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, AI Propaganda Kid Toys, Vegas Terror Attack Speculation, Amazon Counterfeit Scandal, TikTok Propaganda Potential, James Carville, US Steel Japan Sales, Supermarket Corruption, Elon Musk, UK Government, UK Islamic Population Clusters, Cultural Compatibility Deportations, Free Will, 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.
Yeah, that would mean everybody would be looking for the first try and not finding the real one.
There we are.
Alright, we're good to go.
I think some non-locals people will get lost.
It might take them a while to find this.
But I think everybody will figure it out eventually.
There you go.
The YouTube people are figuring it out.
So sorry, I had a little technical difficulty there.
I had to quit and back in so I've been served too.
If my engineer is listening, please delete the first try.
All right.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it took me a couple of tries to make the technology work.
I think it was human error in this case, my human error.
So you'll see there's a wrong one and a right one.
If you're listening to this, you're in the right one.
Good for you.
Good for you.
But 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 margarita glass, a tank or chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope beans of the day, the thing that makes everything better, except my lighting, which is terrible.
I sure wish I knew it was causing that.
It's kind of a new thing.
Anyway, it's called the simultaneous step, but it happens now.
Now go.
Feels like nothing's working just right this morning.
Everything's like off by one.
Do you ever have those days when everything's just a little bit off?
No major problems.
Maybe it's not like a big deal.
But everything's a little bit off today.
I don't know.
Keep an eye on that.
Why in the world am I fuzzy?
Why suddenly is the video just like...
I look like one of those aging TV stars.
Have you ever noticed that as a beautiful celebrity will age, they have to fuzz the video more and more until they're just like a blotch?
You can't even make out the nose.
I think that's what's happening with me.
Maybe it's an angle.
No.
Let me try to see if I can clean the camera.
Is there a camera problem?
Oh, yeah.
Maybe that helped a little.
I think that helped.
Good.
We're ready to go.
Finally.
Finally.
All right.
Well, here's some science news.
According to Brian Maffley at the University of Utah, a study shows that if you lose urban trees...
It disproportionately affects some places.
So apparently the educational attainment is better where they have more trees.
So where there are poor trees or the trees have died and not been replaced, they don't do as well in school.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Is it the lack of trees that make people do worse in school in the city?
Hmm.
Or could it be that the correlation is if everything doesn't work in that city, including education, you also can't keep a tree alive?
What are the odds that you're running a first-class school system in a city where you can't keep a tree alive?
A tree.
Do you know how hard it is to kill a tree?
You pretty much can throw an acorn in the ground and walk away.
Forty years later, a gray tree?
Well, you know, sooner than that.
So, yeah, I don't know if this science is getting the order right.
I don't know if taking away the trees makes you do poorly in school, or it could be that if you live in a place that can't keep a tree alive, it's not going to do much better with you.
Just asking.
Well, it turns out that the Surgeon General wants alcohol to carry warning labels.
Because it's the third leading cause of cancer.
I didn't know that.
After tobacco and obesity, alcohol is the third leading cause of cancer.
So it turns out that alcohol is poison.
Told ya.
You don't need science.
Really, you don't.
You just listen to me babbling about stuff.
You know, it seems like my babbling is like 80%, like I have an 80% win record of just guessing.
Anyway.
We're also here, Zero Hedge is saying that parents need to be worried about foreign-made AI toys for kids used as propaganda.
That's right.
If you have AI built into a child's toy...
You better be careful, because that child is talking to the AI, and you don't know what they're going to say.
Apparently, there's a report, according to Zero Hedge, of an AI-powered robot called Miko.
So some father bought it for his two-year-old, and it says that Kamala Harris will be the 47th president, and it praises Kamala and Biden.
But when asked about Trump, it says nothing positive, according to the libs of TikTok.
I guess libs of TikTok noticed this first.
Do you remember...
Long ago, not really like last year, when we thought that AI would be the thing that would teach us what was true and what wasn't true.
Do you remember that?
We thought that AI would tell us what's true.
Nope.
It turns out AI is just a better way to lie to us.
Because when AI says something is true, and I've had this experience, I'm really ready to believe it.
Because it talks like a person, and why would it lie to me?
I mean, it wouldn't lie, would it?
So when AI gives you disinformation, it's really powerful because you think that disinformation is true.
So there is really no possibility that AI could ever be used to tell you the truth.
Because whoever controls it has their preferred idea of what's true.
Whoever built this Miko doll probably thought it was a fact that Kamala was awesome and Trump would never become president.
So they programmed it to think that.
I doubt that this came up with that just from some pattern recognition.
I don't think so.
Maybe, but I don't think so.
Anyway, AI will be the biggest source of misinformation in the world by far.
Well, of course, we have to talk more about those two terror attacks recently that happened on the same day on New Year's.
It was the New Orleans one and Las Vegas one.
And have you noticed that whenever there's something like a terrorist attack, that there's always an alternative explanation for what happened?
It's like if you look at 9-11, it's like, well, Osama bin Laden ran a plot...
And it became 9-11.
But then, you know, there's always the group that think it's the government did it itself or some other government did it for their own purposes.
There's no such thing as a terror attack where we don't immediately suspect our own government is behind it.
Which on one hand, you might say, well, that's the worst possible situation.
On the other hand, you could say, it's a good thing we don't trust everything.
It's really healthy just to not trust anything.
Anything that happens, I think, I wonder if my government caused that.
It doesn't even matter.
If I fell off my own bicycle, the first thing I'd do is look behind me and see if Congress is there.
You...
Oh.
Oh.
Maybe it wasn't the government this time.
It's just automatic.
We just assume the government's behind everything.
So that's part of the New Orleans story.
But here are the things that are notable about the story that's newish.
It does seem that, at least on the political right, there seems to be a settling in on the narrative that DEI is the main problem.
Now, did you imagine that that would ever happen?
That people just casually talk about it like it's a fact.
Oh, it looks like DEI is the base problem here, because if we didn't have DEI, you know, we would have blocked off the streets.
Right?
If we didn't have DEI, we would have caught this guy early.
Now, I don't know if any of that's true, so let me be very careful when I say this.
I don't know that any specific situation, and I don't think there's any way to know, you don't know that any specific situation is a DEI problem.
But it is 100% fair to surface it as your top suspect, because at this point in history, DEI has crippled or ruined just about every large organization.
And again, it has nothing to do with anybody's genes or their culture.
It has only to do with constraining your hiring choices so that you don't have an option of just looking for the best person.
Now, in theory, you're getting the best person, but also diversity.
In reality, if you're getting measured for diversity, you're going to get diversity one way or another.
So in the real world, it just means don't hire white guys.
That's literally all it means.
So of course, people are looking at this as a DEI story, even though we don't know if it is, but it is the right question to ask.
So here's some of the things we know.
And by the way, on the DEI thing, this is the price of DEI. And if the proponents of DEI did not know...
That the perfectly predictable outcome of succeeding and getting a lot of DEI candidates in office or getting hired, if you didn't know that was going to cause a massive backlash against everybody who gets a job under that context, how did you not know that?
The price of DEI is that for an entire generation, if you're black and you're capable of And you just do a really good job, and you get promoted on all of your merits, you will be widely assumed to not be capable.
Now, I didn't make that system.
If I had made the system, this wouldn't happen.
So don't blame the people who are simply responding to the system you built.
They're the messengers.
If they tell you, hmm, looks like we have to suspect DEI in this situation, they didn't make that up.
That's not an opinion.
It's a clear just observation.
It's an observation that you have to include that variable when you're looking at any complex situation in America.
Don't blame the messenger.
All right.
So apparently the Airbnb that we think was the New Orleans, connected to the New Orleans attacker, was on fire.
Was it?
I'm not even sure if anything that was reported early on is true, but there was so much fog-of-war false reporting that I don't really even know what's true at this point.
So apparently the New Orleans BNP had bomb-making materials in it.
