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, Health AI Diagnosis, Keir Starmer, UK Immigration Policy, UK White Flight, Syria Conflict, Richard Grenell, President Trump, Unidentified Drone Swarms, Coordinated Media Narratives, Trump Nominee Background Checks, DOGE Billionaire Volunteers, Jamie Dimon, Dr. Gottlieb Pfizer, Healthcare System Trust, Melania Trump Debanked, Barron Trump Debanked, Megyn Kelly, Alexander Vindman, Elon Musk, Mayor Adams, J6 Prisoner Pardons, Angela Rye, Justin Trudeau Mar-A-Lago, Common Sense Golden Age, Lara Trump's Potential, Ukraine Peace Negotiation, Gold-Based Cancer Drug, Fenbendazole, Kamala Campaign Spending Audit, James Carville, Christopher Rufo, Ivy League DEI, 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
Up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker, chelsea, and a canteen sugar flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip.
And it happens.
Now...
Oh, are you ready for a big dose of golden age?
Things looking so good you can't even believe it.
Well, you came to the right place.
Because we got news.
Oh, we got news.
So according to Neoscope, whatever that is, doctors have figured out how to make dead brains show signs of life.
So far, they've only done it in a pig, and they shot some juice into the pig, the dead pig's brain, and it showed signs of possible life.
And it was just a head, a pig's dead head.
Now, they don't have a name for this chemical yet, but the working name is Biden Juice.
Biden Juice.
Because it's what you shoot into a dead brain to make it appear that it's alive, but maybe not.
Yeah, Biden juice.
All right, did you know that marijuana use is associated with enough pain reduction that sometimes it can replace opioid prescriptions?
You could have learned this from Anthony Martinelli, who wrote about it in the Marijuana Herald.
Or what would be another way?
Let me think.
What would be another way you could have learned that marijuana reduces pain and in some cases can make it unnecessary to have heavier pain medications?
Who?
Who?
Who could you have asked?
Who?
That's right.
Me.
Because it saves the money.
Yep.
Marijuana will help you with your pain and suffering.
It won't replace everything, but for the lower end stuff, you might do the trick.
How many of you remember a few years ago or a year ago?
I'm losing all my sense of things.
By the way, let me put the locals' comments up here special so I can not miss a thing that they say.
They are so clever.
There we go.
There we go.
I can see you plainly now.
So, do you remember, I'm trying to think of the timing, and I also don't know if I have a false memory, so I need you to remind me.
Did I once recommend that AI be used to decipher the omnibus bills so that the public could tell what's actually in the law that's being considered?
Did I once suggest that?
And then I remember there was at one point Elon Musk said that Grok would be able to do that.
Do you remember that?
Well, apparently, Grok can now do that.
I don't know when it got that ability, but it's only being confirmed now.
So somebody mentioned just recently, hey, would it be good if Grok could summarize the omnibus bills?
And Musk responded, Grok can already do this.
But wait, it gets better.
This part is really good.
If you're not loving the golden age by the time I'm done today, you're dead on the inside.
Because we got some good stuff today.
Some, like, seriously good stuff.
You ready for this?
According to Elon, Grok 3, which I guess is coming up soon, we are adding all court cases to the training set.
It will render extremely compelling legal verdicts.
That's the end of the lawfare.
I don't know, but he might have ended lawfare, because if I take the President Trump situations and put them into his highly capable grok that has trained on all training sets, and then I ask it the following question, do you think somebody else would have been charged with this?
What's it going to say?
Elon Musk may have, and I'm going to say accidentally, because I don't know there was any intentionality here, he may have developed a solution to lawfare.
Because we humans can argue about it forever, but if we learn to trust the AI, when the AI says this should have been innocent or it should have been guilty, what are we going to do when Grok says it should have been one way and the jury says it should have been the other?
Oh, this is good stuff.
So we might have an ability to understand what our Congress is doing, thanks to Grok, and we might also be able to sort out what's law fair and what is just, you know, nobody's more important than the law.
It could be.
I mean, I'm getting ahead of myself, because in the real world, anything can not work, even if you think it's a good idea.
But I can't think of two better ideas.
Can you?
Can you think of any better two ideas that we need other than understanding what we're really voting for?
My God.
And secondly, understanding if the court cases are politically oriented or if it makes sense based on our history.
So, that's good news.
According to Peter Diamandis, MD, he thinks we have less than five years before it will be considered malpractice for a doctor to diagnose you without using AI. Now, do you remember what I always tell you is one of the best ways to predict the future?
Are you thinking of it right now?
One of the best ways to predict the future in the realm of the commercial world?
Insurance.
Insurance.
Imagine, if you will, five years from now that we've determined with absolute certainty that the AI is a big, big help in diagnosing things.
In five years, we will certainly say that with complete confidence.
Now, imagine you go to the doctor and And you get some imaging of some kind, and your doctor doesn't show it to the AI for a second opinion.
It could, but it just doesn't.
The doctor could.
And then it turns out that things don't go well, but the AI would have given the better diagnosis and somebody dies.
What's the insurance company going to do?
The insurance company is going to put that doctor out of business.
And the doctor's going to say, well, you know, for five extra minutes of getting the AI to get a second opinion, I'm not going to take a chance of losing my insurance and therefore being in a business.
So talk about a prediction that you can guarantee.
This is not a prediction.
This is guaranteed.
Because if you understand the nature of the insurance market, once you know for sure that something makes something safer, it's like there's no doubt about it, You don't have an option of using it.
There's no option.
You're going to have to use it.
Because if you make a mistake without it, you're definitely going to get sued.
And you should be.
And you should be.
Now, I responded to this on X by saying that I already think that AI is my primary doctor.
And I mean that seriously.
Because there are kind of two categories of things.
There's little things, such as the other day I had a pretty bad abrasion on my arm.
I just was doing a home project and dropped something on it and just ripped my arm up.
And it started to look like it was maybe a little infected.
And so I thought, hmm, I should contact my doctor because I can email my doctor and say, does this look infected and should I do something about this?
But instead I thought, why don't I just ask perplexity?
So I go to perplexity and I say, hey, how should I treat a thing that might be getting infected?
And it says, oh, just get some anti-disinfectant spray on it.
You'll be fine.
So I got some antibiotics, sprayed it on there, slapped a big old Band-Aid on there.
Hey, look, it's fine.
It's all healed.
Now, so for little problems, you know, the kind that you could bother your doctor, but you don't even feel good about bothering your doctor because it doesn't seem like a big enough deal.
AI all day long.
I'll use AI all day long.
Now, there's another category.
What if it's really complicated?
Like, what if you get one of the big things, you know, one of the big problems?
Well, do you think your doctor is as up to date as AI is?
Probably not.
You know, you might get lucky.
And find a doctor who's like really doing a deep dive recently on a specific problem that you happen to have, we should be kind of lucky.
But even if you're talking to a professional who's a specialist, even the specialist doesn't have time to look into every study and look at every new article that comes out.
Nobody has that kind of time, but AI does.
So if you don't use AI at the same time as you're using your doctor, If only to have a way to talk to them.
If only to ask the right question.
If only so you double check it so you feel like maybe I don't need a second opinion because it looks like this is kind of common stuff.
So I would disagree with Diamandis a little bit in saying that common sense already requires it.
For most things.
The place where your regular doctor is still your better move is if it's something physical that has to be touched or poked or something like that.
There are probably half a dozen other ways, but at the very least, you should get a second opinion.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Does anyone disagree with a second opinion?
I think we're already there, right?
That you wouldn't necessarily take the AI over a human doctor.
I don't recommend that.
