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, Governor Newsom, CA Homelessness, Matthew Graves Resigns, Sean Ono Lennon, Elon Musk, TikTok Algorithm Free Speech, META Interactive AI Users, BlueSky Bots, Trump Cabinet Stop Posting, MSNBC Trump Popularity Speculation, Democrat Party Collapse, Fine People Hoax, Democrat Hoaxes Promotion, 6B More Ukraine Aid, Biden Carter Comparisons, CarterBiden Loser, Top 10 Democrat Hoaxes, John Brennon, Trump's NATO Policy, Marco Rubio, Costco DEI, Robby Starbuck, Soros Funded DA Legal Guidance, Russia's Dark Fleet, Russian Ship Anchor Dragging, 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
I've got a new iPhone that seems to work, unlike my last one.
Well, it sort of works.
It does show that I have 16 messages that I don't really have.
Let's figure that out.
All right.
Let's call up my comments here for locals.
Then we're going to be in good shape.
There we are.
Last day of the year.
Hope you're ready for this.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the end of the year show, the best thing that ever happened to you.
But...
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
better it's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now oh my god that was good Well, we made it.
We made it to the end of the year.
Congratulations, everybody.
You did it again.
Now, we didn't all make it.
I know some of you had some deep losses this year.
But at least the rest of us made it for now.
Let me tell you the news.
So China is building what's being called the Solar Great Wall.
So it's a gigantic wall of solar.
And they're going to be done by 2030. And it's going to power the entire city of Beijing, they think.
That's kind of awesome.
How long would it have to be?
Well, 250 miles long.
It's going to be three miles wide.
And stretch for 250 miles across the desert.
And I said to myself, I know where we could put a giant solar wall.
I've got an idea.
Yeah, on our border.
Remember when it was the beginning of the first Trump administration?
And maybe even before he was elected?
And we were coming up with all these ideas for...
How to build a cool wall on the southern border.
And we had all these ideas like, what if you put solar panels all across it and you make it an energy plus?
Well, China's doing it.
But it looks like it's not a regular wall because it's three miles wide.
So it's a solar wall.
Anyway.
Meanwhile, Good News Networks and Andy Corbley's writing that There has been invented a way to pull water and a fog.
So apparently there are places that have fog but not enough water.
It doesn't rain enough but they get some fog.
And now they have these little metal needle things that are like mimicking pine needles that don't require any electricity.
You just set it up in the fog and it captures the fog water and drains it down into a pail or something.
That's kind of cool.
An actual no-energy-needed water-capturing machine.
That's a first.
No energy needed.
According to SciPost, Eric Nolan is writing that men in relationships have better sexual functioning regardless of sexual orientation.
So the study says that men who are in relationships...
Better sexual functioning.
What do you think I'm going to say about that?
Do you know me well enough to know exactly what I'm going to say?
Yes, you do.
Yes, you do.
It's backward science.
Let me ask you, who is more likely to be in a relationship in the first place?
Probably people who are pretty good at sex.
Because their partner says, well, I could certainly live with more of that.
What about people who have bad sexual function?
Does their partner say, hmm, I'd like to do that for the rest of my life?
No, it's backwards.
It is not that the relationship is improving your sexual performance.
Your sexual performance has improved your relationship.
Backwards science.
You should have asked me.
I could have straightened that out.
Well, over at X, X had a win that might have been not a win, but you decide.
Was this a win or not a win?
So, Governor Newsom in California bragged on X that he had dramatically slowed and reduced the growth of homelessness.
But a community note quickly jumped in and said...
Completely misleading because homelessness has been growing year after year since 2019. So let me say it again, but listen to the exact words.
So Newsom said that he has dramatically slowed and reduced the growth of homelessness.
He's reduced the growth of homelessness.
The community note says it's misleading because homelessness is increasing.
But not by very much, compared to how much it had been increasing in every prior year.
I feel like Newsom is right on this, although he may have written it So that dumb people would think it was more than it was.
But what he said is exactly and precisely correct.
He dramatically, according to the statistics that were shown, he dramatically slowed.
It is dramatic.
It's a lot.
He slowed and reduced the growth, which is the increase, the rate basically, of homelessness.
It's actually an accomplishment.
I'm not sure that...
I think Community Notes did a little overstep there.
Because if you were to read his statement, and then you would read Community Notes correcting his statement, it would seem to be that he was claiming credit for something that wasn't worthy of credit, or that he lied.
He didn't lie, and it's totally worth mentioning because it looks like it's heading in the right direction.
So I'm going to say that Newsom should have won that battle, but because it's on X, I think community notes slapped him down.
I disagree with this one.
I think this was community notes should have said it's a little misleading, but keep in mind the total number is going up a little bit.
That would have been fair.
Did you know that the U.S. attorney...
Who was named in Hunter Biden's IRS whistleblowing testimony.
Let's see.
Now, what?
I think this is like two stories that got mixed up.
But Matthew Graves, a U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, whose name surfaced in testimony by IRS whistleblowers about political interference in the case, will resign and then get out of whose name surfaced in testimony by IRS whistleblowers about political interference
So it looks like there's going to be a lot of people associated with the Biden Department of Justice that are going to resign or in some cases leave the country.
And what do you think about that?
What do you think?
Do you think that they're overreacting?
Or do you think that they have a reason to maybe get out of there and stay out of trouble?
I was confusing this story with one of the other DOJ attorneys that was going after Trump leaving the country.
The one that left the country, I don't know that that was exactly the right move to protect himself, but it signals some kind of guilt.
Like, I feel that they think that they were guilty, so they know they better get out of town.
So I can't tell if it's just that they're afraid of mean old Trump, or if they know they're guilty.
It feels like they know they're guilty, but that's just my bias.
Well, if you didn't think that being on X was a trap, I just have to tell you about this one little exchange that happened today that couldn't happen anywhere else.