I didn't see any signs of fire, so I don't understand what part of this is true and what's not.
And also, by the way, I should tell you that the odds of me confusing these two headline stories is nearly 100%.
I'm already having a tough time figuring out, wait, which one was the Las Vegas guy?
Which one was the New Orleans guy?
Is anybody having that problem?
It's like, wait, one was a Cybertruck, the other was an electric Ford truck.
So if I get some of the details wrong, just know it's coming.
So here are the things we know.
On the New Orleans one...
A reporter was allowed in to give a tour of what looks like essentially part of the crime scene, and conveniently laid out in the New Orleans terrorist home is the open Koran, coincidentally, and work tables where he's making all kinds of bombs and stuff.
Now, it definitely looks like, 100% looks like somebody who's a terrorist lives there.
Do people make their apartment look exactly like a terrorist live there?
Maybe.
Yeah, maybe.
So, I guess we'll figure out what that is.
Now, part of the issue is that Trump...
He said that the open borders are causing more crime and terrorism.
Now, you already know that the New Orleans terrorist was American-born.
Now, he had an Islamic name, and he was obviously in that life.
But he was American-born.
He was in the American military.
So is Trump right or wrong?
When he uses that situation, which was an American-born guy, when he uses that as an example of open borders being a problem?
The answer is yes.
Because it's a reasonable assumption that since he was living among a lot of recent immigrants within the same cultural situation, does it seem likely that That he was living with somebody who came more recently who was either encouraging or radicalizing him.
We don't know the answer to that.
But like the DEI case, it's the first question you should ask.
The first question.
So, it feels to me like if the guy is American-born, but he was living among recent immigrants who brought a different culture, and some of it may have radicalized him, I think Trump's on point.
Now, again, we don't know if he's technically right on this specific case, but this is the kind of hyperbole I don't mind at all.
Because it's so obviously directionally correct.
It doesn't really matter to me too much that he was born in America if he lived among people who weren't, and that culture is presumed to have had some impact on him.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Could you become that dedicated if all of your friends or where you lived didn't have any of those views?
Possible, but it seems less likely.
All right, so what else?
We'll talk about the coincidences in a minute.
But the funniest thing was the Cybertruck guy.
Now, it may not be funny because I think there's a real possibility that the so-called terrorist in the Cybertruck may have been actually a victim.
So there's certainly as many indications that he didn't do it as there are that he did it, even though his body was the one found in the car.
So...
Here's what we know.
Apparently, we know the path that the Cybertruck took from Denver to Las Vegas, but it did not take the direct route.
It took a very indirect route.
Do you know why?
His first stop was in Las Vegas, New Mexico.
It looks like, can't be sure, but it looks like when he took off, he said, hey, Cybertruck, take me to Las Vegas.
And it took him to the closest one.
Apparently, there are two places called Las Vegas in the United States.
One is in New Mexico.
I didn't know that.
So it looks like he drove to a completely wrong state.
And then when he got out of his truck, he was looking around and he's like, I don't see any casinos.
Something's missing.
And then he realized he was in the wrong state.
And then he drove directly to Las Vegas, the real one.
Now, who doesn't notice they're driving to the wrong state?
Well, maybe I wouldn't.
I have to admit, if you said you're going to go from Denver to Las Vegas and took me through New Mexico, I wouldn't maybe be alerted to it right away because I'm so smart.
I might be reading a book and letting the car drive or the truck.
If he had it on full self-driving, he probably wasn't even paying attention.
He might have been just doing his own thing and the truck was driving itself.
Don't know.
So here are the things that are strange about this to make us think maybe it wasn't really him who was in the car.
His burned-up body was found.
One thing is that he was in the military and people say he definitely knew how to make a proper bomb and this was the least capable bomb making you could imagine.
So why would a person who could make the best bomb show up to actually risk his life with the worst bomb?
How do you explain that?
Well, the best explanation would be it wasn't him.
Now, he also had a bullet in his head in the truck that blew up with the blobs.
Did he shoot himself in the head after he lit a fuse of some kind?
So therefore he wouldn't know for sure if it even blew up.
It would make sense, because you wouldn't want to die in a different way.
You wouldn't want to take a chance that he didn't die.
I suppose that would be a reason.
But have we seen a lot of American military people who do a terrorist act and shoot themselves?
It seems like they either go there to die as somebody else's hand, or they try to get away.
I've never heard of anybody shooting themselves.
I mean, if he wanted to cause trouble, wouldn't he blow up the truck, but leave it a minute before it blew up and use his handgun to kill random other people, like a proper terrorist?
You know, like the guy in the Ford truck did.
So none of this makes sense.
And people are asking, oh, and he's also reportedly a Trump supporter, so that wouldn't make sense that he blew up a cyber truck in front of there.
I think he had some kind of a breakup not long before that, but I don't know if that's relevant.
I don't know.
I mean, a breakup would make you do crazy things, but this?
Like, why would he attack the person he supports by parking in front of that hotel?
Now, I heard somebody say that he might be opposed to gambling.
Here's a little insider knowledge.
The Trump building in Las Vegas is one of the only hotels that doesn't have gambling, which is rare.
There's no gambling in that hotel.
I don't think the gambling had anything to do with anything.
But weirdly, it's the one that doesn't have gambling.
And nobody heard the shot.
So there's reporting that witnesses who were around the truck before it blew up, they didn't seem to hear a shot.
And I asked if the truck was so good at noise cancellation that maybe you wouldn't hear it from the outside.
And smart people said, yeah, you would hear it from the sidewalk pretty easily.
So it doesn't look like the shot may have happened when people were nearby, or at least people were near enough to hear it and didn't die in the explosion, I guess.
So...
That's weird.
So people are speculating that what really happened was somebody who has a problem with both Musk and Trump, which doesn't appear to be this guy, and somebody who was bad at bomb building, which doesn't appear to be this guy, and somebody who had a...
Well, it also doesn't...
There's no indication that he was suicidal.
Nobody's talking about that.
So here are the coincidences.
So, anyway, the bottom line is a lot of people suspected that there's something about the self-driving car that may have taken his dead body and turned his dead body into some kind of a directed bomb.
Now, how could you do that?
One way you could do it is if he was already dead and you had the key.
Then you could summon it as though you're summoning a parked car.
Couldn't you?
Or would that not work if you're on a city street?
It would work in a parking lot.
I don't know if the Tesla will allow you to do that if it means that the car is gonna be on a public street without a driver.
I think not.
My guess is it'll work in a parking lot, but Tesla knows when it's on a real road.
So I don't think he could just summon it the way you would summon your parked car in a parking lot.
I don't think so.
But it was also self-driving.
So suppose the bad guy killed the other guy, just kept him in the passenger seat, and then sent it to self-drive.
But it won't self-drive unless a passenger touches the steering wheel occasionally, right?
Could you kill him and tape his hand to the steering wheel?
Or could you just tie his hand to the steering wheel?
Or could you just drape it on the bottom of the steering wheel while he's dead so that he's just a dead man with a hand that just happens to touch the steering wheel?
Would the Tesla know he's dead?
Or would the Tesla say, seems like a human hand on the steering wheel to me, and just drive him right to the hotel?
So it could be that if you wanted to use a self-driving car as a car bomb that you could send to a destination and blow up, the one and only way you could do it is to shoot the driver, drape them over the steering wheel, and then send it.
So it could be it's simply the only way you could send a self-driving car to do something is kill the driver and have him not know he's doing it because he's dead.
Now, it seems to me that's too clever.
It fits into the category of that's a little too good.
You don't expect your general terrorists to come up with that clever an idea.
And if your idea was that clever...
You're so good that you could do that?
Would you put crappy explosives in a Cybertruck?
Like, at the very least, you'd use a regular Tesla car so it'd have a chance of blowing up better.
So none of this really fits.
But there's also the coincidence part.