But you should certainly take what the AI said and bring it to your human doctor and say, how about this?
I recommend it.
All right, watch the insurance industry.
It drives everything.
Now, I can't get over this coincidence.
You know, I always think we're living in the simulation, and the evidence for it is just through the roof at this point.
In my opinion, the evidence that we are part of a simulation is just overwhelming.
Now, I know you're not convinced, and I won't try to convince you.
I'm just saying my own experience of it is kind of overwhelming.
Now, I'll give you another example.
So, for the first time in human history, It looks like most of the most developed countries in the entire world are having a serious population decline that could destroy civilization.
Now, of course, there are places in Africa, for example, where maybe the population is growing fine.
But most of the industrialized countries with the big weapons and the big economies are really going to head in one direction, and we know it.
I mean, there's some thinking that if we didn't have immigration in America, I saw somebody's estimate that we would be down by 32%, not very long, like one generation.
If America loses 32% of its population in one generation, I don't think we're going to be a superpower.
That doesn't sound too healthy, or at least it won't last long.
But here's my coincidence.
So how long have there been humans?
About 300,000 years?
Human civilization?
What's the official length of time that humans have been on Earth?
A million years?
Or is it more like the civilized part is maybe 300,000, something like that?
But in all that time, is it true that there's only been one time?
A very narrow little wedge of time.
In which we were failing to make enough extra humans in the whole world, you know, not just in some tribe, but in the whole world.
At the same time, robots are coming on board.
Oh, is that a coincidence?
What exactly would we point to to say that that's a coincidence?
Is it just that technology has that side effect that it makes you want to have fewer kids because the economy goes a certain way?
I don't know.
But now they have a robot that you can put with your kid.
So it's like a little robot friend.
You know, you could put it with like a two-year-old and just sort of talks to him and acts like a little friend.
That is one degree away from being the kid itself.
Right?
Now, if you think that people won't be replacing human children with robots, you're going to be wrong.
Humans will replace the idea of having a human child with a robot.
They're going to say it's cheaper.
They're going to say it's less, you know, less worry.
Because, you know, if it gets hit by a car, you just upgrade it and download the brain again.
It's going to keep you company.
It never needs to go to sleep.
It won't drool on you.
Now you're going to say to me, but Scott, Scott, Scott, this will never have the appeal of a human baby.
Like, you can't even understand it.
And I'm going to say, that's my point.
You think you're making your point that a human baby is so much better?
And if you could understand that, and if you could hold your own baby, which I've never done, by the way, hold your own biological baby, Scott, you would know that nobody, nobody is going to prefer a robot over that.
To which I say, what if you haven't done that?
What if you've never experienced it, like me?
And you said, do you want to be lonely or do you want to have a robot?
Because you can't afford a real kid.
Or maybe you don't have a partner.
There are a lot of people who are going to say, I get what you're saying, that a real woman, you know, if I were in a family and I had money and I was a certain age and everything worked out and I were healthy, I'd rather have a human new baby.
But I think you might find that something like half of all the population says, you know, the human baby thing, I love it, but it's out of reach.
But I'd sure like to have a little friend.
And these two things are happening at the same time.
The same time the population and the baby shortage is on is the same time that the baby replacements are being built.
And all that happened after a million years of human evolution, those two things happened at the same time?
Like, doesn't that feel like too much of a coincidence?
I don't know.
Maybe it's just a natural outcome of high technology and an economy that went a certain way, so maybe it's not that big of a coincidence, but it just feels weird that these two things happened at the same time.
And yes, real babies are better.
Alright, here's a story that I have to admit I don't understand at all.
You know, I don't follow events in the UK. So every time there's a big story over there, I remember when people were asking me about Brexit in the beginning.
People say, hey, what do you think about Brexit?
And I'd say, that sounds like something happening in another country.
I didn't have any interest at all.
I didn't know what it was.
Didn't feel like any interest to look it up.
And it wasn't until it passed that I thought, huh, maybe I should see what that is and kind of look into it a little bit.
But maybe I don't understand it still.
Because here's what I'm going to...
Here's what's in the news.
And I don't get what I'm seeing and reading.
So the British Prime Minister, Kerr Starmer, he's saying in public, he just did a speech, he said that...
Illegal migration to the UK has been by design.
And he says basically the country is being destroyed by immigration policies that were formed deliberately.
What am I missing?
Isn't he on the team that wanted this?
Do I have everything about UK politics backwards?
I thought Starmer was one of the people who was in favor of Liberal immigration.
Do I have that actually backwards?
Do I not even know who's left from the right over there?
What's going on?
Yeah, right.
I'm seeing in the comments that Starmer's the one doing it.
So are you as confused as I am?
You're confused, right?
And then he blamed Brexit.
He said that Brexit was used to turn the UK, I guess, into some big experiment on open borders.
And I said, wait a minute, I only did five minutes of research into Brexit, but I thought that was the opposite of that.
So it's not me, right?
It's not me being confused.
You're also confused, right?
So they're trying to...
Oh, so they're trying to blame...
Okay.
So this would be similar to Democrats blaming Trump for the open border because he was against that policy that was so stupid that nobody should vote for it.
So this is gaslighting.
Right?
That's all it is?
It's just gaslighting?
There's nothing else to it, right?
Weird.
Well...
I'll say again, I don't consider UK to be an ally of the United States at the moment, at least in the way that we would expect people to act as an ally.
On paper, sure.
Sure, on paper.
But no, not really.
And my feeling that we need to come rescue you if you're in trouble is going way down.
Because I feel like you're more on the other side than on our side.
So...
You better work that out, UK. But there are people, I'm seeing a lot of stories that suggest that Europe is essentially a goner, that widespread immigration will change everything about Europe until it's unrecognizable.
But here's something nobody has suggested yet.
You want to hear the most provocative prediction that you'll ever hear in your life?
You ready for this?
What happens when the natives of UK and other parts of Europe who have, let's say, lived in a mostly white environment and got used to it, find that they become mostly a big mix of other...
Other migrants and other cultures.
And they say, I can't handle this anymore.
Because they're talking about Sharia law.
And we might be like three years away from implementing Sharia law.
And I can't take it.
Where are they going to go?
So, here's my prediction.
I think there's going to be an enormous white flight out of Europe and Great Britain.
And I think that they will probably look at the United States and say, hey, you guys have a population problem over there?
And we'd say, we do.
Thanks for noticing.
Do you have a population problem over there?
Yeah, we kind of do.
You know what would be Maybe kind of cool.
Why don't you come over here?
Solve our population problem.
Solve your population problem.
Solve your cultural problem if you're not comfortable being in the culture that's developing over there.
I think there's going to be a gigantic European white migration into the United States if our government were to approve that.
Now, there might be a lot of other immigration too, not just that.
But I feel like the I feel like white Europeans are going to be claiming asylum very soon.
Do you?
Imagine if you're just a middle-class white person living in Great Britain and let's say gangs form and the gangs start terrorizing your neighborhood.
So you go to your government and the government does nothing because they got too many other problems.
So if your government won't stop a gang from taking over your town, And you apply for asylum in the United States, what do we say?
Do we say that's not good enough?
Because your government is not after you, it's just that they're not helping?
Or do we say, yeah, I understand.
You've got nobody helping you and you're in the middle of a gang situation.
Get on over here.
We'll give you a job tomorrow.
So, I think Europe may become...
The United States after a while.
I think we may be taking everybody who can get away.
That's probably five years away.
Meanwhile, weird things are happening in Syria, which I also do not understand.
It's a weird day of not understanding the news because the headlines aren't matching anything.
Any model in my head that makes sense?