There's no place else in the world that the following exchange could have happened.
So, Sean Ono Lennon, who, as you know, is John Lennon's son, one of them, The other day, he pointed out that there was some account that people thought was Elon Musk in disguise, like a secret account, but apparently it wasn't.
It's just somebody who either sounds like him or used AI to sound like him or something.
Probably just sounds like him.
Anyway, so Sean Lennon had pointed out that that fake account or that other account is not fake, but the other account was not really Elon Musk.
So, Sean posts today on X. He says, apparently, when I pointed out that Adrian, that was that other account people thought was Elon, is not Elon, despite having a similar sounding voice, that was, quote, dick-riding to many people.
And then Sean says, making factual observation is not dick-riding people.
Stating a fact is not sucking up.
He says, I pray that 2025 magically makes everyone smarter.
And then he follows up with, Dick writing, for the record, would be something like, quote, Wow, Elon, you not only are incredibly handsome, but you have a 13-inch penis, and that's just really amazing.
And Sean says, I have never said anything like that, and I'm not saying it's not 13 inches.
I just don't know and have no interest.
Now, if that's the only thing that happened, it would still be worth a chuckle because, you know, it's John Lennon's kid and he's just talking about Elon Musk's penis.
So that alone would be worth noting.
But then Elon Musk enters the chat.
So Elon Musk decides to interact with the posts about the enormity of his penis.
And he says, actually, it's 36 inches.
I'm basically a tripod.
And then he follows up quickly with another post.
He says, "gets in the way, frankly." And just like that, the richest man in the world made us all think about the length of his penis, intentionally, because it's funny.
And it is funny.
So here's a little humor lesson.
Sometimes things are funny because they're funny.
Sometimes it's funny because the person who said it wasn't supposed to say it.
That's what this is.
It's not that his comments were, you know, if you were a joke writer, you could tell these jokes on stage and people would laugh.
It's nothing like that.
It's just that he's not supposed to do that.
You're not supposed to do that.
Hey, hey, hey, you're not supposed to do that.
And he does it anyway.
God, I love it.
I love that he has no respect for any boundary that doesn't really matter.
Like, most of us have a respect for boundaries, but we obey all the boundaries, just sort of reflexively.
It's easier.
But he doesn't seem to respect any boundary, whether it's Mars or what he says where.
There's no respect for any boundary if the boundary doesn't really matter, and this is one of those.
Well, Glenn Greenwald is pointing out that Trump's brief to the Supreme Court about the TikTok ban...
Urging the delay of the TikTok ban.
He says that banning it would be a grave danger, this is what Trump's lawyers say, would be a grave danger to free speech by allowing the U.S. government to ban social media platforms, saying it risks having the U.S. turn into Brazil, where judges simply ban any views or people they want.
Well, let me say this about that.
Well, I agree with the argument that it would be a limit on free speech, only in the sense that there would be one fewer platform, but I can see the argument.
But I would add to that argument the following.
China doesn't have free speech in America.
The citizens who use the platform, American citizens anyway, certainly do, and we would extend that to, you know, if it were an American platform, we would extend the free speech to anybody who is using it if it's an American platform, typically.
However, that applies to individuals.
Individuals in the United States have free speech.
So that part of the argument is pretty strong.
Here's the part that I think gets a little sketchy.
If I say something on social media and the algorithm that is controlled ultimately by China, not directly, but they can control it.
If I say something and then the algorithm decides that you won't see it, was my free speech impinged by China?
Maybe.
Suppose I say something that normally would not be seen by a lot of people, but it's really pro-China.
I say, China will be the winner in the long run.
Their country is great.
And then suddenly it goes viral because somebody in China decided to make it viral.
Was that my free speech?
Or is there a macro effect where the algorithm summing up all the speech of people and deciding which speech you see and what you don't, I would argue...
That the algorithm is a form of speech.
But it's a form controlled by China, ultimately.
So, does China have the right to use algorithmic manipulations on free speech if the thing they're manipulating is actual free speech, which would be individuals saying what they want to say, but then the platform sums it together And then changes it into an algorithmic messaging where you can hear more of something that they want you to hear and less of something else.
I would argue that the speech by individuals is protected, but the speech collectively by what the algorithm controlled by China does may not be.
So, I think we have to look at the collective effect of the algorithm as a form of its own speech.
Is that protected?
I don't know.
Now, I do agree with saving TikTok if we can get an American owner.
I would ideally like that to be somebody who's compatible with the Trump world, which would give the political right the two biggest, most important platforms by far.
Imagine if somebody who's at least friendly with the right, so they're not going to be sending negative messages about the right, Could you imagine if, by the end of the Trump administration, imagine if Musk owns X,
some ally of Trump owns TikTok, and then the regular media landscape, the traditional media, continues to fall into irrelevance, and the podcasting atmosphere is really, really well done by conservatives.
You know, Probably better than the Democrats are doing, but I don't have much visibility on that.
So, I don't know.
Things are heading toward how in the world can Democrats ever recover?
I guess that's my theme for today.
How in the world?
What kind of path would they have to ever recover?
They don't have a personality.
They don't have a plan.
They're losing all their platforms.
They don't have messaging.
They don't have skill.
They don't have any understanding of what went wrong.
They don't know anything about MAGA, even though they imagine they do.
How do you recover from that?
Where every single thing they touched broke?
Everything.
They broke their own media.
They broke everything.
All right.
So Meta say they're going to allow AI-generated users on both Instagram and Facebook.
So the AI... You could create an AI, like a little AI personality, and they're going to allow you, they'll explicitly allow you to put that on their platforms and have it interact with other people.
Now, it has to be labeled.
It has to be labeled AI. But some of the examples are, you see a profile picture that looks like a real person, and they might be giving you advice.