Number one coincidence that January 1st was where two things happened at the same time.
So people say, it must be connected.
Now, let me ask you this question.
If you plan to make a 2025 attack, and you had waited for 2025, and there is some evidence that at least Al-Qaeda wanted things to happen in 2025, and you were an independent cell, terror cell, and you got to pick your own date and They just said, well, do it early.
Like, do it early so we can really set the tone.
If you wanted to do an early 2025 attack, what date would you pick?
Well, if it's me and it's winter, you're not going to have big outdoor crowds very often, right?
It would be rare to have a big outdoor crowd in the winter.
But January 1st is the one time you can guarantee it.
So if you said, do an attack sometime early in the year, I would say, hmm, early in the year?
Well, the only time I'm sure there'll be big crowds, and the biggest crowds, would be January 1st.
So is it really a coincidence that That two people picked January 1st.
I would say not much of one.
It's not much of a coincidence.
And it will look like less of a coincidence if, as Sarah Adams, the ex-CIA person says, there's going to be a wave of these and it's just going to happen all year.
If it's going to happen all year, then January 1st is not a coincidence.
It's just the obvious time that you would do this sort of thing.
And it will be one of many.
And then the coincidence will just disappear.
Because we'll say, oh, it's not like there were only two attacks this year and they happened on the same date.
That would be too coincidental.
But if there are lots of attacks, yeah, January 1st would be exactly the date you'd expect two of them.
Let me give you another date you would expect two of them.
July 4th, right?
July 4th, there will be big crowds.
There will be American patriotic crowds if you're a terrorist.
You'd pick a time when you know you can get to big crowds and it would have a little extra meaning because it's about America.
How about the anniversary of 9-11?
Do you think there's more likely going to be two attacks on 9-11 than on any other day?
Probably, right?
So January 1st is a meaningful day.
It's not a random day.
If it were a random day, like February 20th, that would be random.
Then it's a big coincidence.
But it's the most non-random day you could possibly pick.
If you wanted 2025 to be full of terror, you'd pick the first day.
Because here's what it felt like to me.
Because al-Qaeda is good in the psychology part.
Here's what it felt like.
The whole year is going to be like this because it happened on January 1st.
If it happened on December 20th, I wouldn't automatically think, oh no, 2025 is going to be full of it.
Because I'd be like, well, I mean, it happens anytime.
But the very fact that it happened on the first day takes your brain and says, 2025, terror.
2025, terror.
And it's locked in.
So by doing it on the first day, you get the extra bang for the buck, which is it makes people think there's more coming and the year is going to be full of it.
Maybe it will.
Maybe it won't.
But I certainly feel like it.
And terrorism is about how it makes you feel.
And how I feel is, oh my God, there's a lot coming because they did it on the first.
So not random at all.
And I would not consider that date too meaningful in the larger explanation of why there were two of them at the same time.
Apparently the two terrorists came from the same military base.
All these smart people who were in the military say that's not a real coincidence because something like one in three people go through that base at some point.
It's like a huge number of people in the military spend some time in that same place.
So that coincidence is not really a coincidence.
The larger coincidence, I guess, is that they're both American military people.
Now, if you knew that you were, let's say you're the Al-Qaeda organizers, if you knew that you had one born in America person, which will be scarier to us, right?
Because we can't catch them as easily if they're American citizens.
So it's scarier if it's an American citizen, and then it's scarier again if it's somebody who was in the military.
So that would be the ultimate al-Qaeda plan, is to make us not only afraid, but to distrust our own military.
That's like a double win.
But suppose they only had one.
Suppose they'd been trying hard, al-Qaeda, and they could only get one actual American citizen to do something like this.
And they said to themselves, if we could get two, if we could get two, that's going to tell a different story.
Because then it's going to look like the entire military has been flipped.
Because our brains will treat two as a completely different story than one.
And if we put them on the same day, now this would argue that it's not a coincidence, but we'll see.
If they happen on the same day, and they're both U.S.-born military, how do you get that out of your mind?
Right?
Right?
So that would be sort of a perfect psychological operation, but suppose they only legitimately flipped one person, the New Orleans person.
How could they get that second one?
Well, they might have to fake it.
They might have to murder a military guy.
Imagine if they had scammed him the following way.
Hey, whatever his name is, if you meet me in Las Vegas, I've got a great job offer.
Or if you meet me in Las Vegas, I've got that money I owed you, something.
There must be some way you could fool somebody into going to Las Vegas.
Once he shows up, you put a bullet in his head, Drape his arms over the steering wheel, put a bunch of fireworks in the back because you don't care how good the bomb is.
It just has to look like it's a bombish.
And then you just send it to Trump Tower because where else are you going to send it?
If you were in Las Vegas, where else would you send it?
Pick the other place that would make more sense.
There isn't.
Trump Tower.
So, that makes sense.
So, one possibility is that they only could get one organically, so they fake the second one, so it looks like the American military is turning.
Can't rule it out.
Then the other coincidence is that they both use this app called Turo, To rent their vehicles.
Now, is that a coincidence?
The answer is...
Maybe.
As Tyrus pointed out on The Five, and I pointed out in my show yesterday, Turo is...
And Tyrus kind of confirmed this.
It's sort of the preferred car rental app of the people who might run into problems using a regular rental company.
Or...
Wanted to improve the possibility that they wouldn't raise any red flags by getting a car.
Now, I don't know this to be true, but if the FBI is trying to catch terrorists, and terrorists are likely the ones who would rent, let's say, a panel truck and fill it full of bombs, don't you think that by now the Homeland Security has a backdoor into all of their rental companies?
So if they see somebody renting a truck, And they see an Islamic last name.
You don't think the FBI gets a bing, bing, bing, bing?
I assume they would.
The reason I assume that is because I assume Homeland Security can get into every system that is relevant to what they're trying to do, protect the country.
What would be more relevant than knowing somebody with an Islamic last name and military service had rented a truck?
That would be right on the top of your bing, bing, bing.
Now, I'm assuming that there are plenty of Muslim citizens of the United States who rent trucks because everybody rents trucks.
So it's not like it's usually going to be a terrorist.
It's usually just going to be a citizen who needs a truck.
But far more likely an Islamic last name plus a rented truck is going to be a little more trouble than Some other name in a rented truck.
Now, of course, that's racial profiling, but don't you assume that that's what the government is doing because they need to?
Of course they are.
They're looking for patterns.
They don't care about your racial profiling.
They're just trying to stop you from blowing up the country.
So, Turo might be just the first choice of people who don't have good credit and don't want you to check on what's going on.
Maybe.
Maybe.
I don't know.
So, that's on that.
Well, you see the fog of war about that story?
That everything about it seemed to be out of kilter a little bit?
All right, on the other biggest scandal, you know, I'm talking about it, but I've got a lot of other people talking about it.
I didn't realize how bad the Amazon counterfeit product scandal was.
But it turns out it's actually a homeland security problem.
Because somewhat accidentally, Amazon turned into a way for China to destroy all American small businesses that sell things online.
All of them.
Now, I knew that my products were getting counterfeited often, because when I'd put a book up on Amazon, it would immediately be copied by AI or whatever, and it would be all these fake ones under my name.
My name would be on the fakes.
Now, if I tried to get rid of it, now you're going to say to yourself, but Scott, I looked into this and there's just a page you go to and you put in your information and then you could have Amazon remove it.
Do you think that's real?
Do you think I can just go to a page and they'll remove it?
Nope.
I have to prove that it's counterfeit.
Do you know how the only way that they'll let me do that I have to buy it.
I have to buy the counterfeit.
I have to wait for a week or two weeks or however long it comes and then I have to take pictures of it and then upload the pictures and upload the picture of my book so that I can show that it's the same as my book on the inside.
That's their process.
Do you believe that they meant that process to solve the problem?
No.
Amazon is the best user interface people in the world.
Do you think that it would build a completely unworkable system by accident?
