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, J6 Liz Cheney Citizens Medal, J6 Political Prisoners Clemency, Nancy Pelosi, Justin Trudeau Resigns, Trump Effect, Dalai Lama Immigration Opinion, CNN Fareed Zakaria, American Progressives, President Zelensky Pro-Trump, Ukraine Peace, Jon Cryer, Simone Sanders-Townsend, Famous Beloved Felons, Governor Newsom, Ultra-Processed Foods, Political Prisoner Tommy Robinson, Incompatible Groups, Philosophy of Violent Conquest, Biden's Offshore Drilling Ban, Sam Altman, AI AGI Massive Potential, Candace Owens, Blackmailable Leaders, President Biden, Anti-Trump Resistance Propagandists, President Xi Corruption Reform, LGBTQ Community Trump Fears, MSNBC LGBTQ Influence, Waymo Safety Record, Loneliness Crisis, Mystery Fog, 1950 Operation Sea-Spray, 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.
Old America is looking stronger than I've seen it in a long time.
So there's that.
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 of mug or a glass of tank or gel, a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
Everything better, it's called.
The simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah, that's good.
That's some good stuff right there.
Well, I didn't get you a gift for January 6th, but I feel like we can still celebrate.
Can't we?
That's a good day.
Well, I've got some science stories.
We've got some political stories.
We've got some January 6th stuff and some Trump-effect stuff.
But here's starting with a little bit of a study.
According to SciPost, written by Vladimir Henry, testosterone spikes are linked to stronger political opinions in men.
That's right.
When men have higher testosterone...
Their political opinions harden, and they get more certain and more forceful.
Now, could they have saved money by doing something where they could get the same answer, but they wouldn't have to do this study?
Well, they could have just asked me, because that's pretty much what testosterone is.
If somebody said, What's testosterone, Scott?
I'd say, well, you know, it has a variety of benefits to your health, but in terms of what it's going to do to you, it's going to make your opinions more forceful and you're going to chase them harder.
I thought everybody already knew that.
Did we really need to do that in the study?
Well, I don't know.
I'll bet you if you measured the testosterone of the January 6th protesters during the height of the protest, I'll bet you would have found their testosterone was pretty high.
I'll bet you would.
And I'll bet if you measured them while they were in prison, except for today, they might be happy today, it probably would have been lower.
So winning makes your testosterone higher.
Higher testosterone makes you more confident.
We knew all of these things.
But...
Let's talk about the Rasmussen poll that said 48% of, I think it was likely voters, say Biden is one of the worst presidents ever.
48%.
Let's call it a half.
Now, I suppose Democrats said the same thing about Trump after the first term.
But that's pretty bad.
That's pretty bad.
Let's talk about...
Let's talk about January 6. Kyle Chaney is posting on X that the Department of Justice revealed that it declined 400 cases that the FBI recommended for protesters at January 6, the original, to be charged.
The Department of Justice said no to 400 Extra ones that the FBI thought should be charged when their only crime was entering the restricted perimeter.
Their only crime was entering the restricted perimeter when the gates were torn down.
And the FBI tried to get 400 of them into the legal system through that.
Well, thank goodness the Department of Justice said that's too far.
And I think Molly Hemingway is pointing out that the FBI is obsessed by this.
Don't you want to know who in the FBI was in charge of recommending that these 400 people be destroyed by the Department of Justice?
So much so that the Department of Justice said, ah, no, we're not even going to do that.
We have questions.
Who exactly thought that was a good idea?
Because whoever you are, to me that sounds like it was completely political.
I mean, 400 people?
Remember I told you that Republicans would be hunted?
Well, I don't think it's more obvious than 400 people that the Department of Justice couldn't even bring it on themselves to charge them.
So, yeah.
FBI, you've got a big problem.
As you know, Biden gave one of the, I think it's the nation's highest award to a civilian and included Liz Cheney, who was on that select committee, January 6th select committee.
And remember that she hid exculpatory evidence about Trump?
And remember she did something like witness tampering.
Molly Emingway was talking about this as well on X. And is that illegal?
