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, Amazon Prime Movie Red One, Chronic Exhaustion, UBI Study Results, Physicists Redefining Reality, Remote Viewing, Grok's Woke Image Diversity, Elon Musk, Rachael Maddow, Gender Pay Gap Myth, Democrat Platform Myths, Democrat Party Brand, Democrat Media Collapse, America First Legal, National Archives Records Concealment, Trump's Cartel Strategy, China's Greenland Mining, Trump's Denmark Greenland Plan, Ann Stelter Polling Lawsuit, Democrats Avoiding Family Gatherings, Census Migrant Inclusion, San Diego Tent City Experiment, Matt Gaetz, Mollie Hemingway, Wikipedia DEI, Large Organizations Corruption, 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
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee of Scott Adams, and I noticed my lighting's not quite right.
There we go.
Lighting corrected.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Let me do a special shout out to Paul Collider.
You have no idea how much it helps me when you do your little image in the comments that shows that the video and audio are working.
And I know you don't like to be thanked publicly, but it's the end of the year, and I want to tell you I appreciate it a lot.
Well, let's look at the news.
Is it fun and interesting?
Yes, it is.
But first, I'd like to start a little controversy.
But it's a Christmas controversy, just for fun.
All right.
I have told you that there's no such thing as good movies anymore.
For reasons that I don't fully understand, all movies are ruined.
Yeah, they're either woke or they're stupid or they're Somebody has died to a chair and tortured and I don't want to see it.
Or somebody's family gets wiped out and I don't want to see it.
There's blood.
And, you know, nothing's funny anymore.
So, most of you would agree there's no such thing as good movies anymore.
But, yesterday I took a chance on a movie.
A new one.
It's called Red One.
I think it's only on Amazon Prime Video.
It features the rock...
And the actor Chris Evans.
And some other people.
And I'm going to tell you my review of this movie.
It's one of the best movies I've ever seen in my entire life.
Now, people have different opinions of movies.
And I will acknowledge that at least a third of you are saying, What?
I tried to watch that movie and I only got ten minutes into it.
I get it.
I get it.
We all like different stuff.
But I'll tell you what I liked about it, and I'm going to recommend it.
Honestly, this is not an exaggeration.
This is going to sound like an exaggeration.
In my opinion, as just a person who watches movies, no expert or anything, it's a masterpiece.
It's a masterpiece.
It's not just a good movie.
It's a freaking masterpiece.
The writing...
It's just shockingly good.
Now, when I say the writing is shockingly good, I don't just mean that the dialogue is, you know, zippy and funny, and they've got good lines, and it's a good buddy movie.
After a while, it becomes kind of a buddy movie, and it works.
But let me just give you an idea of the inventiveness.
So it's about Santa Claus.
Red One is the code name for Santa Claus, and Santa Claus gets kidnapped.
So The Rock and Chris Evans have to figure out how to get Santa Claus.
Now, so far, you're saying to yourself, well, that sounds sort of ordinary, routine Christmas movie, not too interesting.
But when do you find out that Santa Claus is thin and he's a gym rat?
Now, if you told me that there was going to be a movie where Santa Claus was played as a thin, very fit gym rat with superpowers, I would have said, How are they going to make that?
How are they going to sell that?
How are you going to convince me that Santa has always been thin and fit?
And they pull it off.
And the pure inventiveness of how they turned ordinary Christmas stuff into something special, it's like watching Harry Potter or Star Wars for the first time.
It gave me that feeling.
Now, it also, I would say it's probably PG. I don't believe a single person got killed or seriously injured.
You know, there were a lot of monsters that get beat up and stuff.
But I don't think anybody died in the entire movie.
And I don't think there were any scenes I didn't want to watch.
So...
I would just say congratulations to everybody involved.
The visuals of this are the best I've ever seen.
The visuals, the visual effects, are the best I've ever seen.
Now, you're going to say, that's not true.
Here are five movies with better...
No.
No, because they take their time with the visuals.
Usually the visuals just slap by or, you know, it's just an opening scene.
But here, it's just so good.
Anyway, that's my review.
Now, remember, a third of you aren't going to like it at all, which I totally get.
The critics didn't like it, but the public was 90% yes on it.
It's really good.
I asked this question on X yesterday, did a little poll.
I said, how many of you feel unusually exhausted and exhausted beyond the point where you think it's just Christmas stress?
Because everybody gets more stressed and tired in Christmas.
But how many of you feel there's something different happening?
That you're having a kind of exhaustion that you can't explain?
And 68% of the people who answered said yes.
That they were experiencing recent exhaustion that was beyond anything they could explain based on their lifestyle or based on Christmas.
Is that real?
No.
Now, connected to this, maybe, I'm just guessing, I was seeing some clips of Nicole Shanahan talking about some kind of electromagnetic pollution, basically, and the idea that humans are electrical...
Creatures.
And if you put enough Wi-Fi and electrical signals in the air, you're essentially polluting the thing that has something to do with your ability to thrive, I guess.
Now, I'm not convinced that that's really the problem.
Although it, interestingly, would answer a lot of questions about why is this so, you know, what's happening recently that's wrong?
Maybe.
So I'm not going to rule it out.
But I personally haven't seen the evidence for it.
But I feel like something's happening.