No.
No.
There's no part of me that thinks that's an accident.
Because it's the simplest problem they solve routinely.
Amazon is by far, except for Apple maybe, Maybe better than Apple.
Amazon is the best user interface I think I've ever seen.
And the reason that you don't think of it as being the best interface you've ever seen is because it's the best interface you've ever seen.
If you use Amazon and not once do you think, ah, where's that button or why does it do that?
It's the best interface you've ever seen, because the level of complexity of what they do is completely hidden from the user.
We just know what we want, and there it is, and then we click on it.
So it defies imagination that their system for correcting counterfeits, which they profit immensely from, I'm told, immensely...
My imagination can't imagine that's an accident.
Now, not all products require you to buy the product, but mine do.
So right now, every calendar, every Dilbert 2025 calendar on Amazon is a counterfeit.
Let me say that again.
100% of all the Dilbert calendars this year on Amazon are counterfeits.
All of them, because I don't sell it on Amazon.
I'm only selling it on a private site.
If you want to look for it, go to Dilbert.com and you'll see the link at the top.
But every one of them.
So here's what I did.
I, of course, complained on Axe.
It doesn't take long for Amazon to notice when a big account complains because the big companies, they're watching social media and they jump right on any complaint so that the rest of the public doesn't see it.
So they jumped right on the complaint, which is what they're supposed to do.
And they said, hey, DM us, and we'll see if we can help you.
So I said to myself, whoa, great.
I can just talk directly to somebody, tell them what the problem is, maybe they fix it.
So they say, yeah, we'll help you.
Go to this form and fill it out.
Now, as soon as I hear that, I know I'm not going to get helped.
So I say, are you AI? And it responded with exactly what it said before.
Go to this form and fill it out.
We can help you.
Then I said, I'm done with this process because it doesn't work.
I want to talk to your legal team.
And they said, fill out this form with exactly the same words.
And I said, I can't tell if you're AI. And then it said, oh, I'm not AI. I'm a human.
But it acted like AI. And then I say to myself, is it part AI and part human?
Maybe the human checks in once in a while, but the AI does the main work.
Or was it AI and is taught to say that it's human?
Well, let's just say that it couldn't help me at all.
So, and I wasn't going to go to the form and fill it out.
So I just said, here's my information.
Every one of the Dilbert calendars is fake.
What else do you need?
What else do you need?
I just told them everything they need.
My phone number, my name as the author, which is easy for them to check, and that 100% of the Dilbert calendars are fake.
And then I said, why don't you give this to your legal team?
I asked for their legal team because it's a legal issue.
To me, it's not a customer service problem.
It's a legal issue.
So basically, then they said, fill out this form or we can't show it to our legal people.
I'm like, really?
Really?
You can't tell them that one of your most notable authors just told you 100% of the calendars are fake, and you can't deal with that.
Like, your system can't accept everything that you need to know.
There's nothing else you need to know.
Now, suppose I said, is there any way that this could have been a better system?
Well, let me design one right now.
When you become a seller on Amazon, the first time you're signing up to be a seller, You have to prove who you are, which makes perfect sense.
So the first time that you prove who you are, wouldn't it be good if you got like a secret 10-digit code so that when you publish something else under your same publishing name, it's got that code on it, and they go, oh, that's real.
Only that one person would have that code.
And then everybody who tries to knock it off would be able to perfectly knock off the product But they wouldn't know my magic code, so they wouldn't be able to post it.
How hard would it be to do that?
And then if somebody steals my code, I tell them and they give me a new code.
It looks like it's moronically easy to fix.
Now, so I posted about this and I thought it might be something limited to books and calendars and printed material.
Oh, no.
It turns out that Amazon...
Working with China is a way to destroy all American small business.
Because as soon as any small business that's selling on Amazon, as soon as they get some good sales, it's noticed.
And one of two things happen.
Either Amazon itself builds a generic and sells it instead of yours, which puts you on a business, or China or India Look at it and say, it looks like they're selling a lot of these widgets.
Let's make a fake one.
And they'll have way more fake ones that are on the account than the real ones, so you won't know what's real.
But it's better.
Then the fakers will also buy the real one and return it multiple times.
They'll also give bad reviews to the real one.
So the real one gets the bad reviews.
They're dealing with purchase and returns that were always meant to be returns that were never meant to be purchased.
It's just to put them out of business.
And then they'll flood the zone with their knockoff product, which is sometimes okay and sometimes not.
Now, here's what you need to know.
That happens 100% of the time.
100% of the time.
It doesn't happen with every product.
Because not every product has sales.
There are a lot of small products that you wouldn't bother knocking off.
But 100% of the things that sell well are stolen from the person who invented it and made the business.
100%.
So either Amazon steals it themselves and makes it a generic, or they allow other companies to steal it right in front of you and then they carry it.
Now the question I would ask is, Isn't that deeply illegal if you know you're doing it?
And it wouldn't be that hard to stop.
It feels like it's deeply illegal.
Now, you might say to yourself, and I threatened a class action, because there's a gigantic class that would probably want to get in on it.
Now, the last thing in the world I want to do is a Get involved in a giant lawsuit with Amazon.
Like, there's no way I win.
There's no winning path there.
I would only do it as a suicide bomber, meaning I would only do it if I thought it would help the other sellers somewhere down the road.
So I might need to be a weapon of mass destruction, but I can't help myself.
I don't think there's a path where I come out ahead.
Because if you're a bookseller and you take on Amazon...
You can imagine a thousand ways they could get even.
So it doesn't make sense business-wise.
It doesn't make any sense.
But sometimes it's not about business, is it?
It's not about business.
Here's what I think.
I don't think this is a legal issue.
I think it's a homeland security issue.
Why is it that we're trying to make sure that we reshore our businesses and manufacturing from China?
Is it because we want to make more money?
No.
It's because it's a homeland security problem.
Amazon is now working for the adversaries, intentionally or not, but it's a homeland security problem.
Amazon probably needs to be shut down if they can't fix this, because they've developed a system to destroy all American companies.
Homeland Security should just shut them down and say you can't destroy American companies intentionally.
Now, when I say intentionally, clearly they know this is happening.
Right?
There's nobody here who doubts that they know it's happening.
And they've built a system that optimizes for that.
It doesn't optimize for protecting the seller.
It optimizes for the counterfeits.
Now, I saw that, I think I'm right about this, that Nike pulled its products entirely off of Amazon because Amazon couldn't stop the counterfeits.
Now, let me ask you this.
Do you really think they couldn't stop counterfeits from Nike?
All they had to know is that Nike only has one official source and all the rest are fake.
How hard is that?
All Nike had to say is, here's our legal sources.
Just don't buy from anybody else or don't list anybody else.
The other way you could go is have blue checks.
So suppose they gave me a blue checkmark.
So that if you saw multiple copies, you'd say, ooh, these other ones don't have a blue checkmark.
Then let's say I decided to turn somebody in with my blue checkmark.
So I've got like some authority now, hypothetically.
So I turn in some other person.
Well, what happens if I'm actually a bad guy and I turn in somebody who was legitimate?
Well, then we get into a battle, and then they find out I turned in somebody legitimate, and then they take my blue check away, and I'm out of business, as I should be, as I should be.
All you have to do is give people who are legitimate a way to prove they're legitimate once, give them a blue check or the equivalent, and then train the other people that they're looking at something that's not been verified, right?
So all I need to know is that the fakes are not verified, and I am.
So that would mean that 100% of the fake ones would show the whole product, and then very clearly it would say the seller is not a verified legal seller.
Doesn't mean they're illegal.
They're just not verified as a legal seller.
It would take you five minutes to learn never to buy from them, because that just means counterfeit, right?
How long would it take you to figure out you got to buy from the blue check companies?
It's the easiest problem to solve.
And I heard somebody say that they make more money from the counterfeits Than they do from a lot of other stuff.