For example, Sean Davis, who's the founder, head of the Federalist, he says what's happening in Syria is that the CIA neocons are trying to start one last war in Syria before Trump is inaugurated, and they're using al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists to do it.
Now, that's because Aleppo, a city in Syria, which had the Syrian army in control, apparently the Syrian army is in retreat because the, I don't know if you call them rebels or terrorists, or are they or are they not working with the CIA? We don't know.
But whoever the rebels are, they seem to have taken the city without much trouble.
There's a separate report that the Syrian army's small communication devices exploded.
Do you think that somebody did a Hezbollah on them and made their small communication devices explode?
And was that just ahead of the rebel attack, which would kind of suggest either Israel or the United States was in on it?
Well, let's see.
According to Richard Grinnell, He says Russia seems to be letting the Syrian rebels overthrow Assad.
He says that's big and it's time to play chess.
Okay, what is happening?
In what world would Russia want the terrorist rebels, or even the United States helping them, to win and take over Syria?
What is that about?
Does anybody understand this story?
And so the New York Post says the Syrian military said on Saturday that, you know, dozens of its troops have been killed and the insurgents, so I guess they're calling them insurgents, have a large part of the city under their control.
Now, that's one city, so...
I don't know.
So, what does it mean when Richard Grinnell, who knows more than all of us about what's happening over there, right?
Because he's an international expert.
What does he mean when he says it's time to play chess?
Well, let us speculate.
Shall we do some recreational speculation?
Yes.
Let's take the optimistic view of this.
You ready?
This has something to do with Ukraine.
This has something to do with Gaza and Hezbollah and Iran.
This has something to do with the deal of the century.
I don't know, but you feel the Trump effect, right?
There's something happening in the country, nay, the world, that has everything to do with the fact that Trump is back.
I think this is that.
Now, when Richard Grinnell kind of vaguely refers to playing chess, That's kind of a reference to Trump, isn't it?
You know, he's our 4D chess player, and Putin's the other chess master.
When you're talking chess, doesn't that feel like you're talking Putin and Trump?
Don't you just hear that when you hear chess in this context?
So, there's something I've been teaching you for a long time about negotiating.
Do you remember what it is that fits this situation perfectly?
Let me remind you.
Here's two people who can't make a deal.
Hey, I want this.
Hey, I also want that.
Oh, we can't make a deal.
I guess we're done.
I guess we have to kill each other or something.
Okay, that's two people who don't know how to make a deal.
Now let's replace them with two 4D chess players.
I want A, but I want A too.
But you can't have it.
I'll kill you.
No, I want it.
I want it.
What's the next thing they do?
Next thing they do is they sweeten the deal by saying, all right, we both want A, but you know what?
We also both want B and C, but you want E. I don't care about E. I could help you with F. And you know, G through M are kind of interesting to both of us.
Because we'd both like to, let's say, fight terrorism in general.
We'd both like to have good economies.
We'd like to not get in this trouble again with another war.
We'd like to do something about nuclear.
We'd like to do something about energy.
We'd like to do something about the Middle East.
We'd like to figure out how to keep our maritime traffic safe.
Now it gets interesting.
Because now you're talking about a deal that involves the Middle East.
Maybe you're giving, maybe, maybe, Trump promised Russia a warm water port.
Because we don't care too much about that.
But there's some shit we do want.
Maybe Trump has already offered the deal of the century.
And I don't know what elements would be in it.
But if you were simply to take everything that Russia wants and write it down, and then write everything that the United States wants, and then throw in a few other countries, you know, Israel, Ukraine, China.
China, maybe I have to watch this.
I think China has to sit this one out.
If Trump is playing the deal of the century, Then at the very least, it's going to put some distance between Russia and China.
Because why wouldn't we ask for everything?
It's the deal of the century.
I think the golden age requires the biggest deal we've ever seen.
And I've been saying this for a million years.
Russia is a natural ally of the United States.
Now, it helps that we don't have a border with them.
They're not that much of a natural ally to people who share a border, but a little bit of that has to do with protecting themselves from us.
So, I think the long-run arc of history is that Russia's best life is to be our best friend, but not to try to be our superior.
And I think that Trump and Putin could work that out.
Because if you look at the entire economy of Russia, it's tiny compared to the United States.
We could promise Putin that we could triple his economy and it would come nowhere near competing with us.
Nowhere near.
So we can say, how about we help you triple your economy?
We just got to get out of this military stuff.
We just have to look past it.
Because nobody's winning.
The one thing that Ukraine bought us, that it'll take us a long time to understand how good it was, because there were so many deaths involved.
Of course, we see it as a tragedy.
But once we have some distance to it, here's what I think.
I think it might be the last land war.
Because there's no way that a land war can work.
I mean, if Ukraine didn't prove for sure that land war, you know, unless it's some special situation where somebody has no protection whatsoever, but generally speaking, I think it's the end of the land war.
And the only way you could know that it doesn't work is by doing exactly what they did, trying as hard as they can on the land and watching it not work at all.
So, what is the potential size of the deal of the century?
Enormous.
I think that it would involve everything from peace in the Middle East, including Iran, to Ukraine, to Syria.
I think if Trump is playing this as smart as I think he is, and his advisors are as good as I think they are, Russia gained $10 trillion in mineral wealth.
How is that relevant?
Because if the United States hadn't been there, they would have had all of Ukraine.
So nobody got what they wanted.
Nobody got what they wanted.
Some got something, but nobody got what they wanted.
All right.
And by the way, those of you who want to say in the comments that I'm uninformed instead of just telling me something I need to know, fuck you.
Stop being that way.
Like, does your family hate you?
Do you have to say something bad about me in order to give me some information that might be useful to both of us?
Like, at what point did you say, I think I'll be an asshole to communicate this information?
How about fix your game a little bit there, huh?
Take your game up a little bit.
You need to raise your level a little bit.
That's not something I need to put up with.
All right.
Anyway, deal of the century, maybe.
Here is something the Gateway Pundit is reporting, but has been in other places as well.
Are you aware that there have been unidentified drone swarms that have been making regular...
Regular forays around American military facilities for at least a year.
And there are three core U.S. forces in Europe, I guess.
So there have been a number of times when a swarm...
Now, they don't say how big a swarm is, but imagine looking in the sky and seeing something that looks like a swarm of birds, except that it's drones.
And that these drones fly around completely unaffected, like there's no defense against them.
None is launched.
And then they leave.
And we don't know for sure who's sending them.
Who do you think is sending them?
Some of the speculation is that they could be coming from cargo ships offshore, which would sort of suggest China.
If I had to guess, I'd say China is testing our defenses, because China knows that they're going to be the leader of manufacturing, We won't catch up with them in manufacturing.
And that the number and quality of drones will determine everything about the future of military power.
And so it could be that Russia, I'm guessing China, but it really is just a guess, is testing our military response to To see if they can put a thousand drones over any military base, which would be effectively enough to take it out probably, with no defense.
Now it does make me wonder...
Does the U.S. have some kind of a defense, but they haven't rolled it down to every base?
And they don't want to use it unless it's an actual war because we don't want to give away our secrets and stuff.
So we might have some kind of defense.
I hope.
If I heard that this was happening on a regular basis and I were the head of our military, I'm pretty sure that same day I would be assigning somebody to be in charge of figuring out how to knock down a swarm of drones.
I'm sure that's all underway.
But, wow!
I'll tell you one of the things that I always carry in my mind is that whatever anybody says about their own military is probably fake.
So, we talk about the, you know, amazing, amazing American military, and I do believe we could beat just about anybody in a conventional war.