And I know this will cause the NPCs to say, oh, you got the vaccination.
But I don't think it's that.
Because it wasn't really connected to anything that happened after the vaccination.
Some of you are going to say it's the food, but my food's been better than ever.
I don't know what it is.
Sort of a mystery.
But if it were only me...
Then it wouldn't be that much of a story because, you know, it's just one person's health issue.
But 68% say they're suffering unusual exhaustion.
I feel like you need to look into that a little bit.
Yeah.
Anyway.
According to Slay News, there's a major study on universal basic income.
Meaning that they gave people free money to cover some of their basics, but probably not all of them.
And then they checked to see if those people thrived.
Did they use that extra time to, let's say, build a skill?
Did they use the extra time to become more productive people?
Maybe become engineers or poets?
You know, really add something back to society?
Because it would free up some time.
No, it turns out that what happened was the people who got extra money used it to work less.
So all they did is replace their productive efforts with unproductive efforts.
So the conclusion is that universal basic income would destroy the world.
They could have just asked me.
They could have just asked me.
Now, let me explain this.
If you did a study where you put together Elon Musk and...
You know, me and some entrepreneurial people.
And you said, we're going to give you $1,000 a month.
Come back later and see what happened.
Well, probably wouldn't make any difference to any of us.
But I'm pretty sure we would all spend the next year doing productive things because it's just what we do.
We just do productive things.
It's sort of built into our DNA, some people.
But if you took the people who needed a universal basic income, and that's the group that you studied, the ones who needed it, you're not really going to get people turning into engineers and poets.
This is the group of people who, for whatever reason, were not killing it before.
Giving them free money is just going to make them lazier.
That was very predictable.
I'm glad they studied it, actually, you know, just so we know.
But it was very predictable that giving people free money and removing their incentive to work would have a predictable effect on the people who weren't killing it in life already.
So, Elon Musk says, I think I have this right, that in the age of AI and robots that's coming, money might become useless.
Because there's no point in exchanging money when everybody can have everything they want for free.
Because the robots do the cooking and the working and the making and stuff like that.
So I worry that we are not evolved to handle that.
If we evolved, and I assume that's the standard of view, here's the hard, cold truth.
I think human beings were meant to have a third of the people thriving, a third of the people kind of barely hanging on, and a third of the people failing and dying and not reproducing.
And if the people who are failing and dying and not reproducing are taken out of the gene pool, and the people who are happier and thriving are the ones having the kids, Probably you have a species that can move forward, because the natural effect of evolution is getting rid of the laggards and promoting the people who are killing it in life.
But what happens if you start promoting the laggards instead of promoting the people who are killing it in life?
Well, in the short term, it keeps a lot of people alive.
In the long term, does it make everybody lazy and unproductive, and do we lose our purpose?
Because I think we're kind of evolved to strive or die.
Right?
I think humans, we either strive or die.
And you see people choosing both paths.
Some strive, some die.
But what if nobody died?
At least they didn't die because of being lazy.
I don't know.
I don't think we could possibly predict what that will do to humanity.
But none of it looks good.
Because the only thing that makes humans do the right thing is incentive.
What happens if you take it away?
Just don't know what's going to happen.
Anyway, they could have just asked me about that one.
Physicists are starting to say, more and more of them, that humanity is getting ready for what they call a radical re-understanding of reality.
Something as big as the Einstein and quantum physics kind of revolutions separately and combined.
So according to Quantum Magazine, space-time isn't base reality.
That's what some of the physicists are saying.
So if you think that the understanding of space-time and gravity and all those things are base reality, the physicists are saying, no, those might be emergent phenomenons, meaning there's something below them that's causing them, which, of course, is true.
And Just look at the things we don't understand about reality.
And you can see how obvious it is that we're due for a major re-understanding of reality.
We don't know what dark matter is exactly.
I'm not sure it exists.
Electrons have no mass, which makes no sense to me.
We don't know what happened before the Big Bang.
I'm not sure what's up with black holes.
I feel like, and string theory looks absurd to me.
So I feel like we really are ready.
Well, fuck you.
So that's, by the way, in case you didn't think I read the comments, I do read the comments.
So I have a right to respond to you as a personal response.
Because you're not just talking to the other people.
So let me just say this to you.
Fuck you.
I'm talking to one of you.
You know who it is.
The rest of you can sit this out.
Yeah.
So if you wouldn't say that to my face, don't say it here.
Fuck you.
And that came from somebody on Locals, somebody who pays a subscription.
Get the fuck off of Locals.
You need a minimum amount of social awareness to be part of the club.
And that ain't it.
You can have your opinions, but if you wouldn't say it to me to my face, don't fucking say it here.
Okay?
All right.
Glad we cleared that up.
Anyway, there's a story, and I think the Daily Mail had it, that back in 1984, the CIA tried to use remote viewers.
These would be psychics.
And the remote viewers were asked to look at Mars a million years ago and to see if there was life on Mars.
And so one of the remote viewers, who is one of the most successful ones, they say, looked at Mars, and he said back a million years ago there were these tall creatures that lived there, tall, thin creatures, and They were building pyramids.
I don't know where the pyramids are.
I guess they'd be covered by now.
But that's what they said.