So it could be that it's absolutely nothing except a big source of money and they're pretending they can't solve it.
But while they're pretending they can't solve it, it is a homeland security problem and I really think they need to be shut down if they're not going to address it seriously.
Like the whole thing, just shut it down.
Just turn off the switch.
Because if you're not even trying to stop destroying the economy of the United States, maybe you shouldn't be in business.
The other thing that it is, which I thought also was affecting only me, if you have a new book and you upload it, because there's a process for independent people like me to upload a book, working with Joshua Lysak in this case, when you upload it, the odds of getting a glitch...
On your page, my experience is 100%.
A glitch means there's something wrong with the listing.
It either doesn't show up or it's not connected to your other books.
It's not visible.
It takes weeks for reasons you can't figure out and they won't help you.
And what happens in the time it takes you To get the glitch fixed.
Do you know what happens?
You're flooded with counterfeits that didn't get a glitch.
Oh, really?
So only the person who really owns the property gets a glitch?
But all the people who are fake, no glitch.
Right in there.
And they sell all the books for the first few weeks, because that's how long it takes you to fix the glitch.
But if you're an author who makes most of their sales on the first few weeks, which is typical, they take all of your profits.
And then, oh, we got it fixed finally.
It took a month.
A month!
Ordinarily.
It's ordinary for them to take a month to fix a glitch.
It's ordinary for there to be a glitch every time.
Now, I thought it was just happening to me until I saw some comments.
Apparently, it's a system.
Now, that part I do not believe is intentional on the point of Amazon's management.
What I do think is that people in charge of posting things are taking bribes from China or India.
I think the employees are bribed, and I think that they're glitching it intentionally, and they're working with the counterfeiters to make sure the counterfeiters have a month of free access before the real one is unglitched.
Now, there are way too many glitches To imagine this is an accident.
Given that it's their core business to upload things and make them properly listed, it's no coincidence.
This has to be bribery at some sub-level.
So the level of illegality is just incredible.
So what it's doing is basically, somebody else said this, these small American businesses are taking the risk, they're doing the R&D, they're doing all the marketing, For whatever the product is, and then China steals it.
So they're stealing our IP by stealing the product, right?
In effect.
All right.
So that's Homeland Security.
That would make it Kristi Noem's business, right?
Yeah.
And this really has to be reframed.
This is not just some ordinary domestic business glitch, customer support isn't as good as we'd like it.
It's not that.
This is a Homeland Security gigantic, gigantic risk destroying American small business right in front of us intentionally, intentionally, and we're just letting it happen.
It's time for the Trump administration to put a big foot on this and see what they can do.
Anyway, speaking of Trump, he likes TikTok, and he's trying to see if they can get a delay so it doesn't get banned.
And we'll see what happens with that.
But you should know that one of Trump's big donors owns a big part of TikTok.
So Trump says he likes TikTok now because it worked in favor of him.
And I'm sure that's part of the reason.
But another part of it is he's got a donor that's so big, he's probably not going to go against that donor.
So that's a factor.
However, I did have this experience the other day.
I mentioned the TikTok ban to some young people who were Frequent users of TikTok.
And the first thing I heard was, TikTok shows both sides on political stuff.
Is that your experience?
How many of you use TikTok?
Do you think it shows both sides?
And so the argument was, if it shows both sides, what's the problem?
Now, that's a pretty good question, isn't it?
Somebody who uses it regularly says, I see both sides all the time.
I see pro-Trump, I see anti-Trump.
If I'm seeing both sides, what's the problem?
Well, here's where someone trained in persuasion is handy.
Here's what I explained.
How do you know you see the best stuff from both sides?
If I were some nefarious person at TikTok or in China and I wanted to game the system, I would make sure that you saw both sides.
But...
Their algorithm tells you which are the most viral and powerful.
So I'd make sure you saw weak arguments for one side and strong arguments for the other.
Do you think you'd know that they did that to you?
Do you think you'd know that they intentionally gave you the weak arguments for one side and the strong arguments for another?
Or would you just say, looks like I saw both sides?
You would say you saw both sides because you wouldn't know you saw the weak argument versus the strong argument.
And they have every ability to do that.
I'm not saying they've ever done it.
I'm not claiming they did that.
I'm saying how easy would it be?
Because the risk is not what they've done so far.
If you believe that the risk of TikTok is what you've seen so far, I've never said that.
That's not something I've said.
It's the future risk.
And it's the fact that they could do things you never know they did.
So the other thing is, how do you know you see the same amount on both sides?
It's easy to know if you saw both sides.
It's hard to know if you saw the same amount, because it's not like you're keeping track.
So what if they gave you 70-30?
If they gave you 70 from one side and 30 from another, would you notice?
Or would you just say, well, I see both sides.
Oh, yeah, I see a little more of one, but I see both sides.
Like, I see both sides.
What else do I need?
But if it's 70-30, would you know?
Because it would definitely change your thinking.
That would be enough to persuade.
How about this?
What if the people who were talking to me were not the people that TikTok cared about?
Meaning that TikTok knows who you're going to vote for pretty quickly.
Do you think it needs to send persuasion to people who've made up their mind and are not going to change it?
No.
It turns out there's only a narrow sliver of TikTok users who might be independent enough that they could go either way.
Can TikTok identify them?
And if you were going to compare the thin number of people who can be persuaded, would they also get just as much from both sides?
And would it be the same quality on both sides?
Because look how well they could hide the persuasion.
First of all, you don't do any special persuasion for 90% of the public.
And then when people weigh in, they say, I'm pretty sure I'm not being persuaded.
Because I see both sides.
It looks like a good argument to me.
You can't tell me I'm being manipulated.
I see everything.
And maybe they do.
But what about that 10% that are the magic ones who could be persuaded?
You wouldn't know if they were the only ones getting the persuasive stuff.
You wouldn't know.
And they wouldn't know either.
And what if they're saving their play for some big play later?
What if they haven't used any of these powers that would be available to them and they're just waiting for the big opportunity?
Something that just kneecaps America if we believe it to be true.
Now let me ask you this.
If you think you're on TikTok and you've seen both sides, how much anti-DEI stuff do you think is on TikTok?
Just to pick one political topic.
Do you think there's as much anti-DEI as there is pro-DEI on TikTok?
I'm open to being fact-checked, and that would be amazing if that were true, but I don't think so.
Do you?
I mean, just the demographics of the users should largely guarantee that it's 80% or more pro-DEI. I don't know.
I don't think anybody's seeing both sides of that.
Maybe they're seeing both sides of Trump as Hitler.
I mean, which is better than nothing.
But do you think they really see both sides of DEI? I doubt it.
Seems unlikely to me.
Anyway, James Carville has a theory about the mass killers.
Even when I don't agree with James Carville...
He's so quotable and fun to listen to because he'll just say whatever it is that nobody else is saying that and there's a reason they're not saying it.
But the reason is that they're afraid, not that he's wrong.
So here's what he says.
At the end of the day, it's just my theory.
I'm going to be right 80% of the time.
These people, meaning the mass killers, have some kind of sexual problem.
Most of them are incels.
Now, I don't know if we need to take that, like, so seriously.
Because remember, Carville's a, you know, he's a bomb thrower and he's provocative.
And, you know, so some of it's just his personality and the way he communicates.
And you shouldn't take it too, too seriously.
But here's what I would note.
This reminds me of backward science, where you got the cause and the effect wrong.
Do you think that women like to date a guy who is a suicide bomber?
Do you think there would be no indication that there's something wrong with a guy if he's a little bit too radicalized?
How many women want to be with a radicalized guy who is always talking about, I wish somebody would blow up the Trump Tower?
I feel like They may be incels, but maybe it's not their choice.
So maybe just being a suicide bomber makes sure that you can't get a date.
So I'm not sure that not getting a date turns you into a suicide bomber.
I think that whatever comes along with being a suicide bomber is something that women can pick up pretty easily.