Is it illegal if you're just on some January 6th select committee?
Is it illegal to tamper with a witness?
I mean, it would be if it were a legal trial, but is it illegal if it's a political process?
I don't know.
Hiding exculpatory evidence, again, I don't know if that's illegal, but if it had a big impact on the country...
It's as bad as you can imagine.
It's pretty bad.
So, anyway, my biggest question about this is, I'm wondering if Liz Cheney will end up in one of the same cells that the January Sixers are in right now.
You know, the female January Sixers.
That could actually happen.
Because I don't know if what she's done is jailable.
But it's in the category of things you think should be jailable.
I just don't know if the law would agree with me.
And if she ended up in jail and the January 6th were released, there's at least a pretty good chance that she would fill one of the empty prison cells.
So, I don't know.
Maybe she'll be in one of those jails.
We'll see.
Anyway, Trump says he's expecting to grant clemency.
To over 1,000 of those January Sixers.
Now, keep in mind, I think there are 1,400 of them.
He said over 1,000.
So we don't know how many.
Now, the other thing that somebody asked is, clemency, is that as good as a pardon?
Because otherwise, if it keeps them with a criminal record, people are saying, hey, clemency is not as good as a pardon.
But did you know that a pardon is just a subset of clemency?
So clemency doesn't tell you exactly what the order would look like.
It's just an umbrella.
So it could be a pardon.
We just don't know.
Well, you know, I think it's a start.
But if you're looking at the extremes, most of us would agree that at least a thousand of them didn't do anything worthy of jail.
So those are the easy ones.
But what about the hardcore ones?
What about the ones who...
It genuinely looked like they were in there to do some danger.
Nancy Pelosi reminds us that at least a few of the January Sixers were talking out loud about finding Nancy Pelosi and doing damage.
So she points out, as I would point out if I were in her position, that no, if they had not been stopped or she had not been protected, that she could have been badly injured.
Now, I don't know if that's true, because it's possible that the protesters were just full of talk, and even if they had the chance, probably wouldn't have done it.
But I don't know.
And if I were her, I would certainly think that they might have.
I wouldn't take it as hyperbole if it were happening to me.
So, could there be people who are at that extreme that should be kept in jail?
I'm going to say no, they should not be kept in jail.
Because this is the special case of all special cases.
If it were just a case of some people who did some dangerous stuff, I'd say, well, you know, they broke the law, so jail.
But what did they think they were doing?
What they thought they were doing is saving the country from what looked to them like an obvious rigged election.
And the end of democracy in the United States, basically.
So they were doing what the Tea Party, the real Tea Party, back in the beginning of the country.
So they were doing what the patriots and the founding of the country were doing.
They were applying some potential or actual violence to a situation in which they thought their country was being stolen from them or they were being abused by the government.
The fact that some people might argue that they were wrong doesn't make them wrong, meaning that they may have accurately identified a rigged election, and they may have accurately identified who was behind it.
And if the penalty for rigging an election and being behind it was that it increases your physical risk, That's not really a situation I want to stop.
You know what I mean?
So certainly I'm not in favor of violence.
But if somebody wants to react in a militant way because they saw something happen to the country that is a complete destruction of the country, I'm not sure that that's exactly like going on the offensive.
To me, that looked like self-defense and national defense.
I don't recommend it.
I wouldn't want to see it again.
But the people involved were trying to save the country and not destroy it.
That's got to count for something.
Were they wrong to do what they want?
It's a separate question, but I would ignore it.
I would ignore whether or not they made good decisions.
And I would just say, were they baited into a situation that definitely looked like the country had been stolen?
And were they acting the way that would be appropriate if they'd been correct?
And I think the answer is, if they'd been correct, and they might have been, then it wasn't that bad.
You could understand it in a completely different context.
So what she's trying to get away with, Nancy Pelosi is trying to get away with making you think past the sale, that it was a perfectly good election.
In which case, I would say they should all go to jail.
If somehow they knew it was a good election and they did what they did anyway, well, yeah.
Yeah, you go to jail for that.