But I also believe that they're gigantic Gigantic vulnerabilities for even the best militaries.
And this might be ours.
We might have this gigantic vulnerability and our government doesn't want to tell you because, guess what?
We couldn't win a war.
We might be at the point where we can't win a war with China.
However, I don't think China wants a war.
I think they want to make sure that they don't have a war because they could just win economically and by having more babies if they can do it.
So far, they can't have more babies.
Did you know...
That there is a...
Was it the...
Who was reporting this?
I can't remember if it was the Vigilant Fox.
I think it was.
There are several accounts on X that have independent journalists that I use their material more than most because they have better reporting, frankly.
But one of them is the Vigilant Fox.
Another is George.
Another is the Amuse account.
Colin Rugg.
Cernovich.
I should mention them more often, because if you follow those same independent people, you have a whole different view of the world.
Anyway, did you know that there's some kind of powerful online tool that only special, select, mainstream reporters have access to Where the government essentially tells them how to report the news that hasn't dropped yet.
Do you believe that?
Do you think that's true?
That there's a well-known, at least within the media, that there's a website that not everybody has access to, But it gets you ready so that your narrative about what's going to break in the news, I guess about the government, is sort of coordinated.
Is this as bad as it sounds?
You know, part of me thinks that they could have thought of it as just a good way to make sure everybody gets equal information at the same time so that they're not playing favorites.
Except that it's not available to everybody.
So obviously it is playing favorites.
I guess I need to know more about this, because it would seem like it's nothing but a brainwashing tool.
No surprise there.
We've all noticed that the Democrat and the mainstream media, their messaging is identical at the same time.
We've all seen it.
But didn't you wonder how it happened?
I always thought it happened by memo.
I always thought that the Democrats simply literally put out a memo and said, hey, here's how we're going to talk about this.
And then the mainstream media would just conform.
Does that happen on the right?
So I've been doing this, you know, live streaming and posting and stuff, talking about politics for years now.
And nobody on the right has ever...
Communicated with me or said, here's the memo.
Here's the way we're going to talk about this.
Have any of you seen it?
Because I can't believe that I would be left out of the loop if there is a loop.
But I don't think there is a loop, is there?
Because I notice that sometimes, you know, I'll see a prominent right-leaning person with an opinion.
And then I'll turn on, say, Fox News later, and I'll see something kind of compatible with what that first influencer said.
So I think that on the right, the news is getting its take from an organic sense of what the smart people are saying.
And I feel like by the time you get to the afternoon opinions...
Those opinions have at least been bounced off of all the smart internet dads, and so they've got an idea of what's dumb, what's not.
What will the people who watch Fox News think is a good idea?
What will they think is a bad idea?
So, to me, it's just like the election, where the Democrats simply assigned their candidate, but on the Republican side, it was a fight.
You know, the whole primary did it the whole way.
You know, you got to prove yourself the whole way.
And I think the right does that with the news.
I think that people get the news, they do their takes.
I think if I have a good take, the odds of me seeing it come out somewhere are pretty good.
Have you noticed that?
Have any of you noticed that if I have a good take, it seems like it spreads?
But I'm not the only one, right?
Cerno, I like to use him as an example.
Jack Posobiec.
You know, there are a bunch of people that if they have a good take, you see it immediately.
Other people go, yeah, that's a good take.
I'll boost that.
Anyway, very different on the other side.
According to the Amuse account, the other one that you should follow on X, that Trump's distrust of the FBI is so deep he's going to bypass them for nominee background checks.
I'm sorry.
He's not going to use the FBI for the nominee background checks.
He's going to use private entities because he doesn't trust the FBI. So he's basically sidelining the FBI until he can get his own trusted people in there and then start cleaning house.
I would love to know just how bad the FBI is.
My guess is that almost all of the rank and file are just doing their job.
Would you say that that's true?
Almost all of them are just going to work, doing their job, serving the country.
But boy, the leadership.
Yikes!
It seems to me that the leadership of the FBI, I don't have any trust.
And by the way, I don't think that's new.
I think that maybe since Hoover, you give any entity that much private information about the citizens and you get to this point.
So it might be that the FBI just has to be completely dismantled every 10 years.
You should build that into the law.
Every 10 years, every single executive at the FBI has to be replaced.
Because I don't know what else you can do.
If you leave people there for years, they learn how to consolidate power, and then they just take it.
Anyway, Unusual Whales.
There's another good account you should follow.
It's called Unusual Whales.
There's a lowercase dash between unusual and whales.
Very good account for following the independent news.
Says that billionaire Bill Ackman...
Bill Ackman, Marc Andreessen, and Travis Kalanick, he's the Uber guy, are reportedly getting involved in Doge.
Now, this is according to Fortune.
Now, Fortune...
I don't consider them a credible publication.
Dilbert has been on the cover of Fortune magazine six or eight times, but that's back when they were a legitimate entity.
I don't know if you can say that about them now, but this is their scoop, I guess.
Now, here's my take.
Listen to these names again.
Bill Ackman, Mark Andreessen, and Travis Kalanick.
What do they all have in common besides being super rich?
Common sense.
Common sense.
Like if you wanted to solve a problem and you didn't care anything about politics, you would call one of these three, right?
No politics at all.
Just what works, what doesn't work.
There's three people you'd call.
How about Elon Musk?
If you had a problem that needed to be solved and there was no politics involved whatsoever, Elon Musk, that's who you call, right?
Vivek, who do you call?
Vivek, right?
J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, very RFK Jr. So it could be that the pirate ship is getting bigger.
But wait, is that all?
Remember I told you recently that all the smart people are on the same side?
They're not all going public about it, but let me say it again.
All the smart people are on the same side.
If you don't know the Silicon Valley world, it's not as easy to spot the smart ones.
But, you know, I kind of live close enough that I know who they are.
Let me say it again as clearly as possible.
All the smart ones are on the same side.
All of them.
You just don't know it.
Because they can't all go public.
So you're going to see, you know, one by one, people saying, I think it's safe now.
So it's going to be like little prairie dogs.
Safe?
Okay, I'm out.
Now this is where, I don't think I can take credit for this, but I'll just say it as a fact.
We only got here because people like me were willing to get cancelled.
Like, we...
You know, the pioneers had to get cancelled before we could get to the point where other people would say this is too far.
If the only thing that ever happened was Roseanne got cancelled and we thought it was very unfair, it wouldn't change much.
But if enough people get cancelled and enough things are going wrong and the borders open and the economy looks stupid, Then the dads say, too far.
Too far.
This now stops.
But you're going to get in trouble and you're going to get a lot of pushback if you go public.
Do you understand too far?
Too far is when it doesn't matter what happens to me.
That's when the dads come out.
The dads come out when they say, it doesn't matter what happens to me.
This is too far.
There's no risk too big.
There's no...
No wall too strong, no hill too high.
This is too far.
And now we're going to turn it around.
Story number two.
Donald Trump has been secretly, according to the New York Post, Trump has been talking to what they call his man-crossed Jamie Dimon about the White House agenda.
Now, Jamie Dimon, as you remember, famously and bravely, Bravely is very important here.
Famously and bravely said in some big interview, might have been CNBC recently, hey, you know, Trump's not wrong about everything.
Now, he did not endorse Trump, and I don't ask him to.
I think CEOs can get along without endorsing people.
That'd be fine.
But it was very clear that Jamie Dimon is a common sense guy.
He doesn't have that job because he got lucky.
He's not a DEI hire.
He's really, really smart and really, really focused on what makes sense and common sense.
That's why he is.
So does it surprise you that Trump likes Jamie Dimon?
It shouldn't.