Now, are you surprised that the CIA was using psychics?
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if they tested it, because I think Russia was doing a lot of psychic stuff that we didn't know if it was working or not.
But there is, I will tell you, I have a little inside behind the curtain knowledge of this, because years ago, I was sort of not read into any secret stuff.
I didn't get any state secrets.
But I did have extended conversation with somebody who was deeply involved.
And I can tell you that there was a belief that remote viewing was real.
I can confirm that.
There was a belief, maybe not by everybody, but by some people involved, that there was at least one viewer who was legit.
Some of them didn't test out, but there was one that kept getting hits, and they couldn't explain why it was so accurate.
I believe that's the one that saw the stuff on Mars.
Now, I should also tell you That when I was learning about it, none of it was convincing to me.
So when I heard the stories about the remote viewer getting stuff right, and how spooky it was that he got some stuff right, it didn't sound right to me.
So a lot of it's subjective.
So if you heard the story of what was true, that the remote viewer couldn't possibly have known, and then they tested him to see if the remote viewer could guess something right, they got like miraculously accurate looking results.
But so does a fake psychic.
You know, if somebody does a cold read, it looks like they're getting phenomenally accurate guesses.
But they're not.
They're just doing pattern recognition.
So my suspicion is that there was one remote viewer who was just really good at pattern recognition.
And if somebody came to them and said, we want you to view a spot in Russia during the Cold War, What would somebody with good pattern recognition think they were looking for?
A weapon, right?
Or some kind of military asset.
So you could kind of guess what they wanted you to find.
And then you say, I see a large object.
It's a military asset.
And I think in one case, it was a submarine or something.
And then the expert said, my God, it's true.
There's a submarine there.
So that was like a famous hit, you know, somebody who guessed a submarine in a location that they shouldn't have known that was a submarine, except it was Russia, it was during the time, you know.
Basically, it wasn't that hard to guess that it was something like a weapon and there was some water involved and submarine was a good guess.
So I'm not convinced that That remote viewing is legitimate.
In fact, I would go further and say I would place the hugest bet in the world that's not real.
A million dollars?
Easily.
Yeah, I would bet a million dollars literally that there's no such thing as remote viewing.
But I can tell you that there were believers.
There were believers.
I just don't think it's true.
Yesterday, an interesting thing happened.
I used Grok Because I wanted to have it create an image for a post I was doing where it would be a bunch of scientists looking confused.
But when I asked it for a picture of a bunch of scientists, no matter whether they were confused or not, it gave me a group that was so diverse that only one of the people in the large group was a white guy.
Probably the number of white guys in science is close to like half or 60%.
But you could do it consistently, and every picture was just filled with people of color and women as scientists.
So I posted that, and I just put a comment, presented with that comment, because I think everybody could see what was going on.
And sure enough, they did.
It kicked off a whole bunch of people trying their own searches with an image result.
And they found out that Grok is super woke.
Now, remember when Gemini showed the founding fathers as black?
George Washington was shown as black.
And everybody said, whoa, whoa, whoa, you've gone too far in this, you know, forced diversity stuff.
Pull back, Google, pull back.
And then we assumed that Google intentionally made it woke and it just went too far.
But Grok, I don't think anybody thinks that Elon Musk has his finger on the scale to make it more DEI because it's not even something he approves of.
So the interesting thing about Grok Is I think you can know for sure that it wasn't intentional.
So how would a large language model become so woke?
By looking at stuff on the internet.
So if you trained on the internet, you would see that every corporate entity, when it does a picture of its staff, it's mostly diverse people of color and women, and they'll throw in the one white guy because they want to show how diverse they are.
And so the large language model only knows what it sees.
So if it was trained on insurance commercials, it would think all men were idiots and women are pretty awesome.
So there wasn't much you could do about it.
But here's the more interesting part about it.
So I posted this on X, and I think it's a real problem that needs to be fixed.
It's not just a joke.
And Elon Musk saw it in a few hours and responded that it shouldn't do that.
It should show a representative group That matches what the field itself looks like.
So, I mean, if it were an NBA team and most of the players were black, that would be the correct answer.
If it were scientists and it was the right mix, that's the right answer.
So, and then he said it'll be quickly fixed.
Now, does that blow your mind?
Like, that's one of those things that makes me think none of this could be real.
Like, how in the world...
Does the richest man on earth who's running several companies and at least helping run part of the United States and running Doge and tweeting 20 times a day, how in the world does he do customer support on X? How in the world does he do that?
Like, there has to be more than one of them.
And it makes me wonder about his systems that he has for catching stuff like this.
And I was trying to imagine it.
Do you think he was just sitting on the toilet looking through X like he always does and he just noticed it?
Maybe.
Maybe he just noticed it organically.
But I'd like to think...
That probably he has at least one staffer whose job it is to look for things on X that he should know about.
Maybe.
I just wonder about his process.
I'd love to ask him about that.
But the fact that he just immediately saw it and said, again, will be fixed soon.
Boom.
I saw an old clip of Rachel Maddow.
Getting schooled on some show, must have been a while ago, in which she was claiming that women are paid 77 cents on a dollar, and her guests had to straighten around that none of that's true.
And I tried to think, what would it be like...
To be a woman in America in 2024, although this clip was older, it's still true that people think it today.