So you could send a message to the little AI character that you created, and it'll give you some advice.
And it might be even about some domain in particular, like relationships or business or something.
You know, on one hand, maybe your first reaction is, hey, they should not be encouraging bots, you know, AI. They should be discouraging them.
They should be getting rid of them.
And I think this is another case of Zuckerberg being able to see the future.
He does impress me with his ability to, you know, operate in this planet.
So I think he's right.
I think he's right that you're way better off making it legal and And just say, label it, because that's what it's going to be anyway.
I mean, it's going to turn into that anyway.
So it feels like this...
I feel like he's got the right vision on this.
We might as well embrace it, because he can't stop it anyway.
Meanwhile, Adam Townsend was reporting on Blue Sky, one of the competing products now for X. And I haven't spent any time on Blue Sky, but Adam says...
That he did his own research over there and found out that it's just tons of bots.
And apparently a lot of people are conversing with the bots.
Now, I don't know the source of the bots.
I don't think he's alleging that the blue sky people are putting their own bots there.
But it makes me wonder if that's an op.
Do you think somebody is running an op against Blue Sky and filling it with bots to reduce their credibility?
Or do you think that all networks have bots and maybe Blue Sky has not yet built up the capability to defend against them but will?
I don't know.
So look out for bots.
I guess that's my...
And I would point out again that this whole conversation about foreign workers was really driven by a lot of fake accounts, whether they be bots or whatever they are, trolls.
So the fake accounts are one of the biggest factors in the world right now.
Trying to figure out who's real.
Anyway...
Trump's team has advised, or really required, that people who have been nominated for his various posts stop using social media until after their nominations are handled.
That's actually pretty smart.
Because almost anything that they say on social media, the ones who have been nominated for offices, is now just going to be a target.
So even if they're not saying anything wrong, The Democrats will take it out of context, their primary thing that they do.
And so this is actually really smart.
It's smart for the Trump administration to publicly tell them not to post.
Because now, if somebody posts some insult about them and they don't respond to it, You don't say, oh, it must be true because he's not responding.
You can just say, oh, they've all been asked not to use social media for a few weeks.
So I'm going to call this, yet again, another example of the Trump team, first the campaign, and now the team that he's putting together.
They're really good.
They're really, really good.
It's hard for me to pick out mistakes.
And this is one of those things where I've never seen it done before.
But it's right on point.
It's like 100%.
Yeah, this is exactly what you should do.
Ask them not to post.
Smart.
They just keep being smart.
And again, I always feel like I have to say this.
The boss still gets the credit.
That's the way it works, right?
Trump is the one who picked his team.
Trump is the one who says yes or no to everything.
So no matter how good his advisors are, And they are very good.
The boss still gets the credit.
All right.
MSNBC is wondering why there isn't more pushback on Trump, why the media isn't attacking him as much as they hoped or expect.
They pointed out one of their shows that there don't seem to be many protests.
And the foreign leaders are not bristling.
They're sort of embracing him.
And they're trying to figure out, like, why is it different?
So MSNBC is, you know, the dumbest show on TV, which I treat as a comedy network.
Like, literally.
When I say I treat MSNBC as a comedy network, that's not a hyperbole.
It's literally the only reason I watch it.
And I watch it a lot.
I watch it because I can't even believe what I'm seeing.
The propaganda is so thick that they've sort of left the pretense of being news, if you've been paying attention.
They're just some humorously ineffective propaganda.
If their propaganda were effective, it wouldn't be funny at all.
But the fact that it doesn't work, And all it does is make the Democrats weaker every day.
That's funny.
Because they haven't figured out that they're only making things worse.
That's funny.
Anyway, so here's their speculation about why the public is being nicer to Trump.
Not as many protests.
And foreign leaders are being nicer to him.
And basically, there's not enough resistance.
Their best idea was sheer exhaustion.
That Trump wore out the resistance.
To which I say, did MSNBC not notice that he won the majority vote?
Maybe one difference is that the majority of Americans agree with him, and they agree with him so much that after four years of Biden's failures, they practically begged him to come back in office.
And they're pretty happy about what he's suggesting because the top three things he suggests are exactly what the top three things the public wanted.
Could it be that the reason there are no protests is that nobody has the incentive?
What, is there somebody who desperately wants to go back to the Biden economy?
I've not met anybody.
Have you ever met a Democrat who said, you know, there's some things Biden didn't get right, but I sure liked his economy.
I haven't heard that.
So could it be that it's not sheer exhaustion?
Could it be that even the people who disagreed with him agreed that they didn't run a better candidate on the other side?
And isn't it true that the Democrats can see that everything they tried fell apart?
DEI drove them into complete destruction.
By the way, I think that's the top-line explanation.
If you think there's a different explanation, I might laugh at you.
This is a DEI collapse.
This is what it is.
If the Democrats had been listening to James Carville and some of their non-DEI people who knew what they were talking about, they might have won the election.
It was DEI that just destroyed the party.
And again, if you're new to my content, when I say DEI destroyed everything, well, I say it destroys everything it touches.
It has nothing to do with anybody's genes, nothing to do with anybody's culture, nothing to do with anybody's IQ. It just has to do with putting a constraint on the people that you can hire and putting an artificial constraint where it leans away from merit and toward identity.
That guarantees you'll destroy everything you touch.
On paper, you could just look at it and say, huh, if you did this, it looks like it would destroy everything it touches.
And then you check back later.
Oh, yeah.
Yep, sure enough.
The design was predictive.
Design is destiny.
So, Shirazashim.
And then also a collective conclusion that early resistance framework didn't work before.
It did work before.
It totally worked.
Trump lost the second election.
So not only did they not know what worked, it totally worked.
Because it convinced their party that they really needed to stick together to get them out of office after one term, and they did.
So now they don't even know what worked.
They think it's exhaustion instead of just preferring policies that work and closing the border and getting rid of inflation, if you can do it.