He's exactly the kind of person that Trump responds to because he's not going to agree with him on everything, but it's going to be a smart disagreement if he disagrees.
So I'm not going to say that Jamie Dimon has entered the pirate ship.
But he's knocking on the door.
All right.
So over on MSNBC, they had a guest named Kai Kamanduri.
He's one of these wide-eyed political strategists, you know, the ones whose eyes are too big.
Like, why are your eyes so open?
Why is it that all the people who have weird things to say have wide eyes?
Let me tell you about Trump being a dictator.
Anyway, his take is that Elon Musk naming this government efficiency thing Doge is, of course, as you know, the name of a Doge coin, the name of a cryptocurrency, which you also know that Musk had for years.
Largely, it looked like a practical joke or just having fun, pretending that this one crypto, you know, was like the fun one to have.
And speculation that he might own a lot of it himself.
I would agree that's probably right.
Probably true.
And that he might be making a big, like a big win on these Dogecoins.
And so really it's a conflict of interest.
Do you know what's the smallest problem I have in the world?
If I were to rank all the things that I got a problem with in the world, do you know what would be last on my list of like 10,000 things that are a problem?
That the richest man in the world may have some other way to make a few bucks.
But if you think he's doing the whole Doge project simply to boost his Dogecoin value...
You're an idiot.
You're an idiot.
MSNBC is just the idiot network.
You're either mentally ill or you're just an idiot.
Could it be true that in his mind, Elon Musk said, you know what?
This is kind of fun because the letters worked out Doge.
It wasn't even his idea, but he thought it was funny and he adopted it.
Do you think that Elon Musk is aware that That his own value in his Dogecoins could go up a substantial amount.
I mean, who knows?
Maybe it's a billion dollars.
Do you think he's aware of that?
Of course he is.
Where does that come in his thinking?
Nowhere.
Nowhere.
It's not in the top hundred things he has anything to care about.
Now he's building his own game factory.
To make video games.
He's trying to take us to Mars.
He's trying to make Starlink work, and he's building robots.
Do you think he really gives two poops about Dogecoin?
I mean, he might as a joke, but no, he's not doing anything because of Doge.
That's not why he's doing the project.
So if you want the worst takes in the world, MSNBC has them.
Well, meanwhile, I think it might have been MSNBC, the other one, CNBC, Dr. Gottlieb.
We're talking about his concerns about RFK Jr. Now, Insurrection Barbie, who's another account you should be following on X. Insurrection Barbie.
I have no idea who Insurrection Barbie is.
I don't know if it's male or female.
But, wow, really good independent stuff.
So, I'd love to know more about that account because it seems a little too wise for an anonymous account.
There's probably somebody powerful behind that, but I don't know who it is.
Anyway, Insurrection Barbie talks about Dr. Gottlieb this way.
So this is the guy who resigned from his post as the head of the FDA and within two months joined the board of directors of Pfizer.
This is the guy who spent all of 2020 and 2021 going on MSNBC and CNN and making COVID predictions without disclosing he was on the board of directors at Pfizer.
Hmm.
In fact, he was introduced as a former FDA commissioner.
Did that really happen?
Did one of these two networks, they're not, Instruction Barbie doesn't say which one, but did one of those networks have somebody who was on the board of directors of Pfizer talking about this topic?
And introduced him as a former FDA commissioner instead of a current board member of Pfizer?
Did that really happen?
That sounds like it might have been a mistake.
It doesn't sound like...
I mean, I hope it was a mistake.
My God.
And Insurrection Barbie says, bringing people like him to discuss healthcare is why people have no trust in the healthcare system.
Well, that's one reason.
That's one reason we don't have trust in it.
Let me tell you.
I heard some things during the pandemic that I can't tell you because I'll get sued, but it's maybe the worst thing I've ever heard.
One of the worst crimes I've ever heard in my life, but I can't tell you about it.
Anyway, I saw these reports that Barron, Trump, and Melania had been debanked.
And I thought it was some kind of joke.
Like, who's going to debank the First Lady and the President's son?
They got debanked.
That actually happened.
And I think it was Bill Ackman who said, name the bank.
Because this is dad business.
Apparently this debanking was really widespread and But not widely reported.
There were a lot of people who got debanked, and it wasn't just crypto people who were trying to be clever.
It was Melania and Barron.
Now, when you start adding up all the people who got debanked, somebody needs to go to jail.
I don't know who.
But I didn't know this was happening.
I had no idea this was happening.
Wow.
So, Bill Ackman says, name the bank.
And I don't think we have the name of the bank.
Speculation, but we don't know the name of the bank.
I want to know the name of the bank, too.
Because if it's my bank, I'm going to take everything out of it.
I've had my bank since I was 21. Same bank.
I don't care about anything else.
If you debanked Milani and Barron...
You don't get my money.
I'm taking every penny out.
So let's find out what that bank was.
Because if I have to make a change, I want to get on it.
You're shocked I didn't get debanked already?
So am I. I'm trying to figure out why I didn't get debanked, but I don't know.
I don't know.
Megyn Kelly has a video out in which she's saying that she wants some tit-for-tat, she says, on the lawfare, and thinks that going hard at largely Democrats who had been doing terrible things for years might be the only way we get back to some kind of mutually assured destruction balance in the country.
I am super uncomfortable about that.
Because I don't think that's the way we should talk about it.
I definitely think that everybody who broke a law needs to answer for it.
I don't think we should go easy on, because they didn't go easy on anybody else.
But I don't want this to turn into lawfare.
So this is one of those, it's not good enough to not have a conflict of interest.
You have to look like you don't have a conflict of interest.
Now when she talks about it, She's not talking about a conflict of interest.
It would be just the law doing what the law does, and the law should do.
Catch people and punish them for bad things.
So that part is fine.
The trouble is that when the influencers start talking like this, it drifts into the category of it gives the impression of lawfare.
We can't give the impression of lawfare.
Because even if you say, but it's not real lawfare, no, no.
You can't settle for either one.
You can't have the lawfare, but you also can't create a situation where everybody thinks you're lawfaring.
Both are seriously no-go zones.
So, while I'm completely in agreement with, it looks like there have been horrible crimes against one part of the country, And they do have to be addressed, and I do think a number of people need to be seriously jailed.
But we can't go over the line of, you know, really good evidence, people being convicted in a way that people normally are convicted, you know, no special cases.
I don't like the idea.
It was mentioned that maybe some laws need to be changed just so you can go after people.
No.
No, not.
I realize I did that E. Jean Carroll thing.
But I think Reid Hoffman has already said he wants to leave the country.
So Reid Hoffman is the one who funded the E. Gene Carroll thing.
So Reid Hoffman may get paid back in kind.
Now, again, if he committed no crimes, or no crimes that people would normally be charged with, I'm not in favor of that at all.
But if there is anything there that anybody knows about, they're probably going to use that to pay him back for the E. Gene Carroll thing.
Because the E. Gene Carroll thing was the height of bad behavior, in my opinion.
I don't think you could have more bad behavior than that, while still being legal.
It was all legal.
But they had to change the law just to go after Trump?
Nope.
No, you don't get to change the law just to go after Trump.
If you do that, somebody's going to get payback.
I don't know.
I don't know.
But yeah, there's going to be payback for that.
Because that was not within, in my opinion, that was outside the legal system.
Technically within it, but not really.
Not really.
So I wouldn't go beyond that, because that was a case where somebody went beyond.
So if somebody went beyond, and then the response is also a little bit beyond, but also legal, completely legal, Then I'm not going to fight with that one.
But I wouldn't want to see some kind of larger process for punishing Democrats who just said bad things or whatever.