What would it be like to think that you lived in that world if you're a woman?
And you thought that women were paid 77 cents on a dollar.
Now, I'm pretty sure my audience knows that that's a hoax.
I mean, it's not an intentional hoax.
It just works out that way.
Nothing like that's true.
That's not even remotely true.
When people do the same work and put in the same hours and have the same background, women are fine.
There's no 77 cents on a dollar.
Indeed, in my entire life, I've never encountered one legitimate situation where a woman was underpaid.
Have you?
I've never seen it.
I've never heard of it.
I've never seen it at all.
But some women believe they live in that world.
Now, here's what that reminded me of.
It reminded me that Democrat policies are a lot like a wife blaming her husband for her dream.
You know that famous situation?
A lot of you have had this, where if you have a wife or a girlfriend, she'll have a dream in which you did something bad, and then she'll be mad at you all day.
That's what this 77 cents on a dollar feels like.
Because it's based on something that's not real, but men are still in trouble.
And then I thought, could you generalize that to the entire Democratic Party?
And it turns out you sort of can.
So here's the model.
Somebody has a dream that something you did in the dream was bad, and then they hate you in the real world.
Now, compare that to earning 77 cents on a dollar, which is not true, just like the dream was not true, but they're mad at you in the real world for it.
That sounds the same.
How about climate change or climate alarm?
Climate alarm, many people on the right feel that's not real, but people are mad at me for it, just like as if they had a dream that wasn't real.
What about all the massive discrimination in hiring?
Like if, let's say, a black man or woman goes to get a job at a Fortune 500 company, they will tell you that they're discriminated against, and they'd be lucky if they could get that job.
That is literally the opposite of reality.
But still, somebody's mad at me for the thing that's opposite of what they think is true.
So if you look at the Democratic platform, you just go right down the line.
It's all things that are not reality that somebody's mad at me for.
Now, in some cases, it's a difference in opinion of what's real.
Take, for example, abortion.
Abortion is not a difference in values.
It's a difference of whether you think the reality is that the fetus is alive and that God exists and God wants it to be alive.
So that's a case of a difference in reality.
So I think that the difference between Democrats and Democrats Republicans, we usually think is a difference in values, right?
When people on TV talk about it, they'll say, well, our values are this, and they're different from your Democratic values.
And I would argue none of that's true.
People have the same values everywhere in the United States.
People have the same values.
What they differ on is reality, right?
What we think is different is the reality that's guiding us.
If we had the same reality assumptions, it would look like we had the same values, right?
So if you thought that one group was being discriminated against, you would have a certain set of solutions.
And if I thought they were not being discriminated against, I would have a different set of solutions.
But in the real world, we say, oh, your values are different because you don't care about this group.
No, I care about them.
I care about them plenty.
I just don't want something done that isn't based on reality.
So look for that model.
Look for how often the Democrats are basing their entire policy of any topic on the dream they had about something bad you did last night.
Meanwhile, DEI, I've told you, DEI kills everything it touched.
And there's new research from the progressive polling outfit called Navigator Research.
And it says the reputation of the Democratic Party is in tatters.
And they did too much with the wokeness and the DEI. And too much attention to the elites.
Positive attention, I guess.
And...
Okay?
And then, separately, the Democratic Party brand is in the toilet, according to, I guess, New York Times did a written interview with some Democrats, and they said that the Democrats who performed the best We're the ones who ran against their own party.
And one of the experts said, Smith, said, when the best way to win as a candidate is to run against your own party, it's that bad.
Our candidate down ballots are good.
It's what the D next to their name means that people don't like.
Well, I would argue that maybe the candidates aren't that good either.
That's just my opinion.
So, the Democratic Party got killed totally by DEI, and you might know that, I think it was a few months ago, one of the top consultants to Kamala Harris, this Quentin Fulks, he said that the reason they had to pick Kamala and they couldn't have an open primary is that you would have had black women be highly upset if it was not Kamala Harris.
So, remember I told you it's like the dream?
Literally, this man said he didn't want to upset women based on stuff that wasn't important, basically.
It just sounds like they're mad over a dream.
Yeah, so DEI kills everything.
I saw a quote that was posted by...
Well, it doesn't matter who posted it.
The person said it was Antonio Garcia Mart something, but it got cut off.
I don't know his last name.
And he said this, but it was Mark Andreessen posted it.
He said, the rigidly interlocking...
Listen to this sentence.
It's pretty good.
The rigidly interlocking clerisy of government and media that used to rule over America alive, deciding who is a hero, who is a villain, and who deserves to be ostracized or canceled, has essentially disappeared.
So that is a real good insight.
So the Democratic Party would work with the media, and they would create this overarching hoax, basically, of what was real and what wasn't.
And then the country would be run based on that overarching set of hoaxes.
But because Trump has taught us that the news is fake, and the news has taught us that by being so fake and getting caught, we no longer believe what the news says Which has completely neutered the party of your girlfriend's bad dream last night.
So they used to be able to take the bad dream and turn it into reality through the media, and now it's just a bad dream.
That's all they have.
All they have is the bad dream.
They don't have any way to operationalize it and turn it into policy because the media has collapsed.
I think that's pretty spot on.