But if they genuinely believed what at least half the country probably thought, that the entire system had been rigged and had been stolen from them and they just lost America, yeah, expect some people to act in a pretty aggressive way.
And if it happens again...
I don't recommend violence, but you should expect it.
You should at least expect it.
You'd be creating the situation that pretty much invites it.
So if you create a situation where you have not protected our elections to the point where the public can even tell if they were fair, you've got to take that responsibility on yourself, Nancy Pelosi, and everybody else who is in the office.
If you can't give us an election that even looks fair, whether it was or not, If it doesn't look fair, you did not do your job, or even close, and there's going to be a reaction to that.
Don't recommend it, but there's going to be a reaction.
Well, meanwhile, Trump is the master of the fast-to-start strategy, where you make sure that the first days in office, or even before office, as he's doing now, that he comes in and makes a big splash.
This is exactly the right thing a leader should do.
They should make it look like things are happening fast and everything's going right and the first week is amazing because that makes it easy to do everything else.
If the rest of the country can say, wow, your first week on the job or even the first month before you were on the job, you're already killing it, then it weakens people's resistance because they say, wow, he seems to be getting things done and people like it.
I guess I'll be part of that.
So the persuasive power of the fast start strategy is amazing.
It's like a first impression kind of thing that you can't shake later.
So Trump is the best in the game at this specific thing, the fast start.
I've never seen anybody even slightly, even slightly in the same category as him.
He owns us, the fast start strategy.
But what he wants to do, he says, is secure the border, renew the tax Trump cuts, the ones that were going to expire, and no tax on tips.
But it does open the question of, is he going to put that all in one big bill where he has to vote for all of it or none of it?
Because then I wonder what happens with Thomas Massey and me, who don't like the omnibus bills.
Are they going to just shove it all together?
I don't know.
So I guess that's an open question.
Peter Hegseth apparently will have the votes.
It hasn't happened yet, but he will have the votes to be confirmed as Secretary of Defense.
Majority Leader Thune says that he has the vote, so I'm sure he would know.
So is that the Trump effect?
Do you think you're seeing the Trump effect there?
I think so.
Because Agseth had some issues, right?
He had some accusations, which, by the way, he didn't, you know, most of them he didn't run away from.
You know, he said he's got a past.
He kind of owned up to it.
And he doesn't have experience running a big department.
So you could imagine that the Democrats would pick that one as the one to get tough on.
But it looks like at least the Republicans are solidly behind him, so that's all you need.
So I think the fact that that particular nomination is going to sail right through feels like the Trump effect.
That people are just giving him a little bit of a honeymoon, saying, well, if Trump really wants this guy, let's see what happens.
And by the way, I don't have an opinion.
Positive or negative about Pete Exeth, since I don't know him personally, and I don't know of any experiences relevant to this job, except he's great with the military and they love him.
So we'll wait and see.
I have nothing negative to say about him.
He seems like a solid patriot.
Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau is...
Expected to resign as early as today, but maybe on Wednesday when they have some big political meeting.
You might want to get ahead of that so it doesn't look like he was forced out, say, to smart people.
Now, apparently, he is embattled and his political career is sort of in shambles.
And Trump, of course, made it worse by threatening a 25% tariff.
Which probably got the whole country a little bit jittery.
But let me ask you this.
Do you think Trudeau would be resigning if not for the fact that the Canadians are looking at Trump coming into office, seeing how happy America is, and seeing that it's basically the opposite of what a Trudeau would do?
I think this is the Trump effect.
Not 100%.
But don't you think it pushed it over the top and made the timing now?
I think he changed Canada.
Remember when people were arguing, hey, threatening tariffs is a terrible strategy.
Doesn't Trump understand how tariffs work?
You know, threatening them is bad.
It's bad.
It never works.
And we would say, hold on.
It's a negotiating strategy.
Just see it as a strategy.
You'll be okay.
Settle down.
And then he threatens the 25% across the board.
And next thing you know, the leader of the country is resigning.
And he was the problem.
Well, I mean, a big part of the problem.