Likewise, Elon Musk suggesting that Vindman committed treason and will pay.
Again, that would sound like Especially because Elon's close to the president at the moment.
That sounds too much like lawfare to me.
But here's the interesting update on this.
I didn't realize that he said this in the context of people saying that Musk is having conversations with Putin.
Do you think Putin's the one who dropped the dime on Vindman?
Is it possible that the deal of the century, Could involve Putin getting some payback that he wants.
Is it possible that Putin wants Vindman in jail?
And that one of 50 different things they're talking about, from Syria to Iran to Ukraine to who knows what, Is it possible Vindman's part of the conversation?
And that Putin just said, do me a favor.
You got to get rid of this guy because he just created a war like no other war, which he might have.
I don't know if that's true.
I can't claim that, but I know he's being accused of being unhelpful, let's say.
I don't know.
I got a lot of questions about the Vindman situation.
Nothing looks right there.
I was reading the George account on Exodus, talking about Mayor Eric Adams, and now it looks like the charges are pretty serious that he took some gifts and took some political contributions from foreign countries and entities that were pretending that they were coming from different places than they were, etc.
So they look like pretty serious charges, but according to the George account, There is conversation about Trump pardoning him.
Why would he do that?
Why would he pardon Mayor Adams?
Because if the crimes he's being charged with are true, I don't see the reason for the pardon.
What's the argument for that?
Because I don't think there's a political benefit to the country.
There are other pardons where you can see that maybe somebody else benefits.
But who would benefit besides Mayor Adams?
And again, I kind of like Mayor Adams.
I would have loved Mayor Adams to have been a Republican and not to have any charges over him.
Because he seems like a really capable guy.
I kind of like his whole vibe.
But I hope he didn't do these things.
But as George says, and I concur, we're not going to talk about any Democrat pardons until every January 6th you're in jail.
Is everybody on the same page?
I don't want to hear one Democrat got a pardon until 100% of the January 6th is around.
Now, I used to say 100% of them that didn't do any violence or You know, an actual crime, like a serious crime rather than just, you know, obstruction and wandering around where you're not supposed to be.
But I'm updating that.
Now I think everyone.
And the reason I say everyone is you have to make statements.
If you do everyone, it's a statement.
And the statement is, some things are more important.
And I think that their freedom is more important than somebody who did some graffiti.
And as much as I don't approve of if anybody hurt a law enforcement person, those law enforcement people were hurt by their own people.
Because they were sent into a situation in which they could have had full reinforcements and they didn't.
So yes, the January Sixers might have been the ones who landed the blow and created some serious injuries in some cases.
And that's no joke.
But none of that would have happened if their own team had done what they should have been doing.
And it looks like an op to me.
So to me, it looks like those law enforcement people were thrown to the wolves in a way that didn't have to happen.
And there would have been no violence, or much less, if they had come in force and done the right thing and not let people in, et cetera, et cetera.
So I say every one of them has to be released.
Meanwhile, Angela Rye, who apparently appears on The Breakfast Club a lot.
I didn't know her too much except as a social media person who has some opinions.
And she said, I spent so much time over the last couple of weeks just focusing on the half of the country that I hate right now, that I despise.
She's talking about the Trump voters here.
She also said she could no longer trust people around her because they could have also secretly voted for Trump.
So she's worried about the secret Trump voters, too.
And she says, I don't even know if, at this point, people will be honest about the reasons for voting for the other side or if they'll be honest about who they really voted for.
Well, I have two comments about this.
Number one, It turns out that when you are the problem, you can't identify the problem.
Have you noticed that?
The closer someone is to being the exact problem, the less able they are to see it because they're looking around and they don't see it.
Like, hey, is it here?
Is it here?
It turns out that your eyeballs can't reverse so that you can see your own brain and say, oh, my God, I am the problem.
So that's funny.
But the other thing is that she just did what I got canceled for.
I got canceled saying that there's some group of people They have a bad feeling about me, and I think I would stay away from them because I can't tell which individuals like me and which individuals don't.
So if I can't tell, but I can confirm for sure that some portion of them want something bad to happen to me, or at least don't consider me a full person, then I would stay away from the whole group, even though that's terribly unfair because there might be wonderful individuals within the group.
Now, realistically, I never changed anything that I was doing in the real world.
I have lots of black friends.
I don't think a single...
I'm not sure, but I don't think I lost a single black friend.
I can't think of one.
I lost several white friends because they were mad on behalf of somebody else.
But anybody who actually listened to what I said said some version of, well, that makes sense.
Here's what I said in summary.
And I'll turn it around so you can see it from reverse.
If you're a black family and you're thinking of moving to a new town, let's say you narrowed it down to two choices.
They're both really good towns.
But one of them is famous for having a lot of KKK people living there.
You don't know who they are because it's a secret organization, but you know that 20% of the town belongs to the KKK. The other town is just a regular town.
Which one do you live in?
Now, if you tell me, well, of course I don't go to the one that has secret 20% haters, then I say, oh, so you're racist.
Because you're going to treat everybody in that town like they're in the KKK when only 20% are.
And then said black family that is very smart would say, are you crazy?
This is just self-defense.
Why would I ever go and put myself in the middle of Of a danger which is well identified.
To which I say, exactly.
Exactly.
If somebody comes in and asks for a job, then you find out what's up with that one person, and there's no reason to discriminate against one person.
And I often say, the argument for being a discriminator against one person, whoever that is, doesn't make sense.
Because that's never going to be good for the person you discriminated against.
Duh.
But it's also not good for you because you just limited the number of people that you can consider for jobs and romance and friends and partners and sports and everything else.
So why would you decrease your own options?
Unless you're such a racist that you think that every single person of some group, everyone, is worse than every other person from some other group.
And that's, you know, kind of just bad as shit crazy.
So there's no actual argument that makes sense for treating an individual like the average or whatever group they're from.
There's none.
So to imagine that I would do that is sort of called being stupid.
It's not even like an opinion.
It's just stupid.
But for self-defense, if you know one group has 20% haters, yeah, you want to stay away.
So that's why Angela Rye is saying she believes that there are all these terrible MAGA people and she would like to make sure that she doesn't have as much contact with them because she can't tell which ones are the bad MAGAs and which ones are not.
However, I can assure Angela that if she is nice to people, every MAGA person will be nice to her in return.
Guarantee it.
I guarantee it.
Because that's who they are.
You just have to be a reasonable person who likes, you know, the Constitution, the law, the country, likes your family, and you're nice to your neighbor.
We're all in.
All right.
Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, I guess he dined with President-elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
Is it my imagination, or has Mar-a-Lago already become the White House, but it's the fun White House?
It's the fun White House, right?
Is there any compelling reason for Trump to be in the Oval Office ever again?
I say no.
Because apparently they've figured out how to do good security at Mar-a-Lago.
So if the neighbors don't mind, they might mind.
So that could be an issue.
But just make it the White House.
Why does Trump have to go where the weather is bad?
He doesn't.
He doesn't have to go where the weather is bad.
He can just stay at Mar-a-Lago and have people come to him.
But here's what I'm loving about this story.
If America had a functional president, meaning Biden, or a functional vice president, then I think people would complain about the fact that Trudeau had a meeting with Trump.
Because even if the meeting was not for the purpose of negotiating a binding agreement, and it probably wasn't, it's impossible for two leaders to spend that much time together without doing something that looks like negotiating.
Because simply the process of talking about their priorities ends up being a pre-negotiation at the very least.
So why are people not complaining about Trump doing one of the very worst things you can do, which is negotiating with a foreign leader before you're in office?