But you might not be wrong.
There might be a lot of them that are not getting their other needs met.
I have said in the past, and was mocked mercilessly, so I'll say it again.
So the first time I said this, it was years ago.
I was mocked.
Oh, God was mocked.
But I want to see if you still mock me, or if the vibe has changed a little bit.
What I said was, in the Islamic systems...
If the rich people can have multiple wives, what's going to happen to the rest of the men?
Well, they will be unwifed, right?
If you believe that you could never do the thing that humans are born to do, which is have kids and have a family, and you thought it was just unavailable to you because you're not rich, you're not going to be rich, you're just going to be this single guy wandering around doing nothing, And then I say to you, but what if you did something really noble and you killed a bunch of people and went to heaven and got your 72 virgins?
I believe that the amount of people who are suicide bombers and willing to run into battle at all risks, like you see over there, I don't think that would happen so much if the people doing it had a better alternative.
So to me, it seems that not getting laid, which I'll just say is in the category of not being a person who's going to have babies, I do think that that creates a situation where somebody would say, well, might as well.
And I'm going to go further.
If I lived in a system where I knew I could not get my basic biological needs met, I'd probably do something dangerous.
Maybe not that specific thing, but yeah, I would...
Do illegal drugs without thinking about it, if it made me feel good.
I'd probably do a lot of criminal things, because I wouldn't care about society.
I wouldn't be a part of it.
If you can't have kids, you're not locked into the system the way a single person...
Yeah, a single person's not locked into the system.
So, would the end of multiple wives...
I think it would.
It might not be the biggest change.
It might not solve all the problems.
But, yeah.
The basic thing I'm saying is that people evaluate alternatives.
Right?
So I have an alternative of living a full, complete life.
So it never occurs to me that committing a violent act would be on my menu.
Why would I even look at it?
But if I didn't have any way to meet my basic needs as a living human being, I would look at any alternative.
And I would look at an alternative that had a quick ending, too.
So I completely understand.
Now, of course, there'll be some exceptions.
There'll be happily married people who become mass killers, and that's probably more to do with mental health.
So you don't want to conflate the crazy people, who nothing will stop them, with the people who are literally looking at their options and going, you know, all things considered, suicide bombers looking pretty good today.
Anyway, Biden blocked the sale of U.S. steel to Japan.
He said he might, and I guess after there was some big committee that tried to decide on it, and the committee came back with, we can't decide.
And so that made Biden the decider, and Biden stopped the sale.
Do you mind if I just say that was the right decision?
He's going to get a few right.
I'm pretty sure this was the right decision.
So I'm just going to say unambiguously, with no caveats, Biden made the right decision.
So we're going to give him that.
I'm pretty sure Trump would have done the same thing.
I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure.
So I think you could be happy with that one.
But why did Biden say no to Japan buying it?
Well, I've got a hypothesis.
Japan has never been accused of bribing the Biden crime family.
Am I right?
If Biden had blocked the sale to China, I would have been a little more surprised.
Because he did take money from China.
But he didn't take any money from Japan, and I guess Japan loses.
Maybe they should have been more involved in the Biden crime family, and they could have bought themselves a steel plant.
We don't know if that had any influence on his decision.
But since it was the right decision, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
All right.
Do you remember when you thought that China...
Their GDP, their economy would grow until it surpassed America, and that was just assumed to be true because they have more people, more vitality, and the lines were definitely going to converge.
Well, at the moment, it doesn't look like it's going to happen because China's having so many economic problems that it might still happen, but Certainly not as soon as people thought.
The experts thought it might happen around 2030. And it still could happen.
But boy, did it slow down.
So China's sucking wind.
But so are we.
If Trump vows to block U.S. deals take over...
Oh, okay.
So CBS News is reporting that Trump would have stopped it as well.
So we can be happy with that decision.
But here's what I would say about China versus the United States.
I don't see a path for China to survive because their entire economy depends on manufacturing at a low cost.
And certainly there are a few other countries that are trying to compete, but not super effectively.
Like Vietnam is trying to be a...
But they don't have the manufacturing know-how.
If you go to China, there's like this entire gigantic industry of people who are experts as saying, what is it you want to make?
Oh, you want to make a lamp out of cotton?
Okay.
Okay.
And they can build you a factory that will make a lamp and a cotton.
That's not a real thing.
So, in fact, I had a friend who had a product designed, he designed it on sort of a napkin and stuff, and he found a Chinese company.
He was making giant tennis rackets.
So he was making tennis rackets that were just for decoration, if you were a tennis player.
But it looked like a regular wooden racket, but it was like four feet tall or something.
I bought one.
They're really cool.
But he basically said to a Chinese company, all right, here's a hand drawing of what I want.
It's just a giant tennis racket.
It's made of wood.
And they somehow made a giant tennis racket.
Like...
Do you know how many technologies they would have to pull together to make a giant tennis racket strong at a price that if it got bigger they could afford?
And that's a lot of manufacturing know-how.
When I saw that, I was like, holy cow.
I don't know that I could find a place in America that would do that.
I mean, maybe.
So places like Vietnam can't just knock off China, even if they have lower-cost labor.
They don't have the factory engineers.
That's the big advantage.
However, what happens when the cheap labor is replaced with cheap robots?
That means that the United States will have a manufacturing advantage, at least for stuff that is sold in the United States.
Because the shipping costs and the shipping delays are a big part of the acquisition problem.
But if you're buying it in America, it comes faster.
You don't have to worry about any economic instability.
You don't have to worry about as much.
You don't have to worry about the intentional IP threat.
You don't have to travel to China to make sure that they're doing it right and have your laptop information stolen.
So, robots should destroy the entire economic engine of China while strengthening the economic engine of America.
And I don't see any way around it.
Do you?
Because robots are definitely coming.
They're definitely going to do all the manual labor.
They're definitely going to replace most manufacturing jobs.
They're definitely going to be cheaper than hiring humans, and even cheaper than having it made in China.
So what's their plan B? How does China survive with that?
And the answer is, I have no idea.
And I wonder if they do.
Do they have any idea that they don't have any way to survive?
I mean, their system seems to be brittle.
So...
I will say at the same time that betting against China's economy is probably one of the worst bets you could ever make.
But on paper, it's not looking good.
In the real world, China's really smart.
Right?
The Chinese leadership...
Are like really, really smart people.
It's a lot of engineers.
So they don't do real dumb stuff.
They just don't.
So maybe they can figure it out, but I don't know how.
I have a good imagination, and I can't imagine how they get out of that.
We'll see.
There's a 20-year-old soldier who apparently is a hacker in his spare time who got arrested and charged for...
Apparently he hacked into the phone companies and got the private records of, allegedly, Trump and Kamala Harris, and then sold the personal records of their phone calls on the black market.
Let me say that again.
An ordinary American 20-year-old U.S. Army soldier had the wherewithal to get the President of the United States...
Personal messages from a telecom company by hacking it.
Now, do you think there's any chance that China isn't in every one of our systems?
If a 20-year-old can get into what I would think would be a pretty darn secure system, pretty darn secure, then anybody can get in.
Anybody who has that talent, and China has that talent times a thousand.
So we should assume that China is already in everything.
Now, I don't hate that, believe it or not, because it would give China some sense of having a weapon of mass destruction that's not nuclear.
Because they can turn off the lights in the United States and 90% of us would die in a year.
So my question would be, doesn't the United States have the same kind of sort of balancing risk?
You don't think the U.S. has hackers that are in all the Chinese systems?
I assume they do.
So I think we have a mutual threat there.
But maybe that's wishful thinking.
Anyway, I saw a claim that supermarkets, food markets, are 90% owned by just 10 companies.
Does that sound right?
It doesn't sound too far off directionally.
I don't know if the exact number is right.
But let me tell you something about the food company.
The food company is a thoroughly corrupt industry.
I worked in it a little bit as I tried to introduce the Dill Burrito.