And Doge, of course.
And I don't think you can underestimate the power of Doge.
Because no matter what side you're on, you know the government's taking too much of your money and spending it in the wrong way.
And you know that no matter what else you think of Vaik or Elon, politically, You know they have the skill to do the one thing that can make America secure over all of our competitors for decades to come.
Nobody else could do it, in my opinion.
It's just undoable.
It might be undoable by them.
I mean, it's that hard.
But I do trust that they can figure it out.
So I think even Democrats are looking...
Maybe I don't want to complain about this Doge thing until we see if they can deliver, because they might like it too.
And then separately, MSNBC had one of their female panel members suggest that men are in crisis, and this is the reason Trump has so much support, and they need therapy.
And she said, just like she's in therapy, I never would have guessed, And that the American men should be not listening to Joe Rogan because it'll turn them into fascists.
I would like to see a convention of all the people who turned into fascists by watching Joe Rogan.
Now imagine you had this big amphitheater but there's nobody in it.
It's like this giant stadium.
Nobody there.
Just like a bird flying by.
That would be all the people in America who listened to Joe Rogan and became fascists because of it.
Because everything that Joe Rogan says is anti-fascist.
So why is it that MSNBC thinks it's the opposite of what it is?
Well, it's projection.
The MSNBC thing is just pure projection.
And...
Well, that's all it is.
Men are not in crisis over any of the political stuff.
Not even close.
Men are in crisis, but not over the politics.
According to Reddit, there's a suggestion that some large accounts on X that have a lot of followers are sometimes selling their account Two bad actors who are using their big accounts to push their propaganda.
And Musk says if he finds somebody, he's going to nuke them.
But again, look out for fake accounts.
So the fakery and the persuasion from social media is kind of the biggest variable going forward.
Meanwhile, let me just point out one other thing.
So...
How many of you would agree with the following statement?
That Elon Musk's support of Trump put him over the top.
Now, we don't know that, but does that seem real to you?
Some say he spent $250 million.
Certainly, Musk made it safe for other tech people to support Trump.
Wouldn't you agree?
Because if Elon's doing it, and he's the smartest person that we know in the public life, it just makes you say, wait a minute.
Like, why is he doing this?
He's smarter than me.
So I think that Elon's contribution to the campaign, especially in Pennsylvania, probably put him over the top.
Now, you could say that about other things.
You could say Scott Pressler put him over the top.
You could say, you know, Laura Trump and other people did such a good job that it put him over the top.
And you could say that, you know, some influencer was so good, it put him over the top.
But you needed all of it.
You probably needed all of it to go the way it went.
But I do think that Elon's involvement is more important than others.
How about Joe Rogan's contribution?
I think it's huge.
Because Rogan doesn't even identify as a Republican.
I mean, he was a Bernie supporter just recently.
And Elon was also Democrat until recently.
So when you see people who are lifelong Democrats say, we've left the plane of common sense.
Let's just be reasonable and be smart about this.
I think that between Rogan and Musk, it made it completely safe to support Trump.
And it also made it, wait for it, it made it the manly thing to do.
Meaning that men could feel good about their identity if they're agreeing with Rogan and Musk, because men like those two.
We admire both of their accomplishments in different ways.
So if you accept that Rogan and Musk were really a critical part of putting Trump into the winning category, I would point out that both of them have noted that the fine people hoax was sort of the thing that woke them up.
So they both said that once you realize the fine people hoax was a hoax, it kind of allows you to see the other hoaxes.
It's almost like suddenly everything comes into focus and you say, wait a minute.
If they could have lied on that, that was so obviously easily debunkable, all you had to do is play the whole video instead of part of it.
That's it.
That was the whole debunk.
Play another 30 seconds of the video that you say, he's saying one thing, and you'll see that that's not what he said.
Now, once you fully understand that they knew they were lying, this is the important part.
The thing about the fine people hoax is they knew they were lying.
They all knew it because it was so easily knowable.
So when it got finally debunked by Snopes and, you know, the good work of many Republican-oriented people, Steve Cortez, Jewel Pollock, and I was all over it as well, then eventually, just poking on that one tent pole, as I called it.
So you remember I've called the find people hoax the tent pole hoax, meaning if you could make that pole disappear, the whole tent would collapse.
So I told you that years ago, and I told you I was going to work on it to the death.
And I was just going to lean on that frickin' pole and hammer on it until it goes.
And so I did, you know, with a lot of other people that I mentioned.
And we just hammered on that thing and hammered on it and hammered on it.
And I mentioned in a post on X that it was the tentpole hoax that allowed people to be comfortable coming over to Trump.
You had to remove that.
And a lot of people said so.
And Elon Musk responded to my statement that it was the thing that allowed you to see the other hoaxes, and he said yes.
He agreed that breaking that hoax was what opened up the whole door.
So...
This will be the history that nobody tells.
The history that nobody tells is that we were living in a hoax-dominated reality, and until we could break that spell, nothing was going to get better.
And this is what I call the rise of the Internet dads.
This was the Internet dads.
The internet dads and mothers, right, so I don't want to be sexist, but it feels like the important people that people had credibility in, you know, I always throw Mike Cernovich into all my examples.
He's like the ultimate example of stuff.
And you saw pretty soon you saw somebody that you trusted saying it was a hoax.
And then eventually it broke through.
And by the time it got on Snopes, it was a big deal.
I would say that the biggest unreported story is that the media never reported that Biden's primary reason for running for election was a hoax.
And it was a hoax that the media itself had carried.
And the reason I can't tell you it's the biggest story of the year, that it got debunked and it collapsed the entire tent, is that they were responsible for it.
So the news can't tell you the news.
Because the news is that the news were the bad guys who kept the tentpole alive.
It wasn't the Democrats.
It was the news.