Meanwhile, speaking of the media, America First, the America First Legal AFL, who is doing amazing work, Stephen Miller's brainchild, I think, to sue the Democrats in all the ways and uncover things that we need to know, etc.
So they've had a whole bunch of wins in the past year.
Quite impressive, I must say.
And they managed to sue the National Archives for illegally concealing federal records related to the Biden family corruption scandal.
Do you believe that?
That the National Archives was illegally concealing records?
No.
Well, the AFL got those records.
It includes photographs of Joe Biden meeting with Hunter Biden's Chinese business associates and introducing Hunter to China's President Xi while he was vice president.
It was everything you thought it was.
The Biden crime family was exactly what you thought it was.
But our media prevented you from seeing that until AFL sued the federal records just to see the photographs.
These photographs always existed.
And so during that entire time, we were arguing whether Hunter Biden had met people through his father and was part of this crime organization.
They had pictures of it, photos of the vice president meeting with Hunter's business partners.
Yeah, everything you thought was true, it was true.
Meanwhile, Trump's transition team They say that Trump is planning to put together some maybe special forces and assassinate the cartel bosses in Mexico once he's in office.
Now, that's the first time I've heard it specifically that he was going to assassinate the cartel leaders.
But to me, that sounds a little bit more like negotiating.
Because it could work both ways.
I don't think that killing the leaders stops fentanyl.
Because I'm pretty sure somebody takes over and the other cartel just makes twice as much.
So I don't think it's going to stop the supply.
But what it could do is make the leaders of the cartel say, at the moment, I have a really cushy deal on the head of a cartel.
But I just noticed that the other three heads of the other three cartels just got murdered.
Maybe I should concentrate less on fentanyl and a little bit more on something less deadly.
So I could see how it could be positive, but it won't be positive in the sense if you kill the cartel leaders, the fentanyl business stops.
That doesn't seem likely.
But you can certainly get them to say, we'll work with you.
I feel like the only way to win with the cartels is to help them transform into legitimate businesses.
I think that's the only way.
But that's pretty odious because it means taking somebody who murdered lots of Americans through drugs and just murdered people in general.
And giving them some billionaire lifestyle and ownership of real companies and stuff.
So it's not ideal, but it's messy business.
So what else are you going to do?
If killing them doesn't work, what else are you going to do?
You're going to have to make a deal.
So only Trump can make a deal with cartel people.
And the only way you can make a deal is to kill a few of them first or to make them think that they are going to get killed pretty soon.
All right.
Anyway, that's boring.
There's a new technology at the University of Liverpool that is going to turn sunlight directly into hydrogen without having to plug it in.
So you can capture the sun, and they've got some new kind of technology with a hybrid nanoreactor.
They figured out some kind of synthetic material that can take sunlight and turn it directly into hydrogen.
Now imagine if that gets more efficient.
It's basically free hydrogen from sunlight.
I don't know if that's better or worse than just electricity from sunlight, but it's kind of exciting.
So let's talk about Greenland.
As you know, Trump has said he thinks that the United States should own Greenland, and he's talked about it, and his staff says he's serious about it.
The reasons for it are that, number one, it's critically located so that if the temperatures cause melting in the Arctic, Then the Arctic is going to be sort of a battleground of the major powers trying to have some control over this new area that nobody could control before.
And Greenland's sort of near there, so it's one of those strategically important places.
So militarily, it might be important to us.
But it also has, apparently, a lot of natural resources.
So they've got rare earth materials.
What I didn't know, and Jack Posobiec pointed this out next, that it's already being mined.
By a Chinese company.
So China is mining rare earth minerals, which are one of the ways China controls us, because you can't go too far in pushing China, because then you're not going to have your pharmaceuticals and your rare earth materials that you need.
So do we feel comfortable that China is mining this rare earth material over in our hemisphere?
Well, the Monroe Doctrine starts getting interesting at that point.
How much Chinese influence on critical things are we going to allow in this hemisphere?
And the answer should be none.
I mean, that's been our history.
None.
And that's Trump's view, apparently.
Here's what I love about this.
When people are Trump's age, he's, what, 78?
Don't they usually run out of big, innovative ideas?
But Trump is just full of ideas.
He's pushing, you know, Bitcoin and wants to take over Greenland.
He's threatening the Panama Canal.
These are sort of big, innovative, didn't see it coming ideas.
And some of them are practical.
Whereas I think his threats on the Panama Canal are just to get the fees lowered so American ships can go through for free and they would just charge other countries, which makes sense because we gave them the canal for free.
Of course, we conquered part of their country to build the canal, but let's not mention that.
Here's what I would love to see.
So apparently Denmark pays...
To own Greenland.
So Greenland operates semi-autonomously from Denmark, who kind of technically is in charge, but they let Greenland do its own thing.
But Greenland can't pay its own way.
So it's an expense.
So somebody said, what would Trump pay if we were to buy Greenland?
Do you know what the price is?
Denmark should pay us.
Because if we take over the management of Greenland, Denmark is going to save a whole bunch of money that they were going to waste, not waste, but they were going to spend taking care of Greenland because it doesn't take care of itself.
So the right price is zero, or one dollar.
So it should be free.
Now, how many other countries don't pay their way?
There are only like 60,000 residents in the whole place.