Would you agree?
Listen to the comments.
Do you agree that's the Trump effect?
That, you know, he was hurting himself in a variety of ways, but I don't think he would be resigning now except for Trump.
Meanwhile, over in Austria, the Austrian president, Bellen, He has officially asked the right-wing populist Freedom Party of Austria to form a government.
So in Austria, a right-wing populist party is forming a government.
Is that the Trump effect?
Probably.
Again, not 100%.
But is it the thing that made it happen now and the thing that pushed it over the top?
I think so.
I think so.
Don't know.
I wouldn't say with certainty, but it looks like it.
Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama was asked in a big interview, it was asked about immigration.
Now, the Dalai Lama, of course, would be like the ultimate peace-seeking character.
So he's going to want peace, peace, peace, peace.
He's the Dalai Lama.
Of course he wants to be kind to people.
And when asked about immigration, he said, no, no on immigration.
Europe will become like Afghanistan or Africa.
And the reporter says, like my parents came to the UK from India, that's okay, isn't it?
And Dalai Lama said, no.
He goes, no.
He goes, England is a small island.
90% become Indian?
So I think what he was saying was, no, if you let everybody in India come to England, it's not going to be England.
So even the Dalai Lama is against unrestricted immigration.
And I asked the same question.
Would he have said this before?
Would he have said it before Trump made it okay to say it?
I don't think so.
Now, again, my bias is kicking in, so I don't know what the Dalai Lama is thinking or what's influencing him, but I don't think I would have seen this before.
It feels like there's a freedom of speech and a framing of immigration that's entirely a Trump creation, and the Dalai Lama has given something he could agree with.
Because Trump has caused so many people to agree with it, then now it's an ordinary opinion.
I don't think the Dalai Lama would have gone first and said, you know, everybody seems to be in favor of this immigration thing, but I'd like to tell you it's a big mistake.
I don't think he would have done that.
I think he can only say this, and what he's saying is just common sense, but he can only say it because Trump made it safe.
Meanwhile, over on CNN, Fareed Zakaria was saying how much better Florida is run, because he spends time in Florida and New York State, thinks New York State is a crooked mess, and that they spend way more money on government for not any extra benefits, and he's paying those taxes.
And he points out that progressive governments worldwide are in decline and losing elections.
So, I don't know if I think...
27 countries, democratic countries, maybe five of them are now progressive.
The rest of them have lost.
And so he's pointing out that the progressive movement has failed.
And even though it was big, it was ruining everything.
And now it's retreating.
So it seems like...
Fareed is blaming the Democrats in America for letting the progressives get too much control, to which there's a kind of a question that's lingering here, isn't it?
How in the world could the progressives have had so much control in America unless CNN backed them and MSNBC and the rest of the mainstream media?
I feel like the media is doing this clever trick where because they're the main brainwashers, they're brainwashing the public to think that the problem was the progressives.
Oh no, it wasn't.
Let me tell you what the problem was.
The problem was that you couldn't talk against the progressives.
And the news wasn't going to talk against the progressives.
So they had a free pass for years.
You couldn't say you didn't like their ideas because you'd be a racist, and you couldn't say that the media was lying because nobody would hear you because the media had all the control.
So I think it's accurate and useful for Reid Zakaria to point out that the progressives have a losing history and probably a losing future.
But it's a little disingenuous.
To not say when you're sitting on CNN saying it, that CNN's a big part of the problem and maybe the biggest.
Do you believe that progressives could have had any power if CNN had reported on them the way they're reporting on them more recently?
And I'd say no.
Everything that the bad guys are doing is because the other bad guys in the media said it was the best thing to do and you should shut up and if you complain, you'll get cancelled.
So, yes, the news is trying to blame the Democrats, and the Democrats would have a good point if they blamed the news instead.
Lex Friedman went over and talked to Zelensky.
I haven't heard the whole thing, but I've seen some clips.
It seems that Zelensky is very pro-Trump.
So Zelensky is saying...