The fake news, knowingly, knowingly, kept that tentpole alive.
And when it fell, it fell hard.
And I don't think they can recover.
They're all buried under the tent.
They have no idea what's outside the tent at this point.
All right, so Biden found another $5.9 billion to send to Ukraine.
And he said he's directed his administration to surge as much assistance to Ukraine as possible.
So this is how Biden describes it.
And this is actually a good communication-wise.
His advisors did him a solid on this one.
So rather than making it sound like we're just shipping our money over to Ukraine, he tries to soften it by saying that what we're really doing is we're drawing down our older equipment, meaning that we're sending our older stuff to Ukraine, and then we're replacing it so that we have new stuff, and Ukraine still has stuff, but we have newer stuff, so we're better off.
Now, That does soften it.
It does soften it.
So if you knew that 5.9 billion was just going to Ukraine, that would sound pretty bad.
If you knew that we were going to upgrade all of this equipment anyway, I don't know that that's true, but if you thought it was true, you'd say, oh, well, we were kind of going to spend it anyway.
So, you know, what were we even going to do with the old stuff?
How do you get rid of the old stuff anyway?
Might as well send it to Ukraine.
So, he does have a point.
He does have a point.
But there's a bigger point.
Trump won.
Trump won.
And to me, once the people have spoken, especially by a majority of voters, anything that the outgoing administration does that is designed specifically to thwart The ambitions of the incoming administration?
That feels like very wrong.
It's not just wrong because you don't like the policy.
It's wrong because we're only a few weeks away from the new leader.
The new leader probably has different ideas about how much to feed the monster.
And if you're doing things that are dramatically in contrast to what the incoming administration wants, that borders on, it's not treason, but there's some kind of disloyalty to the public.
That's the way to say it, right?
There's not a criminal act, but the disloyalty The disrespect to the voters, it's a little hard for me to ignore.
Like, I feel I'm literally being insulted because we had this system, there was a winner, and now they're acting as if we didn't vote and we didn't pick a winner.
What they should be doing is consulting with the incoming, as if this could ever happen in the real world, but if they were acting as adults, The transition teams are talking, right?
So they have less communication.
Everybody says so.
And Biden should be checking with Trump and saying, hey, are you okay with us buying new equipment and getting rid of some of the old equipment?
And then Trump might say something like, just hypothetically, might say something like, yes, but only if that's what you're doing.
That's not a lie.
So yes, if it's true, and yes, if it's stuff we were going to replace pretty soon anyway.
And then you do it.
And you say, we talked to the Trump administration.
They agree with this because it's upgrading what we have, and we didn't have any place to take this old stuff anyway.
So everybody wins.
Now, That would be the adult way to do this transition.
When you get within a few days of the turnover, you can't just be doing stuff you know the new administration hates.
That's wrong on a level that is insulting.
It's not a legal problem, but it's just so disrespectful.
Anyway, Joe Biden continues to have terrible luck, in addition to terrible skill, that Jimmy Carter died before Trump took office, which required Biden to do his public thing, which required us to compare him to Carter, which required us to imagine that, wow, Carter was bad, but this guy's even worse.
But even more, and some of the things that we feel like makes Carter and Biden the same is some would say that neither of them were sufficiently pro-Israel.
Some would say the opposite.
But what it did is it turned Carter and Biden into one entity.
In my mind, I actually am having a little confusion that I have to sort out all the time about which one is which, because they're both going to be one-term Democrat, not friendly to Israel enough, say some people, both replaced by a populist, one by Reagan, one by Trump, which in addition makes you think that Trump is more Reagan-like, because just by pattern recognition he's replacing a one-term Democrat.
So that helps Trump, because now he's being compared to Reagan, which is good for him.
And Carter's being associated with Biden.
And if Carter had just stayed around for one more month, he would have passed during the Trump administration and would look completely different.
But now I think we've created one entity in our minds.
I call it Carter-Biden-loser.
It's just one word, no space.
Carter Biden loser.
And we think of them as the same person.
So, have you heard about the approval rating of the Carter Biden loser?
It was in the 30s.
Did you hear about the Carter Biden loser?
He only served one term and got destroyed by a populist.
Did you hear about the Carter-Biden loser?
He didn't help Israel enough, according to Israel supporters.
So, the way I wrote it in the post, I said the demoralized Democrats are trying to figure out how to recover their national brand, and the Carter turd just landed on their foreheads.
Imagine trying to dig yourself out from the biggest political collapse, certainly in my lifetime, and everything's gone wrong.
And then on top of it, at the end of the year, during the slow news season, they drop the Carter turd right on their foreheads, and they're like, oh, no, now what do I do?
It couldn't get any worse.
It couldn't get any worse.
This is the worst luck, because in our minds, these two characters just became Carter Biden loser.
They just looked like the same person.
All right.
It would be fair to say they had a tough year.
Have you noticed, if you're on social media, you've seen some lists of Democrat hoaxes?
You know, I've talked about this lots of times, but I created a list some years ago, and then people have added to it, and now it's like a list of 50 hoaxes that are genuinely hoaxes, things that the media...
Probably knew we're fake, but reported it that way anyway.
And today, Molly Hemingway has another story with her top 10 hoaxes of the year.
Now, do you think that the Democrats, I don't see all the Democrat content, do you think that they have lots of content about all the hoaxes that the Republicans played on the public?
I don't think so, because I'm not aware of any hoaxes that the Republicans played on the Democrats.
Are you?
There are certainly things they didn't like.
There are things that Republicans got wrong.
There are things where they factually were wrong, or maybe they believed some fake news or something.
So that, of course, that's universal.
But is there any example where we know that the Republicans knew they were lying and were playing it like a hoax?
Like, just see if they'd fool people into believing it.
I can't think of any example.
Can you?
It is totally only one direction.