I have a hypothesis, and it goes like this, that the golden age is returning common sense.
And that whether you're on the left or the right, you're completely aware that we're leaderless.
And that we're better off, even if you don't think Trump is your best choice, we're much better off if the world looks over here and says, oh, Trump's already in charge.
Because that makes you safer.
I want every country to know somebody's in charge.
That's really important.
Because if they thought nobody was in charge, maybe something different would happen.
Now, the fact that we're not seeing a big pushback, and it's just such an obvious line of attack.
Oh, Trump is breaking another law.
Oh, we'd better get a special counsel to look into him negotiating before he's president.
Everybody's just shutting the fuck up.
Which is exactly common sense.
Yes, you've got a lot more to worry about than this.
Yes, I want my pre-president to be talking to these leaders.
Yes, yes, yes.
And is it a little bit illegal?
Eh.
I don't care if you don't care.
Is that fair?
I mean, if the situation were reversed, I'd still be okay with it.
If Trump were in office and he were a vegetable, and some young, with it, Democrat was in charge, and I was like, ah, not my first choice, but I want somebody to be in charge, I'd be okay with it.
So to me, this feels optimistic.
It's optimistic because of the dog not barking, which would be MSNBC complaining that he's negotiating with a foreign leader before he's in office.
They're letting it go.
Common sense is winning.
And I love the fact that the Trump effect is so strong that Trudeau knew he needed to go to Mar-a-Lago and not wait.
The urgency with which these leaders are acting, it tells you a lot.
The Trump effect is incredible right now.
You can feel everything is different.
Suddenly, common sense is allowed.
You can just say things that are obvious and real.
And it felt like you couldn't do it before.
We were in some kind of crazy land.
Well, also, according to the Vigilant Fox account on X, the editor-in-chief of The Hill is predicting that Laura Trump will someday run for president because she has that kind of talent.
Now, here's my input on that.
So I've...
I've talked to Laura Trump twice, I guess.
She's interviewed me by video, so I haven't met her in person, but we've had two extended video conversations.
And here are my takes in no particular order.
One thing you need...
If you're going to have a female president, especially if it's going to be the first one, is strength.
Right?
Even more so than if it was an ordinary guy.
You wouldn't need him to be like an athlete or anything because, you know, it's just what we're used to.
But the first woman is going to get all kinds of, you know, are you strong enough, right?
Are you strong enough?
Nobody's going to ask Laura Trump if she's strong enough or tough enough.
Because it's just so obvious.
I mean, you look at her physicality, the way she controls her body, you talk to her for five minutes, you know that she's serious.
And you also know in five minutes that you wouldn't want to be on the other side of any disagreement with her.
And then we also watched that she apparently did a great job with the DNC, sorry, the RNC. So, you've got the brains, you've got the Hollywood looks, you've got the...
Let me say this directly as possible.
In a fair fight, she could beat me.
Right?
So, I mean, it's not like I can beat too many people in a fair fight, but she's got the power.
Like, if you're looking for strength, yeah, it's all there.
So she's got the charisma, the brains, the strength, the connections.
She's got the drive, I'm sure.
I think she has the right ambition and the right ideas for the country.
I'm all in.
I'm all in.
Someday.
Someday we might have that conversation.
Or somebody will.
Anyway, according to New York Post, Zelensky says he is willing to cede territory to Russia in exchange for NATO protection, but not being in NATO, I guess.
And that would be the first time that he said that.
What does that sound like?
It's the Trump effect.
It's the Trump effect.
Here's why I think Trump is a different kind of negotiator.
I feel like Biden...
Trump is asking people what they'd be okay with, and Trump is telling them what they're going to be okay with.
Do you catch the difference?
Would you do this?
No.
Well, what do I do now?
All right, you're going to do this.
Very different.
I can tell you this story I think I told before.
The best salesperson I ever met, who was not Trump, I worked in the syndication company that was selling the Dilbert comic to newspapers.
And he held an event and he asked me if I would be a speaker at this event because it was a bunch of newspaper editors.
And I never did that kind of thing.
But for some reason, When he asked me, partly because he was selling my comic successfully, I said yes.
So the first thing I noticed was, huh, he's the best salesperson and he just sold me on something I always said no to, but said yes to him.
So I go there, I give my speech, and then afterwards some of the editors are coming up to say hi and stuff.
And one of the editors comes up and he says, You know, I didn't like your comic.
I wasn't really sold on running it in my newspaper.
But the salesman told me I should.
And I said, what?
He goes, yeah, you know, I wasn't sold on it, but he told me I should run it.
And I thought, how does it work that the salesperson tells you what to do?
I thought, well, what kind of salesperson does that?
And then, amazingly, some other independent person comes up to me a few minutes later and says, the same thing.
I wasn't going to buy this, but your salesperson told me to get it.
And I said, what?
What?
What am I even observing here?
And here's the difference, I think.
This is my best hypothesis.
That the salesperson was so good...
That he was allowing these professionals to use him as a consultant, actually, of what they should do in their newspaper.
So he had somehow reframed himself as the consultant and not the salesperson.
He would not only tell them what they should put in, but he would then tell them which comic to remove to make space for it.
He'd say, all right, here you go.
So you got these three down here.
These are the ones you want to replace.
I've got this one.
You'll want to put this one in right away.
And then they'll say, how much is it?
And he'll say, this much.
He goes, all right.
And then he walks out with a sale.
So I believe that there are some salespeople who can reframe their credibility so completely that they can simply tell you what you're going to do and you go, all right.
And it feels like Trump has that.
Like, Didn't we just go years with Zelensky saying, well, the one thing I'm never going to do is cede territory?
And then Trump comes in, has one conversation to him, and the next thing you know, well, we're definitely going to cede some territory.
I mean, yeah, we assume that.
It feels like Trump just told him what the deal is.
I feel like Biden was asking what he would be willing to do, and Trump just told him what he was going to do.
I think.
That's what it looks like.
And that's the Trump effect.
Here's some good news.
There's some gold-based drug that slows tumor growth by 82% and outperforms chemotherapy.
So some Australia university or MIT And Indian institutions have unveiled it.
It's actually gold.
It's like the gold that you would use in a bracelet or something.
But they have a special process.
Don't eat any gold.
They do a special process to it so it's compatible with your body.
But if you can reduce growth in animals by 82%, wow, that's amazing.
It proved to be three and a half times more effective Against prostate cancer.
And seven and a half times more effective against fibrosarcoma than chemo.
Wow.
That's a lot.
But we're not done.
You want some more?
Do you have enough good news yet?
You want some more?
This is recreational good news.
Because we don't know if it's true.
But it might be.
Story number two, also from the Vigilant Fox.
There's some case series being published in an oncology journal that there's an existing drug that's been around for a while for other purposes, originally designed to treat worms and parasites in animals.
And you're going to say to me, oh, you're talking about ivermectin.
But I'm not.
So this is not ivermectin.
It's called fenbendazole.
And there are three cases of cancer patients who were basically at the end of all their options, and they were ready to go.
And they had fenbendazole and substantially slowed the cancer.
Now, they might already have it, but it looks like the tumors were disappearing with this existing drug, fenbendazole.
How about that, huh?
What if it works?
Do you think that the Golden Age is ready for this?
Do you think that the Golden Age is going to allow an existing, obviously fairly safe drug that's just a pill, To replace chemo that chews you up and radiation that chews you up?
You could just take a pill and your cancer will stop growing?
What do you think?
Well, I think someday you might find out.
Trump says he wants to cause a ceasefire before his inauguration.
Axios is reporting this.
Now, of course he does.
Of course he does.