A burrito that had all the...
Well, here's two things I learned.
Many of you know I tried to create a frozen burrito that would be just the healthiest thing.
It would have all the right vitamins and minerals and vegetables in it, and it would taste good.
I thought, yeah, why don't we make one food that's convenient, inexpensive, and perfectly healthy?
Wouldn't that be great?
Then I found out that all the information about vitamins and minerals was fake.
It's all fake science.
I don't trust even one fact about vitamins and minerals.
And I was trying to do that as my competitive advantage.
And soon I learned, wait a minute, all the science is made up.
It's obviously made up.
It's not obvious until you get into it.
But every day that I had that business, there'd be a new news story that says, oh, turns out vitamin E can hurt you.
I'll be like, what?
Oh, but sometimes it helps you.
What?
Maybe pregnant women need it or something.
What?
And I kept finding that all the vitamin stuff was fake.
So on top of the fact that the food pyramid was fake, all the vitamin and mineral stuff is fake.
On top of that, the supermarket grocery industry is completely corrupt.
And I've told you this before.
So we were developing a super healthy food, if we did everything right, To compete against really unhealthy crap.
But the people who make the unhealthy crap have armies of people who go into every store and make sure their product is well displayed and they answer any questions.
Sometimes they even go in the back.
They even work for the grocery store in the back.
They'll go back there and unpack their own products and bring them and put them on the shelves themselves.
So the grocery store lets the vendor Stock the shelf with their own products.
What do you think when you let the vendor put their own products on your shelf?
What do you think they do when they see your product sitting on the shelf next to it?
They bury it.
They take your product, they put it in the back of their product, so there'll be two of theirs in front of yours.
And if you don't have an army of people to move it back, then you can be in 7-Eleven for six months and have zero sales.
That's what I did.
Can you imagine selling it to 7-Eleven?
It wasn't all of them.
It was one subset of 7-Eleven.
But imagine being in all these stores, and when you make that sale, you say to yourself, yes, finally.
Because if only that worked, it would have been cash positive.
If only that worked, just the subset of 7-Eleven stores, if all they did was just put it on the shelf, It would have been cash positive and a big business.
They put it on the shelf and then it got buried.
And we know that because we checked a bunch of stores and in 100% of the stores it was buried behind the same product.
Craft.
So we even know who did it.
We know for sure who did it.
Didn't help.
7-Eleven eventually said we sold zero of your product or something like that.
So it didn't work out so we won't carry you.
That's a real story.
And I could give you other examples, but trust me, the food industry is just a criminal enterprise.
So if you find out that your food people are selling you poison and they know they're doing it, that would actually fit perfectly with everything I observed, that it looks like a massive criminal enterprise.
That's what it looks like.
Anyway, Elon Musk is weighing into British politics.
He thinks the government needs to be revised and they need to hold new elections.
He said specifically, the people of Britain do not want this government at all.
New elections.
Now, of course, he's being blamed with interfering with British elections.
The first thing we would all note is the British government has interfered with American elections repeatedly.
So shut up.
Shut up.
Is Elon interfering with your elections?
I don't care.
Shut up.
As long as you're going to interfere with our elections, just shut up.
Because we're absolutely going to do it to you.
Absolutely.
And unrepentant.
So I'd like to weigh in, and I don't know anything about UK politics, but I want them to change their government.
I insist.
They're not listening to me, so it doesn't make any difference.
But no, if you're going to mess with our government, which you do, and we know that from various, I mean, everything from the Steele dossier, you know, wink, wink, the Steele dossier to sending people over to help campaign for Kamala Harris, Yes, they're all in our business, and other countries are always in our politics one way or another.
So, no.
Don't tell us to stop talking about your country, whether it's Elon or me or anybody else.
We will interfere as much as we feel like it.
As long as you are.
And I would ask the question, when does the observation become interference?
Because what Elon said is the people of Britain don't want this government.
That's true based on polls.
That's a factual statement.
The people in the country don't want it.
The polls agree, you know, completely.
The polls are very overwhelmingly agree with that.
So is an observation an interference?
Shut up, Great Britain.
Just shut up.
I don't care.
I don't care if this observation feels like interference to you.
Don't care.
Keep it up.
But it does raise the question, I wonder if Elon Musk is sort of a kingmaker for other countries.
Is it possible that if people think he fixed America by getting Trump into office with Trump's solutions, does it look like he could fix another country?
Because honestly, I'll bet the UK is jealous of the United States because we have...
We've presented, it hasn't been implemented, but we've presented a completely workable solution for our biggest problems, which is Trump's policies.
Now, don't you think the UK would like a really good plan to solve their own problems?
And they don't have one.
They don't have a Trump.
So they don't seem to have any way to recover.
And I think that they're beyond what I'll call the cultural tipping point.
The cultural tipping point.
At some point, if you bring in a, let's say, a contrarian or even hostile culture, If you bring in one or two people in a big country, no big deal.
If you bring in enough people and they can start forming their own communities within your community so that they have isolated communities that are not acclimating to the rest of the culture, that pretty much guarantees, if they're Islamic, if they're bringing fundamental Islamic beliefs, all they have to do is get a foothold.
If they get a foothold in the modern world, The only way you could stop it from taking over everything, because it's a viral religion.
They pretty much want to make sure that they convert you or die trying.
Not all of them.
We're talking about the extremists.
That will succeed over time if you live in a system where we don't do cruel, terrible things.
Now, Great Britain...
Does not like to do cruel, terrible things to brown people.
It's just a terrible look.
So they'll do everything to avoid it.
That guarantees the end of England.
It guarantees.
And I don't see anything changing.
So it looks like no matter how small the foothold is, like, don't hit me with any statistics like, but Scott, don't you realize that they only make 2% of the whole country?
It doesn't make any difference.
If all of them are in a few central metropolitan areas, they will eventually control the metropolitan areas.
And then it just spreads from there.
So now, if it's 2%, But they're all concentrated where they can group and keep their culture intact and use it to work against others around them.
You're dead.
Do you know what the solution is?
It's called the Uyghurs in China.
I'm not recommending it, right?
Because if I recommended it, I would be as bad as China.
But China basically says we're not going to have any Islamic people in China.
It's a viral, dangerous religion.
It doesn't fit with our system.
And we're just going to put you in concentration camps and essentially sterilize you effectively.
Now, am I in favor of that?
No way.
Because nobody who's a good person could be in favor of that.
But what if he didn't have any choice?
Great Britain is beyond the point where it's fixable.
I will tell you with fair confidence that Great Britain will fall.
It will just become an Islamic country.
And they did it to themselves, completely self-inflicted.
The United States might have had the same fate.
But I think that the Trump administration, who has never said this, by the way, but when they do the order of deportations, they say quite wisely and smartly that, hey, let us focus on the illegals, and then we'll figure out who goes after that.
Now, who goes after the people who are literally criminals?
What's next?
Well, here's where it gets dicey.
If it were up to me, I would ship people back based on cultural non-fit.
So if somebody was illegal, but they're also a member of a culture that is hostile to our culture, they go back first.
Would that be gross racial discrimination?
Yes, it would.
But it would also be self-defense.
And in the context of self-defense, totally acceptable.
In personal interaction, completely unacceptable.
And certainly if you're hiring or firing, completely unacceptable.
But when you talk about national defense, yeah, you can do anything you want.
There are no rules for defense.
If you're literally defending yourself against a risk, there's no ethical or moral anything.
But we will act like there is.
And so I don't imagine that Trump could get away with it.
But it's the conversation that needs to be had.
Should we decide who will destroy the United States the way Great Britain is certain to fall at this point?
Do we want that fate?
Because if we don't, there's literally one way to deal with it.
You'd have to ship back all recent non-legal immigrants who came from certain parts of the world.
You'd have to do them all.
Just get rid of everybody who's not a citizen who came from the wrong part of the world.