Here's what I'd like to see.
I'd like to see Trump put together a specific proposal that he would pitch to the residents of Greenland and maybe even go there in person and do a rally and answer some questions and just say, look, it's up to you if you don't want to do this.
I don't know if he wants it to be up to the residents, but let's just say, yeah, maybe you don't say it's up to you.
Maybe instead say, I want to get your input.
If we take over, we're going to get rid of the Chinese mining.
We're going to do a lot more of it.
And a lot of that will accrue to your locals.
So your lifestyle will be better.
But imagine this.
Instead of offering to make it an extra state, which, you know, screws up with all our demographics and everything, not demographic, would mess with our whole political system.
Instead of saying that, suppose we said, here's the deal.
We'll take over management, but you can maintain your Greenland identity.
Your Denmark passport, probably.
I assume they have rights to go to Denmark, I'm guessing.
But you would also be American citizens at the same time.
So you could be dual or triple citizens.
We just want to take over management.
So you never have to do anything with America if you don't want to.
But if you wanted to, you get the option.
I would imagine if you lived in Greenland, you would love to have some benefits of American citizenship.
Maybe not full benefits.
Maybe it doesn't even include voting.
I don't know.
I'd love to see him pitch it, just see what happens.
Denmark, of course, would not allow that, but might be able to talk him into it.
So Trump and his team are suing Polster and Seltzer.
Because the allegation is that she intentionally ran a fake poll toward the end of the election that made it look like Harris was a better candidate and more viable than she was.
So that looked like election interference because the numbers were so far out of line.
I think I like this.
I don't like the idea of suing pollsters for being wrong, but if you can sue this one pollster, For being way wrong in a way that nobody really thinks she didn't know.
He might not be able to prove it.
Might not be able to prove it.
But I think it's a good shot across the bow.
Next time there's a pollster that wants to cripple some Republican candidate, you want them to say, if we don't fix these numbers to make them a little more true, those Republicans like to sue pollsters for rigging elections.
And even though they didn't win this lawsuit, I don't think they'll win. - Mm-hmm.
But even though they didn't win the lawsuit against that one pollster they sued, we don't want to be spending our time in court.
So maybe we shouldn't push these numbers as aggressively as we have.
So I think it's a good idea to just send a warning shot and say, we will sue a pollster that's being sued.
Completely unethical.
It's just going to be hard to win, and it's going to be hard to prove that it's unethical as opposed to a mistake.
Well, according to Axios, 61% of Democrats, they're going to spend less time with their own family and friends because they're stressed out, I think, because of politics.
But only 39% of Republicans said the same.
Does that surprise you?
That Democrats are reluctant to spend time with their own family?
Here's why I think that.
I think that Republicans walk into every room thinking that reality is on their side and common sense.
So, of course, they'd be happy to visit.
And they listen to you say crazy things, and they might say, yeah, okay, sounds crazy.
Whereas the Democrats, in my opinion, who have based their entire party on the dream your wife had last night and is blaming it on you, if you put them with a bunch of people who understand reality, it's an unpleasant situation because their entire understanding of the world is going to be unraveled.
So I can see why the Democrats would be the, let's stay home and stay away from those other people party.
Makes sense to me.
Meanwhile, as the count of insurrection, Barbie says, the census, this next census, is going to include refugees and border releases.
So if you're in the country for any reason, temporarily, legally, illegally, you're going to count the census.
And there are so many of them at this point.
It's 2.8 million temporary migrants now.
It's going to probably change the congressional seats.
So if there's a state that has just a ton of migrants, then their representation in Congress might increase.
And so I know Elon Musk thinks that that's the big problem.
But here again, Democrats believe that these relatively open borders are about being less racist.
That's what they think the open borders are about, trying to be less racist.
Is that what's happening?
No, it's probably just political.
It's probably done in cynical, purely political reasons.
Now, I'm sure it's a complicated situation.
People have different motives.
There's some people who just think it's a better world that way.
But again, the Democrat voters seem to be detached from reality and About how open the borders are and why.
I'm pretty sure the Republicans have a better idea of how open the borders are and also why.
So is that a difference in values?
It's not a difference in values.
It's a difference in reality.
Which reality do you think is actually happening?
And I think the Republicans have the accurate one when it comes to the border.
Or more accurate.
So San Diego did that idea where you create a tent city, but you move it away from the downtown areas where the homeless and the tents are a problem.
And you just give them some land that's not too far away, that wasn't being used for something.
And you give them some nice tents.
And since you know they don't want to live inside, most of them are on drugs and they can't really do inside stuff.
And it's being called a success.
Isn't that interesting?
It's been called a success, so they're going to do more of it.
You might remember an idea that I was floating several years ago and ever since then, that the Republicans should look for a way to move them away from the downtowns and put them in some kind of environment that's better for them, but also better for the people who live downtown.
And that might mean buying them a tent or Finding them a nice piece of public land, letting them do their own thing, maybe with a little bit of vital services that they weren't getting before, and just move them away.
Just put them where they want to be so other people who want to be in a cleaner environment can have it.
Now, so they built 541 tents, not built them, but they put them up, and they look pretty densely spotted, but they say it worked.
So Colin Rugg's writing about this this morning.
Matt Gaetz is picking apart the ethics report that came out about him.