But you can see how stark this is because on the right-leaning social media, People are putting together their top 10 hoaxes just of the year.
Just of this year.
Top 10 means there were more than 10. And they were big enough that they're worth mentioning at the end of the year.
More than 10. It was hard to narrow it down.
In fact, Glenn Greenwald said that.
How do you narrow it down to 10?
At what point do Democrats notice...
That only one side can reliably create dozens of lists of the top 10 or top 20 or top 50. We could easily make a list of the top 50 hoaxes if you look at the whole Trump administration from beginning 10. But you could easily get 10 for just this year.
Easily.
Amazing.
John Brennan was on MSNBC and he was actually complimenting the Trump transition team for being more professional, which comes as a surprise because Brennan would be typically, you know, the biggest, one of the biggest insulters of all things Trump.
But he has some good words for the transition team and he named in particular Marco Rubio.
Uh-oh.
Is this an op to make Republicans hate Marco Rubio?
Or is Brennan telling us?
Listen to what else he said about Trump.
So he didn't have good words for Trump.
He said about Trump, we could see in particular that he did not understand the importance of the United States' relationship with our foreign allies and partners.
He has little recognition for the transatlantic relationship for NATO. Now, that's true, but aren't we thinking past the sale?
So it is true that Trump didn't have the same, you know, worshipping feeling of our transatlantic relationships.
But where's the part where he was wrong?
We know it was different.
We all agree on that.
But was he wrong?
And I think that Brennan is sort of revealing that...
And here's the part that's tough for me.
Because I want to just take sides.
You know, the natural instinct.
You want to know who's right, who's wrong, and then you want to take the side of the who's right as best you can.
But this is a tough one for me.
And the reason is that the United States...
It is what it is, which is the most powerful nation, directly or indirectly controlling, what, over 100 countries, probably, by now.
That does keep us safer, probably.
It does let us grow.
It probably has a number of economic advantages.
But we can't say that out loud.
So here's what Brennan can't say out loud.
But it's true.
It's better if we act like oppressive colonizing bastards because our survival rate will go way up.
If we act weak, then people will gang up on us because they see us as weak.
And if we're shrinking, let's say reducing our impact on the rest of the world, that that's a bad trend and eventually we'll become weak and they'll gang up on us and kill us because that's the history of the world.
The history of the world is if you're weak, somebody's going to take you out every time.
So all this bad behavior where we're using our CIA and our military and our alliances and NATO to dominate and control and conquer markets and keep Russia weak and all these other things, if you were to look at any one of those things individually, which is the way we usually look at it, you'd say, do we really need to be supporting Ukraine this much?
And you would ask lots of other questions about any individual thing we do.
But if you were to look at it as a whole, America being the biggest, baddest bastard trying to control everything probably is a formula for success.
And I hate saying it because it's not ethical.
It's not moral.
It just might be real.
The real world, the toughest bastard wins, which is one of the reasons I like Trump.
Because I know that our competitors look at him and say, oh, damn, he's the toughest bastard.
We better at least wait until he's gone before we make a move on anything.
I love the rumble comment.
Scott has no clue.
He lost in commie delusion.
He has no clue.
Did I not just say everything that you agree with?
That if we're weak...
Our adversaries will take advantage of it.
You don't disagree with that, trolly troll.
All right.
But the fact that John Brennan likes Rubio, and I don't know a ton about Rubio, but before he was nominated for anything, I would hear rumblings that he was a little bit too much about funding our foreign adventures.
And if John Brennan says he's okay with Rubio, that certainly suggests that Rubio has a foreign policy understanding that's not too far from John Brennan's.
Right?
So, again, I'm uncomfortable with it.
At the same time, I think, I don't know, it might be best.
It might be best that we're just the biggest bastards and we fund things all over the world and we put our foot in everybody's business and we overthrow their governments.
Because if we didn't, there'd be a whole bunch of countries aligned against us.
So, I don't know.
It's a tough one.
But I think we understand it now more, that there is a whole school of thought that says controlling the world is kind of necessary, because the alternative is worse.
I get it.
I don't know if I... It will never pass as moral or ethical, according to the standard way we look at things.
But you could say selfishness is also ethical.
In some cases.
I saw a comment by a user on X named Grumz, G-R-U-M-M-Z, talking about DEI and said, Grumz said that when DEI ends, and I hope that it does, I assume it will, everyone will forget.
People still claim it never really happened.
He's talking about how the pandemic people act like it Never really happened.
Oh, I'm sorry.
So he's saying that like some of the stuff from the pandemic, when the pandemic was over, people had a lot of false memories about what they did or did not do.
And that's normal.
And when DEI is done, there are going to be a lot of people who have false memories about how much they contributed to it.
Because certainly history...
We'll have a very bad opinion of DEI. I feel completely confident that history will judge it harshly.
So, yeah.
So basically, we're going to forget that the Democrats were prison wardens, and they will forget as well.
But you know that Costco, their board of directors, decided that they're going to double down On DEI. So they're not abandoning it.
They're going to stay with it.
A lot of people asked Robbie Starbuck because he's an activist who has gotten a number of companies to back off of DEI. So they've asked him why he hasn't gone after Costco.
And His answer fascinated me because he says that they must be working with some other people.
They have a plan for what order to approach individual companies so that you can make sure that you don't fail.
I'm guessing, so this part is my speculation, that the reason he wants to do it in a certain order is so that he doesn't lose any because he has a 100% record.
That if he comes in, the company says, all right, we don't want this fight.
Yeah, we'll back off.
So that really suggests a level of sophisticated planning that makes me very happy.
And if Robbie Starbuck has looked at the Costco thing and thought to himself, and again, I would just be speculating, if he thought, I don't think I can win this one because it's so freshly confirmed, but I can win the one I'm working on.
And if I win a couple of those, Costco is going to have something to worry about.