You'd want to make sure that you discriminated as little as possible against American citizens and against non-radicalized people because it would be a horrible, horrible thing.
But it might be the only thing.
It might be the only thing that saves the country.
And I feel like the big problem is that we're afraid to say that ideas matter.
If you put people who want to get along with a bunch of people who don't want to get along and want to conquer you, That needs to be discussed.
You can't just act like it's not there.
And you can't say, but, but, it would be discriminating because most are not, you know, most immigrants who came to this country from those countries probably just wanted a better life.
Probably not in any kind of bad business at all.
But I don't care.
Don't really care.
What I care about is that we don't go the direction of the United Kingdom and be doomed.
And there is a way to prevent it.
It just would require somebody with balls the size of Mar-a-Lago to get it done.
I don't know if he can do it.
It might be a step too far.
But I would go crime first and cultural fit second.
So now it's out there.
So this is one of the things I can do because I'm cancelled.
You know, I can't get further cancelled than I am.
So I can say what the government can't say and shouldn't say, which is who is second after you get the known criminals.
So, of course, you want to get the Venezuelan gangs.
You want to get the murderers and the rapists and stuff.
Of course.
But we need to be at least a little aware of what the second wave would be.
And I would get rid of anybody who wasn't culturally compatible and was recent.
Yeah, I wouldn't obviously definitely don't deport any citizens of the United States.
And if there's some way to tell who's not radicalized, then definitely like to keep them.
But If you don't know if they're radicalized and they came from a certain part of the country and they're not citizens and they're not here legally, yeah, they've got to go next.
Everybody agree?
And somebody has to say it out loud.
Because I've told you before that persuasion-wise, sometimes you need the person who goes first and just says the thing that gets you canceled for sure.
This is like cancel bait.
If I were not already canceled, I would get canceled for this.
Would you agree?
This is total cancel bait.
But what's the point?
I'm already canceled.
But again...
I'm completely against discrimination in any personal, professional, you know, in-person way.
Totally against that.
But self-defense?
Different standard.
No rules for self-defense.
All right.
Here's some science things to round things out.
According to Reichman University, people who can see the big picture and are good at storytelling...
Have more meaningful lives.
So people who think of things in terms of stories and can tell stories have more meaningful lives I can see that.
Because storytelling, especially, it just seems that people who can see things as stories would ordinarily find more meaning.
If you don't see the story, then you just see what you're doing, which might be drudgery.
And that doesn't make you too happy.
But if you see the drudgery you're doing as connected to the larger story of your life, that can give you some meaning.
So I look at the times in my life where I did horrible work.
I mean, the work was hard and unsatisfying, but as long as it was moving me along my storyline, I was fine with it.
So, you know, college classes I found, you know, largely uninteresting and drudgery, but I knew I needed it.
So I always was enthusiastically embracing the challenge because it was part of my story.
Now, I've told you the Prisoner Island story.
It's good to have a story of yourself and then make yourself conform to it.
So I've got a couple of stories.
One is that I always win in the end, which is not, you know, literally true.
But as long as I tell myself that story, when bad things happen to me, I just say, well, I've seen the story, and the story is I fix this in the end.
Turns out I usually do.
I usually do fix my problems in the end.
So, you know, it's easy to convince myself.
And then I use the prisoner island example.
You've heard it before.
But the idea is that you imagine you're dropped on a prisoner island.
There's no law.
There's no warden.
And on day one, all of the bad prisoners who are already there beat me up, steal everything I have, and leave me for dead.
Because, of course, they're bigger and meaner and there are more of them.
On day two, they beat me up again, and it's even worse.
Day three, same thing.
Day four, same thing.
But if you come back in a year, I will have killed every one of them, and I will be ruling the island.
Now, that's called Escape from Prisoner Island.
And what I find is that it helps me understand myself, or really program myself.
It programs me to say...
It doesn't matter what you have to do, you're gonna do it.
It doesn't matter how hard it is, you're still gonna do it.
It doesn't matter how badly beaten you are, you're still gonna win.
It doesn't matter how many times they beat you up, you're gonna get them in the end.
Now, again, it's not technically true that I'm gonna win in the end all the time.
But I treat my life as that story, and it's a recurring one.
Every time something bad happens, there you are, Prisoner Island.
So imagine how good that feels when something bad happens to you, whether it's a divorce or, in my case, getting canceled.
I just go right to Prisoner Island.
I go, yep, you beat me up and left me for dead.
Let's check back next year.
A year after I got canceled, I had built an entirely new distribution system and was happier than I've ever been in terms of my creative work.
It's just ideal.
My current situation is so much better than before I was cancelled.
That's Escape from Prisoner Island.
So whether you use that story or some other story, you should have a story.
Have a story for yourself where you win and then just keep plugging yourself into the story.
It will help.
Let's see, what else?
According to Cy Post and Vladimir Henry, people who know two languages might have more protection against Alzheimer's progression.
To which I say, you could have just asked me.
Because don't we have plenty of science that says the more you use your brain, the more protection you have against all forms of losing your cognitive ability?
So knowing two languages would be evidence that you've used your brain more than somebody who knows one language, which would be right on point with being a protective thing against any kind of mental decline.
So next time, just ask me.
Eric Dolan writes for SciPost.
He says, oxytocin influences moral, emotion, decision-making.
So oxytocin is the...
Chemical your brain or your body creates when you're in personal contact and intimate situations and stuff.
It makes you feel love and connection to things.
But they found if they give it to you artificially, that you will have greater moral behavior, basically.
It makes you feel shame more and makes you care more about harming other people.
So basically, you just love your fellow human beings a little bit if you're on this drug.
And my takeaway from this is science has a million ways to tell us you don't have free will, and 98% of you are not getting the hints.
I'll just say this because I love saying it and watching people not accept it.
If you can change people's decisions with a drug, they don't have free will.
Now, I know you're going to use word thinking and say, but I have free will because I can choose.
And they'll say, well, all you did is substitute a word.
And then you'll say, but Scott, there are lots of things I could have done, but I only chose one.
That's free will.
And I would say, no, you just put a word in place of it.
Unless you think that the rules of cause and effect and the rules of physics don't apply to your brain, I don't know why you'd think that that wouldn't apply to your brain.
So no, you don't have free will.
Science keeps trying to tell us, but we reject it.
There's some kind of new nanopore-based sensor that can diagnose your health.
So instead of looking at lots of cells, like lots of blood samples or something, they think they can get a, they don't have it finished yet, but a detector that could look at one One, let's see, one what?
One molecule.
They can look at one molecule from your body and diagnose your health problems.
Now, whether or not this ever works, this is by, let's see, it's in Riverside, University of California, Jules Bernstein's writing about it.
But whether or not that works, and they can diagnose you with one molecule or not, there's going to be a whole bunch of diagnostic devices that will be desktop and consumer friendly.
So you'll just have something on your desk that you'll stick your finger in.
It'll take a prick or take one molecule in this case.
It'll tell you all kinds of things.
Now, what do you do about it?
Suppose you diagnose yourself, take your blood test.
You found you got a bad problem.
Well, I think the future is nurse practitioners plus AI. I think AI will be your doctor.
But sometimes you need to be physically manipulated, such as a bandage put on or, you know, an injury cleaned or stitches or something like that.
So I think you'll have nurse practitioners doing the physical part that the AI doctor said should be done.
Because we know we're at the cusp where the AI doctor is going to be better than the real doctor any minute now.
I mean, at the moment it might be a tie.
And I believe AI already outperforms doctors reading x-rays and reading scans.
I think that's already the case.
So, yeah, I mean, we're right.
A year from now, probably you're going to use AI instead of a real doctor.
That's my guess.
And then nurse practitioners.
So I don't know what doctors are going to do.
It's going to be a tough economic climate for doctors going forward.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had to say.
It took way too long.
I'm going to say bye now, and I'm going to just say hello to the locals people.