Quote, now this is translated, but he said, when I talk about something with Donald Trump, whether we meet in person or we just have a call, all the European leaders always ask, how was it?
Now, apparently, that's not normal.
That, I guess, if he meets with Biden, nobody asks, how was it?
But if he meets with Trump, everybody's curious.
And he goes on to say, this shows the influence of Donald Trump, and this has never happened before with an American president.
I tell you from my experience, this also gives you confidence that he can stop this war.
Zelensky's all in on Trump.
Is this the Trump effect?
Yes, it is.
This one's unambiguous.
That's the Trump effect.
Trump has already got the two warring sides to say, we're just waiting for you, big guy.
Right?
They're just saying, we're just waiting for you, because we know you're going to wrap this up.
And I know that you're going to tell both of us to do things we don't want to do, but we can't just do them, because then we'd be surrendering.
So we need you to lean on both of us, because that's what we both need.
We need Trump to lean on us, so that when we say, ah, I definitely don't want to make this concession.
But mean old Trump's going to make me do it.
And then everybody's happy.
It's the Trump effect.
He's ending wars.
Incredible.
And then, more Trump effect.
So Bill Maher has on his Club Random show, so that's his side show, not his regular show, he had actor John Cryer.
Now John Cryer is...
Sort of politically oriented for an actor, and he's very pro-Democrat.
But the clips, which I believe are chosen by Bill Maher himself or his team, is where Bill Maher is basically mocking John Pryor for being in a news bubble and not understanding anything that's really happening.
Just imagine that.
He has on a guest who's just nothing but a...
Left-leaning, super-Democrat, anti-Trumper.
And the tenor of the conversation is Bill Maher, famous lefty, telling another Democrat activist that he doesn't even understand anything, otherwise he wouldn't have that opinion.
Is that the Trump effect?
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
Indirectly.
I mean, there's lots of things going on, but that's part of it.
Now, I would like to, for the record, I've met John Cryer.
So when Two and a Half Men was a big thing on TV, they once had an episode in which they mentioned Dilbert, the Dilbert comic.
So the writers and the producers asked for permission.
And I think I asked in return, of course I said yes.
But I asked if my significant other at the time and I could attend a recording of the show.
So we got to sit in the front row and watch them actually do the show.
It was fascinating.
But afterwards, we were taken down to meet the cast.
And met Charlie Sheen.
And then John Cryer came over.
And I got to tell you, John Cryer is the nicest guy.
So we can talk politics and we can gently nudge him for not having the right news sources.
I think that's legitimate.
But I gotta tell you, he is a really nice guy.
You meet him in person, there's not a trace of Hollywood on him.
Somehow none of that took.
He just seems like, I don't know where he's from, but he just seems like he came from some Midwestern state and he's just really friendly.
So, I like him.
So don't throw him away.
Don't discard him because he's not watching the right news programs.
He's a good guy.
At least in the brief interaction I had.
He was very generous.
Meanwhile, over on MSNBC, which is not like real news, Simone Sanders Townsend.
I'm sorry.
This was on Meet the Press, but it was MSNBC host, Simone Sanders Townsend.
She claimed during a panel discussion that Biden is unequivocally more mentally fit than Trump and that it's sort of all overblown and Biden is fine and his brain is fine.
Still, saying that today, like that's a current opinion.
Okay.
When I reposted it, I just asked you to look at her eyes.
So here's a little thing I like to recommend.
When you know somebody is lying, and you know they know they're lying, and you also know that they know you know they're lying, when it's that clear that they're lying, watch for what their eyes do during the lie.
So if you watch it, I'll do my bad impression of it.
But her eyes are sort of, you know, ordinary, but they're expressive, so they're moving around.
But when she gets to the lie part, where she says that he's just as cognitively good as anybody, she certainly narrows her eyes and says, he's really cognitively strong, or whatever word she used.
And you could watch it with the sound off, and you could still spot the lie.
You would know when it happened just from the eyes.
But you wouldn't notice that unless you would watch how she lies.
So her specific lie, she narrows her eyes, and otherwise her eyes are normal.
So watch when you know somebody's lying.