Now, it's one of Biden's top priorities.
Biden also wanted to get it before he left.
But I think Trump wants it too, because it's going to look like Trump had something to do with it, even if he didn't.
Yes, Dr. Merrick, exactly.
Anyway...
We'll see if that happens.
And again, I think there's going to be the deal of the century.
I think Gaza's going to be part of it.
Here is news to just make you tingle.
All right, if this doesn't make you happy, I don't know what will.
You know, everybody is trying to say, how could the Democrats come back?
Because they don't seem to have a strong bench and they seem to be completely broken and overtaken by wokeness.
And then you have the problem of Kamala Harris raising a billion dollars and wasting it.
And now people wonder if Democrats can even get funding in the future because it was such a stain on the Democrat brand.
I don't know if it's going to be limited to Kamala Harris because there were a lot of people working in that Kamala Harris domain and they're all kind of guilty of the spending.
So here's the fun part.
You ready for this one?
I love this story so much.
Just so much.
I hope you love it as much as I do.
According to Newsweek, James Carville has called for an audit of Harris' campaign spending.
All of it.
Just let that sink in for a minute.
James Carville, who, by the way, you know, sometimes I have fun with him because he's an interesting character, but he isn't dumb.
He's not dumb.
And if the Democrats had listened to him from the start, you might have a President Harris.
And I wondered, is there any way to fix this thing?
You know, the Democrat machine?
It's just so broken.
And then I see that James Carville is calling for an audit of the entire Harris campaign spending.
That mother...
I won't say it.
That magnificent bastard.
He found a way out.
The Democrats were like in an escape room, you know, one of those professional escape rooms where you go in and you can't get out.
And, you know, if you're lucky, there's somebody smart in the room with you and they can figure out the one way you can get out of the room.
This was it.
This was the only way out.
Now, I don't know if he can get it done, but if he gets this done and it allows him to send a bunch of Democrats to jail, And also to clean up their funding process at the same time.
It's going to look like a win to me.
And it might be the thing that rejuvenates the Democrats.
I mean, they'd have to go through a period of intense pain because literally people would probably go to jail.
But this is a prominent Democrat looking inward.
He's looking for the problem Because unlike whoever I was talking about earlier, who couldn't find the problem because she kept looking outside of herself, he's looking inside of himself, in this case, inside the campaign, and saying, let's look here first.
Let's leave the Republicans alone for a minute.
Let's give them a minute.
Let's look at ourselves for a minute and look at the money.
And by the way, following the money is the smartest, hardest, sharpest, strategic thing you could do.
Yeah, you got to follow the money.
Because I think the Democrats are aware that they're a complete corrupt organization.
And I think the corruption in the campaign is probably massive.
It could be one reason it was less effective, is that they were just buying off people.
The whole Al Sharpton thing, where he took half a million dollars for his charity just before he gave an interview for MSNBC, there might have been a lot of that.
And I would be surprised if they don't find that there are people siphoning off massive amounts of the donations.
So yes, James Scarville, you have redeemed yourself because I believe you found the only way out.
I don't know if they're going to take it because there might be too much pain involved, but you showed them the door.
That was your job.
Your job was to show them the door.
That's your door.
If you don't walk through that and clean up the funding, Nothing else you do matters.
And I actually like, I would like a country where we've got a fair contest with the two sides.
I'm a little concerned, honestly, that the Democrats have destroyed themselves a little too much.
I'd rather have a fair fight just so, you know, Republicans stay battle strong and they're not suggesting things that are just crazy.
Anyway, meanwhile, if the fun is not over yet, did you know, according to Zero Hedge, Trump might tap Christopher Ruffo to help de-wokify the Ivy Leagues that receive federal funding?
You know, Christopher Ruffo has been real big in the DEI pushback, trying to get rid of it, and has been super successful in a number of areas in that.
And he may be tapped...
To help root it out at the college level, and I hope later at the federal level, anybody who gets federal funding should probably be in the same boat.
And I've got to take a little bit of a victory lap.
Now, the victory is not mine.
I just happen to benefit from it.
I am so glad I lived long enough to see this story.
Trump taps Christopher Ruffo to help de-wokify the Ivy League's receiving federal funding.
Most of you know this story, but I've got to tell it again.
And I'm going to swear, because it requires a curse word.
So if you don't like that, this would be a good time to turn it off.
So, I'll give you a minute to turn it off if you don't like a swear word.
But boy, does this need one.
I've been waiting 30 fucking years to see this.
I have been discriminated against for my race and my gender for 30 fucking years.
And I'm tired of it.
This is everything I wanted.
This is everything I wanted.
This is why I risked everything.
This is what I fucking wanted.
This is what I was willing to die for.
Now, if you didn't know it, when my first job was for Crocker Bank in California, and one day my boss called me into her office and said, we can't promote you, maybe ever, because you're white and you're male and we're way behind on our diversity.
And I said, Well, how long is this going to last?
And they couldn't tell me.
So I quit.
And I went to work for Pacific Bell, got a raise, worked out well.
And I got on the fast track at Pacific Bell to be one of the executives in training.
And one day, my boss called me in his office and said...
Just got the word, we can't promote you.
Not you specifically, but we can't promote white men.
And I said, how long is that going to last?
And they couldn't tell me.
And that's when I started Dilbert.
So I started doing Dilbert on the side because I knew that I couldn't succeed in corporate America because of my race and my gender.
Now, I've told this story a number of times, and there are a number of black Americans who mean well, And I think they really just want to know what the truth is.
And they doubt that this ever happened.
And they questioned whether I was a capable employee and maybe they were just firing me and I made up a story.
No, you fucking assholes.
I was a top-rated employee.
I was on the list to be in senior management in both companies.
I was finishing my fucking MBA and I was the most qualified person in every group that I worked at eventually, at least within my domain.
No, it was purely discrimination.
And they told me directly.
And they told me often.
It wasn't like one conversation.
And even I was in the room when we would discuss hiring and we eliminated white people from the conversation.
So I saw it both in the room, outside the room.
I saw it to me.
And I couldn't talk about it.
For about 20 years, if I talked about it, I knew I would just be called a racist.
Ironically.
And so I waited.
And yes, Prisoner Island might be a good analogy to this.
Now Trump's in office.
And Christopher Ruffo, with his scimitar and his skills, will be taking on the DEI stuff directly.
And I couldn't be happier.
I've waited so long.
I've waited so long.
This is total payback for me.
This is everything I want.
I want it for you, too.
I mean, I don't want it just for me.
I want the country to go back to merit, to become sane again.
Obviously, the science now shows that DEI is more bad than good.
So the science is on the side of getting rid of it.
But, man.
And, you know, later the Dilbert TV show on UPN got canceled because it lost its time slot because they decided Monday night would be an all-black night of comedy.
And since Dilbert was not a black content, they moved me to a night where it died.
Now, if you don't know the TV business, if something's successful in one time slot and you move it, Usually it dies.
So that's what happened to me.
And then, of course, you're probably aware that if I were black, I never would have been canceled for anything I said in public.
You all know that, right?
If I were black, I'd still be in every newspaper in the country.
Every one of you knows that, right?
So this thing, this racial discrimination, and also gender, has followed me every step of my entire career.
And now that I'm, you know, sort of at the end of my career, to have the, just the gift, the gift to see that this is going to be reversed, that's as good as it gets.
It's as good as it gets.
So I'm having a happy day.
I hope the rest of you have a great day.
I'm going to go talk to the people on Locals privately because they're awesome.
You should meet them.
It's a subscriber service, though.
All right.
Locals.
It says scottadams.locals.com if you want to check it out.