So we'll get that one later.
That does make sense.
Seems wise.
And certainly gave me confidence in his approach that there's a larger picture.
It's not just opportunistic.
So he's not just reading the news and saying, oh, these guys are in the news.
I'll go after them.
He's looking for more of a lever.
And that's smart.
Again, There's a compilation clip out by the Clip Keeper, C-L-Y-P, Clip Keeper.
And it's a clip of all the people in the media predicting that Trump wouldn't show up for the Biden debate.
Because Trump would be so afraid of losing to Biden that he wouldn't even show up for the debate.
And I'd forgotten...
How many people that you thought were credible news people predicted that he wouldn't show up?
What?
Now here's what I wonder.
Again, can Democrats pull together a compilation clip of nothing but Republicans saying something that's just batshit crazy?
Because maybe I don't see them.
Maybe they do have those confirmation clips.
But if they don't, Then it fits into that.
Why can the Republicans always make a top 10 hoax list and Democrats can't?
Why is it that Republicans can easily put together a compilation clip of people saying the craziest stuff?
And I'm not sure the Democrats can.
So, I mean, these little messages and patterns...
Are just going to keep getting stronger.
I just don't know how Democrats ever recover.
So NDTV is reporting on AI and what they call the rise of intention economy.
And that would be using AI tools to manipulate you into making decisions.
So the way AI words things, the things that he chooses to say or not to say, would be persuasion.
So the worry here is that AI will have persuasion and it will anticipate what people will want and it will steer them toward different decisions.
Now, why would you worry about this?
Because people have free will, they're not going to be manipulated by machines.
Because if this were possible, then there'd be no free will.
Right?
No, I'm just joking, because I know you wanted to get into that conversation, but that's not what we're talking about.
I don't know.
I don't know what the potential is for the current versions of AI. Because the current versions are pattern recognizers.
And I don't know if they would know where to find the right patterns to be good persuaders.
And I also don't know if they can read the room.
So at the moment, AI doesn't do a good job of knowing what people are feeling and thinking at this exact moment.
Sort of the zeitgeist, it's called.
The thing that we're all feeling, even if nobody said it.
Usually we do say it, but it's some kind of common feeling that we all get at the same time.
I don't know that AI can do that yet.
Maybe it can someday.
But if it doesn't know how people are feeling at the moment, and it also can't test what it's doing against itself, So this is the big skill of persuasion.
So before I say something that I hope to persuade somebody, I roll it around in my head and then I feel whether it would persuade me.
So persuasion is what you feel.
It's not your rational common sense stuff.
It's what you feel.
So I can pre-test everything I say by running it through my mind and saying, hmm, how would that make me feel?
Well, it probably would make other people feel the same because we're not that different.
So, AI will always be limited by not knowing how people feel and especially not knowing how they feel right at this moment because that's when it matters.
So, for a short time, people like me will be able to out-persuade AI. People like Trump will be able to out-persuade AI. But we're going to lose our advantage soon enough.
I don't know if it's in five years or one year or what.
But those who know how to persuade, we're still ahead.
And still ahead by a pretty good margin.
But that's going to change.
And I don't know what kind of world that looks like.
Anyway...
And I saw a post by ex-user Rick Hankins, who was commenting on this.
And he said, study persuasion and hypnosis.
And he points out that, unfortunately, certain personality types will have no defense against the AI trying to manipulate you.
And I had to comment on that earlier.
Because I have a little bit more experience in that domain.
And tell him that he needs to...
He said study persuasion and hypnosis.
And I told him to study harder.
Because nobody has a defense.
If he knew a little bit...
It looks like he knows a bit about persuasion and hypnosis.
If he knew a little more...
You would know that there's no human defense.
Everybody's persuadable.
What's different is what you use to persuade them.
A human can figure that out if they're experienced.
And so a human like me can figure out, what do I need to persuade this person?
You still use the same toolbox, but the tool that you pick out of the box will be based on that person.
And how much you hit that tool will be based on that person.
So AI can't do that yet.
But it will.
So no, nobody has any defense.
Your strong mind, your free will, your greater knowledge of things, your understanding of propaganda, you think they would help you.
They won't.
It's one of the most important lessons of hypnosis.
Everybody can be hypnotized.
You've probably heard of, or you might be the person who says, try hypnotizing me.
I can't be hypnotized.
I hear this so much.
People say, I can't be hypnotized.
And I can hypnotize them with three words, and they wouldn't know it.
So you don't know if you're hypnotizable.
You are.
You just might be resistant to sitting in a chair and having somebody tell you how you feel.
Now, that might be true.
But as soon as you get out of that chair, you're going to go over to Axe, you're going to look at some messages, and if you're following me, you're going to see something that persuades you, just like hypnosis, except you're not going to know it was hypnosis.
You're just going to feel, oh, that looks real.
I'm persuaded.
So no, there's nobody who is immune to persuasion and propaganda.
It's just not a thing.
Luke Rosiak at the Daily Wire seems to have a great story about the Soros Network, and I did not know this.
I knew it was bad that Soros was funding these liberal DAs, but I kind of assumed that they were just picking people who were liberal and And maybe give them a little priming and stuff of what they'd like, but then they just made sure they got elected and then figured out, well, these liberals will know what to do.
We don't have to tell them.
But it turns out That what comes with this helping you fund your campaign, if you're one of the people he's funding, is they present this massive, it looks kind of massive, network of help so that you've got expert advice.
Soros tells you what he wants you to do and how to do it, tells you how to interpret the law, Yes.
Soros, the organization, is telling the people that they funded to be DAs how to interpret the law.
And it's in writing.
I'm not imagining it.