Remember when Matt Gaetz was in office, there was an ethics investigation about his alleged paying a minor for sex, a 17-year-old.
And Now, Molly Hemingway says this on her post.
She goes, sometimes I feel like I was the only reporter to look into the details of the Gates allegations.
And Molly Hemingway says, that's how I learned the accusers in prison for making the same false sex with minors accusation against someone else.
What?
Did you know that?
Did you know that the main accuser is in prison for making the same false accusation against someone else?
I think she's right.
She might be the only reporter who looked into it.
And then there's some other bits of evidence that make me say I don't care if he did it or not.
But apparently he wasn't paying anybody for sex, and the evidence clearly shows that he was not paying anybody for sex.
He was transferring some money, but it wasn't tied to any specific sex acts.
And let me say publicly, I don't think anybody really cares.
About a consensual sex with a 17-year-old.
Because in much of the world, it's not a crime.
And you could agree or disagree whether it should be a crime in your state.
But it's just a fact that in most of the world, that wouldn't even be a crime.
So do you care?
I don't care.
I don't care about it one way or the other.
I mean, I hope he doesn't go to jail for it.
But I certainly don't hold it against them.
I don't care at all.
Not even a little bit.
I don't have the slightest care about that.
Apparently, Wikipedia's annual budget, this doesn't sound real, but it's being reported.
Their annual budget was $177 million, but they spent $50 million of the $177 million on improving their diversity, equity, and inclusion, their DEI. Do you believe that's real?
To me, that sounds about as real as the Jeff Bezos wedding being $600 million.
And by the way, when I told you that can't possibly be real, it was debunked within hours.
Yeah, it wasn't real.
So if you're telling me that Wikipedia spent $50 million of their $177 million on diversity, equity, and inclusion, I'm going to say I doubt it.
I doubt it.
Doesn't sound real to me.
Unless somebody was stealing 49 million of it, that might happen.
But I've got a larger point, which is everything of scale ends up corrupt.
Everything of scale, everything big, ends up corrupt.
And here's why.
If you are one person sitting by yourself in a room, you can be honest with yourself.
You don't have to be, but you can be.
You probably want to be.
If you do a business deal with one person, and you pick that person correctly, both of you could be telling the truth and playing it honestly.
And by the way, that's one of the big changes in humanity, is that when we became less tribal, we had to depend on strangers to do a deal.
So once you're not depending on only your tribe, you have to do a deal with somebody who's trading some goods that you need and you don't know who this trader is.
So humans developed an ability to trust strangers as long as they checked them out.
And that propelled society.
So you can get two people to trust each other.
Maybe three people.
Maybe you can form a band with four people and they trust each other.
But as soon as you get to tens of thousands of people, there's going to be some number of major criminals in that group that have slipped in.
And those criminals are going to realize, hey, if I do this corrupt thing, I can make some money.
Because wherever there's a lot of money and people, there's always an opportunity to skim some off.
So in general, as soon as something reaches a certain scale, it's not you sitting in a room and it's not two people and it's not four people, but rather it's thousands of people and it's all over the world.
It's always corrupt.
You want some examples?
How about personal finance?
I'm not going to give you the long explanation, but you know the personal finance field is totally corrupt, right?
It's mostly experts telling you that they can beat the averages, and they can't.
There's no evidence for that whatsoever.
The entire financial advice industry is pretty much just a lie.
It's just corrupt.
How about the government?
The government's a big entity.
Corrupt.
Totally corrupt.
How about the mainstream media?
Gigantic entity.
Lots of corrupt.
Completely corrupt.
How about human resources?
Well, human resources is now basically DEI. Completely corrupt.
What about the marketing department?
It's their job to lie.
It's literally their job to make their stuff look better than the other stuff.
Yeah, marketing, sales, those are corrupt, generally.
Generally by design, they're corrupt.
It's people pushing the edge of acceptability to make the sale.
And so this brings me to my argument that I've used before, but I want to reinforce this.
If somebody says to me, Scott, why don't you believe climate change alarm when 99% of scientists tell you it's true?
Now, first of all, it's not 99% of scientists.
That's a corrupt number to begin with.
But here's an answer that I've been testing out lately.
Everything else that's that size is corrupt.
Because climate change is, you know, many thousands of scientists and many trillions of dollars.
It's going to be trillions.
If you tell me that there's a major effort with trillions of dollars and maybe even millions of people, it could be millions of people, I'm going to tell you that was corrupt.
Why?
It always is.
Everything of that scale is corrupt.
Everything.
Is the Catholic Church doing a little extra sex crimes against children?
Probably.
Yeah.
Everything large is corrupt.
There's no exception.
Only small things can be uncorrupt.
There are things you don't know the corruption yet.
Remember when Black Lives Matter looked like it might be legitimate and people had some real interests and they were trying to pursue them?
Nope.
Total organization was corrupt.
What about the CIA? Remember when they were supposed to focus externally?
Nope.
Totally corrupt.
What about the Democratic Party?
Totally corrupt.
I don't know about the Republican Party.
I have to admit that the Republicans, if you look at it as a whole, it doesn't seem super corrupt.
Clearly there are individuals who are corrupt in every party.
But the whole party doesn't look corrupt under Trump.