And by the way, this works in relationships as well.
If you're in a relationship and you're in the weird situation where you know for sure that somebody's lying to you.
Just watch their face and the words they choose.
You'll earn something.
Anyway, here's my persuasion tip.
Next time a Democrat says Trump is a felon, because, you know, that's also the MSNBC thing, the CNN thing.
He's a felon, he's a felon.
He's the first president who's a felon.
He's a felon, felon, felon.
Here is the correct answer when he is called a felon.
Next time you hear it, you should agree completely.
Yeah, he is a felon.
He reminds me of Nelson Mandela.
Just say that.
Just say he reminds me of Nelson Mandela.
Don't say he's the same.
Don't say that anything they did is similar.
Just say he reminds you of Nelson Mandela.
And then the person who you're talking to will probably try this.
But Nelson Mandela was unfairly prosecuted.
And then you just look at him and just smile and walk away.
And that's all you need.
Just let them do that.
He was unfairly prosecuted.
Don't even answer.
Just smile.
Because I think we're at the point...
Where we should treat the things that could have or should have or in the past would have some power.
The fact that people would call him a felon.
Today it's just a joke.
For the same reason that we're celebrating January 6th as a holiday, everything the Democrats said we now understand to be fake and backwards and evil and corrupt.
So you can't take any of this seriously anymore.
And I think Trump has...
You know, open up our ability to just understand that when the news says he's a felon, we just laugh at it.
And if you take it seriously, they're going to keep saying it.
So don't take it seriously.
Just say, yeah, he reminds me of Nelson Mandela.
Now, if you don't like that association, because I hear some people say, but you don't know, Scott, Nelson Mandela did horrible things.
I don't know.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
But if you don't like that one, use Martin Luther King.
Just say, yeah, he reminds me of Martin Luther King.
And then when they say, but Martin Luther King was brought up on fake charges, just say, have a nice day.
Because what you're trying to do is just mock the end of existence and make an association they don't like.
You're not trying to be logical.
The goal is not to use your superior logic to show that this case is like the other case.
No.
Just make the association and smile because you're happy about the association.
That the felon allowed you to see him as more like a Gandhi, more like an MLK, more like a Nelson Mandela.
And just leave it there.
All right.
According to Zero Edge, Governor Newsom, my California governor, he says he's issuing an executive order directing state agencies to look into or target ultra-processed foods and related health concerns.
Now, that sounds exactly like what RFK Jr. wants to bring to the nation as a whole.
California and Newsom are front-running it.
They're getting ahead of it.
Do you think that would have happened if Trump had not decided that RFK Jr., Democrat though he had been, is the right man to fix this problem?
I don't think so.
Again, I think this is the Trump effect.
I think Newsom is trying to front-run something that they had completely ignored.
You know, the health impact.
And he's trying to look like when he runs for president.
Imagine, if you will, how good Republicans are going to look if RFK Jr. pulls this off and he gets the food companies to start serving us real food instead of poison.
And that would be hard to compete against because that's even deeper than your pocketbook.
That goes right down to how do you feel?
How's your health?
Are your kids thriving?
I mean, this is the deepest of the deepest persuasion.
If you can fix somebody's food so that it doesn't make them unhealthy, you can't get deeper into somebody's soul than their stomach.
So the Republicans, through RFK Jr., have the ultimate...
It's the ultimate political, it shouldn't be political, but it is, political winning thing, if he can pull it off.
And I think he can.
So it just looks like Newsom's trying to get ahead of the parade because he knows he has to.
I don't think this would have happened otherwise.
It's a Trump effect.
All right, so a lot of people have asked me, what do I think of this Tommy Robinson situation over in the UK? And honestly, I hadn't really been following it.
And also, honestly, I'm not really up on all the details.
So I'm just going to give you my general impression from another country.
My understanding is he was an outspoken opponent of unrestricted immigration.
So far, I'm right, right?
But what he's in jail for at the moment is not related to just being outspoken, but rather, you know, maybe some Contempt of court or some related thing, but certainly all stemming from the one thing.
