterman to the front of the line.
He may be a little bit of a problem because he doesn't obey the Democrats enough.
But if Fetterman wanted to take a run at it, he would be the one I'd worry about.
I don't want to give advice to the Democrats, but if I heard that Fetterman was running for president in the next cycle, I would say that's a problem.
Now, AOC has been mentioned.
I know that doesn't seem serious to me.
I can't imagine she would even win the primary.
But Fetterman?
Fetterman could really fool everybody because he does have the common touch and he doesn't seem to be willing to lie when everybody else is.
And I hate to say, that's a really attractive combination.
He is smart.
I mean, it was hard to tell when he had his stroke.
But he's an unusually smart person.
And he clearly cares about the country and clearly cares about people.
And he clearly is smarter than the average Democrat.
And he sees that there are some things that Republicans see that he says, that makes sense.
You can perfectly understand why the Republicans would feel this way.
So he's the only one who seems to have anything close to an understanding of what's happening.
I think Fetterman knows exactly what's wrong.
That the Democrats act like woke idiots.
The Republicans acted like problem solvers.
And we were not in a place where acting like a woke idiot was a luxury we could afford.
It was once.
At one point it was a luxury we could afford.
Not anymore.
Now you just need the solution to the problems.
To me, it never seemed like they were a close competition, even though the vote was closer than I thought it should be.
What if RFK goes back to the Democrat Party?
I don't think RFK Jr. has a chance in a race like that.
He's got so many points of attack.
I think he's serious about having one mission left.
He has his one mission, fix the food.
And I have high hopes that he will.
I see you got a copy of Loser Think.
I don't know how you got it.
It's no longer for sale.
It was one of my cancelled books, so you must have one of the used copies.
But maybe at some point I'll reissue that.
Democrats do not allow an independent thinker.
Thank you.
Yeah.
True that.
All right.
So I'll tell you again, if you don't have your Dilbert calendar ordered...
Just go to Dilbert.com and that's the only place you'll find the link to order it.
You will not find that link anywhere else.
It's not on Amazon.
It's not on bookstores.
Not in Walmart.
But the books are.
My books make excellent gifts.
They change lives.
The first two, reframe your brain and how to fail at almost everything, those are total life changers.
I hear it every day.
And I guarantee it, by the way.
If I weren't hearing it every single day, I wouldn't say that.
But every day, I hear people say, oh, it changed my whole life.
So, it's a good gift if you want to change somebody's life.
Hey, you got a lot of calendars there.
If AOC... Well, AOC is married.
And if she had children, would she be a better politician?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Loop speak.
The media will pump up the chosen...
Yeah.
But I don't know if the media has the ability to drag a bad candidate over the finish line anymore.
They did with Biden.
But it looked like they couldn't with Harris.
Maybe she was just extra bad.
But it does seem that the rise of the podcasters is a real thing.
It's going to last for a while.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got for today.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately in a moment.