Under Trump, it looks like just full disclosure.
How about Facebook?
Facebook, big operation.
Well, Facebook has some accusations they need to handle in terms of censorship and handling of the election in 2020, right?
What about Google?
I could go on, but you get the point, right?
Every big entity is corrupt.
There's really almost no exceptions.
So when I look at climate change, and you tell me 99% of the scientists are on one side, first of all, that's not true.
But secondly, everything of that scale is corrupt.
It all is.
And I don't know that there's any exception to that.
How about the war in Ukraine?
Is that all on the up and up?
Of course not.
Of course not.
And that's being driven by NATO. So is NATO on the up and up?
Obviously not.
Obviously not.
So anybody who believes that any large, funded, complicated thing is on the up and up, maybe 1% of the time.
Maybe 1% of the time.
Yeah.
All right.
There's a new pain reliever, study finds found.
So in Brazil, there's some kind of a tree, an apple tree that has sugar apple leaves.
So it's not a regular apple tree.
It's a sugar apple tree.
And the leaves are apparently really, really powerful for relieving pain.
And I guess it's always been a folk medicine, so that's not a surprise.
It's anti-arthritic and it fights pain and inflammation and probably doesn't have much of a side effect.
So maybe we get a big improvement in inflammation.
And also there's some super ionic battery tech that's going to give you 600 miles on a charge if it works.
So yet again, more amazing breakthroughs in energy.
And then there's an idea, according to the live science, of using lasers powered by sunlight to beam energy through space to support interplanetary missions.
So here's how they can make a laser out of sunlight.
Now, you probably say, uh, you can't make a laser out of sunlight.
Well, apparently you can if you can find photosynthetic bacteria.
And they found some bacteria that's super efficient in transforming light into energy.
And apparently they can use this to collect enough natural light that they can build a laser that wouldn't be powered externally by plugging it into the wall or needing a big battery, I guess.
Well, maybe it needs a battery.
But you wouldn't need to plug it into the wall.
And it would be a laser.
Just from the sun.
And then they would beam that energy to another planet.
That doesn't sound like something that could work to me.
If you want to bet against a scientific breakthrough becoming practical, I don't see the laser beam from another planet powering things.
I just don't see that happening.
All right.
Are there any stories that are happening that I'm ignoring?
I'm, of course, pointedly ignoring the subway murder by the migrant.
And the reason I do that is because if you get anecdotes like that, your hatred for migrants will go through the roof and you don't need that.
The facts which are objectively true are all you need.
Just the facts, just the data is all you need to say we need to tighten the border and get rid of the criminals and be smarter about immigration.
You don't need that extra story.
It's horrible.
You don't need it in your head.
It has probably a lot more to do with mental illness, I would imagine.
And it shouldn't be affecting your decisions.
You already know what needs to be done.
That was just a horrible, horrible thing.
It doesn't need to be part of the decision-making.
That's my complaint.
it doesn't need to be part of the decision making all right Spike proteins and lasers.
Lasers from stars to power all kinds of things.
I guess it's more of a thing than I thought it was.
Photosynthesis is the fastest chemical reaction observable in nature.
That's cool.
Who's going to be in charge of the CIA? Isn't that Tulsi?
It is persuasive, though.
It's visual.
You got that going for you.
Gotta hold Mayorkas accountable.
You know what's interesting?
I think Tom Homan worked with Mayorkas and actually had a good report on Mayorkas.
And since we trust Tom Homan, I guess it makes me curious, you know, what's going on with Mayorkas.
It does seem like he's working against the interests of the United States.
But I feel like there's something we don't know about Mayorkas that would explain everything.
It could be that he's just taking instructions and doing what he's told to do, which wouldn't make me happy either.
But we don't know exactly what's going on there.
Oh, Homan also said he changed, but we don't know why.
You think he's been blackmailed?
There's nothing you can rule out at this point.
Your stepbrother worked with Mayorkas 25 years ago and thought he was a good guy.
Yeah, it's confusing.
People do change.
San Jose Police Department has a whole unit for racial equity because there isn't enough crime.
He's a communist.
People would have known that before, right?
Didn't Holman speculate it was the cartels that got to him?
I don't know about that.
It's the way he testifies, yeah.
The way he testifies makes him look like he's not on our side.
It's easy to blackmail, yeah.
Cartel sent Mayorkas a photo of his house.
Did that happen?
Huh.
Well, you know, lying about the border is, you know, just his political job.
I mean, if his boss says, say this about the border, he probably has to.
I mean, it's not ethical, but he probably has to.
Money and power will change weak people.
true.
So there's a very good meme going around showing the countries of Greenland and Panama Canal and Canada being choices on Amazon that Trump is shopping for on his phone.
I think I'll pick up a Greenland and a Panama Canal.
It's very funny.
I love the fact that Trump is treating those topics sort of like he's just having fun, but he's also serious.
It's a weird combination that works.
He makes it work.
And now we're having fun, people say.
Yeah, I kind of walk Greenland now.
Porno blackmail bots sent you a picture of your own house?
Wow.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to talk to the people on Locals privately for a moment.
Thanks for joining on X and YouTube and Rumble.
Thanks for being here.
Rumble stock, by the way, has nearly doubled since yesterday.