So apparently the Media Research Center obtained nearly 8,000 pages of internal documents through public records to show the Soros-funded group called Fair and Just Prosecutions, quote, directed Soros prosecutors to manipulate the rule of law concerning illegal immigration, directed Soros prosecutors to manipulate the rule of law concerning illegal immigration, drugs, abortion, and election integrity, capital punishment, and laws against childhood
So if you're a Soros prosecutor, according to this Daily Wire report by Luke Rosiak, you get all this free access to expert political consulting.
You get polling for free, field-tested messaging strategies.
So basically, if Soros funds you and then gives you all these support resources, Are you going to ignore what he wants for your next campaign?
Or are you going to say, whoa, this worked.
All I have to do is follow what this Soros guy wants and I'll win my re-election.
It does look like the Soros organization was running America from the bottom up.
Because they found that the dollar, you know, the bang for the dollar was better if you don't fund the president.
That's really expensive and you don't get much out of it.
But if you fund these district attorneys and prosecutors and whatnot, you get a lot of bang for the buck because you can control them and therefore they control the law and the law controls the rest of us.
So that's not ideal.
That's a hell of a good story.
I can't believe we got this far without hearing how extensive that Soros control was of the country.
Meanwhile, alright, here's your test for the day.
I want you to see if you think this is true news or pure propaganda.
Okay?
News or propaganda.
So in the comments, after I tell it to you, just say, is it news or propaganda?
So according to Business Insider, so that's your first tip, Business Insider, Germany calls for new sanctions on Russia's dark fleet that is, quote, damaging major undersea cables nearly every month.
So the claim is that, so according to Germany's foreign minister, That they want sanctions on Russia's dark fleet.
Now, the dark fleet is not military ships.
It's ships that they use to get around embargoes.
So these are older ships and sketchy ships, and they're used to deliver things to places that we're trying to stop them from delivering things.
So it's a dark fleet because it's sort of, you know, behind the scenes.
And what the claim is, is that this dark fleet that would be otherwise delivering energy and goods and services, I don't know what's on it, mostly energy, I think, mostly oil, that these ships are routinely dragging their anchors intentionally to damage undersea's cables in the Baltic Sea almost every month.
So they say, quote, crews are leaving anchors in the water, dragging them for kilometers along the seafloor for no apparent reason, and then losing them when pulling them up.
And they say it's more difficult to still believe in coincidences.
Now, do you believe that?
Do you believe that Russia is somewhat randomly destroying undersea cables in the Baltic with their ships dragging anchors?
Does that sound real to you?
Or does that sound a little too on the nose?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm going to go with...
There's a mystery here for sure, but if Russia wanted to cut the undersea's cables of anybody, is this the way they do it?
Would they order their leaky old crappy vessels to drag the anchor?
I'll give you a second...
Second possibility.
Since the so-called dark fleet would not be the upstanding professional sailors of the world.
If you're an upstanding professional lifetime sailor, you probably want to be on a boat that's not going to be captured by NATO, and you probably don't want to be involved in illegal trade.
So could it be That the crew capability of these ships, since they're the old broken down ships that good people don't want to work on, and they're operating illegally, so it's risky not only because the ship itself is unstable, but because it's illegal.
Do you think that gets them the best and the brightest of a crew?
Or does it seem more likely that it's somewhat common for them to forget to pull up the anchor?
Because they're just crude by idiots.
Because the only people they can get to do the work are idiots.
Because the other ones just don't want to do that work.
I don't know.
To me, this is sort of a coin flip.
Because on one hand, you could sort of kind of see maybe how they'd want to take out some undersea cables.
But it doesn't seem terribly important to their war effort.
It's sort of indirect.
And is this the way they do it?
By having these old ships drag anchors?
So, I wonder, is this just another way to call attention to we need to do something about these dark fleets?
Is this an op to give us one more reason to work against Russia?
I don't know.
I'm going to put a pin in this one and say it could be true.
It's within the realm of possibility.
But it doesn't feel right.
It feels like it's just another reason to make us support funding war against Russia.
It doesn't feel right.
Anyway.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings us to the Conclusion of the prepared remarks.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately in a moment, but I wanted to say my own personal gigantic thank you for all of you who make this morning time special.
If it's not obvious, I get a lot out of this, meaning that I can't wait to wake up in the morning.
I can't wait to do this.
I can't wait to do exactly what I'm doing right now.
I feel completely Privileged and honored that anybody would even come watch it twice.
And I could not be happier with all that you have added.
Now, you heard me saying earlier that I think the debunking of the fine people hoax led to the right people entering the contest, which helped Trump, which got him elected, which might save the world.
Do you think I could have done any of that if you all ignored me?
No.
No.
It is the...
The collective power of the people who are willing to listen to the things I say, that fuels me.
So you are literally the energy that makes me want to send that post, debunk the find people hoax one more time, get involved, make things better.
So all of that energy comes directly from you, both on X and on here.
And you should take a victory lap.
Because in my opinion, your support of me was very, very important to taking out the tentpole hoax, which got all the right people into the fight, which allowed Trump to win, which allowed Doge to be a thing, which could fix most of our problems.
So the enormity of the success that all of you should be enjoying right now is almost incalculable.
I mean, it's the fate of the country.
That's not an exaggeration.
It's the fate of the country.
Probably.
Was largely supported by the energy that's happening right now.
Right in front of you.
That's pretty awesome.
Pretty awesome.
Alright, I will talk to you tomorrow, of course, because I don't take days off.
Because I'm doing what I love.
It'd be crazy.
So I'll see you tomorrow.
Everybody else who does this regularly will be on some kind of a vacation or day off.
I don't know.
The lazy ones.
But I'll be here.
I'll be here for you.
Partly because you're here for me.
No, not even partly, entirely because you're here.
I wouldn't do it if you weren't here.
So yes, you're the reason I'll be here tomorrow, and I thank you for that.
So locals, I'm coming at you.
Those of you on Rumble and YouTube and X, thank you so much for a fun, fun year.