There's one thing which he wants to have free speech and be able to say, you know, the country is going to be destroyed.
Now, I'm going to say it in a way that I think you'll find compatible.
If you were...
I said this in the man cave, I'll try it down here.
If you were to take...
A bunch of Mormons and Christians and put them in the same state.
How would they get along?
Fine.
Fine.
Mormons, Christians, no problem.
Now let's mix in some Jewish Americans.
How do they get along?
Fine.
Fine.
Mormons, Jews, Christians.
Fine.
Now let's throw in some Hindus.
American.
Not in India, but in America.
So now some Hindus move in.
You throw them in with the Jews, the Mormons, and the Christians.
How do they get along?
Fine.
Fine.
You know, you might not know this, but where I live, tons of Indians, tons of Hindus.
If I'm invited to a party, pretty much there's going to be Hindu there.
You know, you can rely on it.
How do they get along?
Perfectly.
Perfectly.
No problem at all.
How about the atheists?
Now I throw the atheist in there.
Well, the atheist might say, you know, I'm more in favor of abortion, you know, something like that.
But will they get along as neighbors?
Yeah.
Will they respect the same system?
Yes.
Now you can do it with ethnic groups.
Say a bunch of Italians came over earlier in the century.
How'd that go?
Well, a lot of discrimination.
You know, there are lots of name-calling.
They're like, ah, Italians.
Ah, you know, we're Irish.
We can't be spending time with all these Italians.
Then the Germans hate the Irish, and the Irish doesn't like the Poles.
And all these ethnic groups are kind of not getting along.
But 100 years later, we don't even think about that stuff.
When was the last time you heard somebody being mocked for being Irish or Italian?
It just isn't really even a thing.
So, they assimilated, everybody assimilated, everybody's getting along.
Now, what do all of those people who get along have in common?
It's not about being white, because remember, I threw the Hindus in there.
It's not about being white, and it's not about even your ethnicity.
There's one thing they all have in common, that they all come from a philosophy of getting along with other people.
Do the Mormons want to conquer you?
No.
They want to get along.
Are the Jews trying to conquer America?
Well, some of you are going to say yes, but the answer is no.
The real answer is no.
They all have a philosophy of getting along.
Now, is that the same with Islam?
Well, I think I heard today the statistic there's something like a quarter of Islam, which is the minority, But a quarter of them worldwide are pretty sure that Islam has to take over everything and be in charge.
But here's the good news.
75% are not about that at all.
75% just want to get along, just want to do their thing.
You do your thing.
We won't bother you.
You don't bother us.
Great.
Works for me.
But what happens if you bring in so many Muslims that they form like a...
An area in the city, and they've got sort of their own culture.
What happens with the 25-75 split?
Do the 75 use their influence and say, you guys are bad for us, so you better cut it out.
We're going to keep you from being extremists, because it's only 25% of you.
And of the 25%, a much smaller number have any interest in any violence, right?
So it's a very small number.
But put them all together and come back in 10 years and what's it going to look like?
Did the reasonable people talk the unreasonable people out of their violence?
Well, unfortunately, violence really works.
Meaning that if some of them are committed to violence or death, they're eventually going to scare everybody else into going along.
Eventually, if you come back, that small minority will have convinced everybody that they should be pressing for Sharia law.
All the other groups I mentioned are not going to do that.
They're happy with the American system.
But the Islamists, again, a small percentage of them, would effectively co-opt the peaceful people in their ranks who wouldn't want to break ranks.
So, given that Islam has a conquest Philosophy or mentality built into it that, again, 75% of the people are not buying into.
But 25%?
25% is almost enough to guarantee that the rest will get co-opted into a more conservative, extreme version of Islam.
That's my take.
Now, if I say that, have I insulted any people, ethnicity, or religion?
I don't think so.
I think I just said they have a different view, and if you fast-forward it, there's sort of an obvious outcome.
So if you're talking about a system and a percentage of people, and you can predict forward that the 25%, or maybe much less, almost certainly will co-opt the rest of them, and then it becomes a civil war, I would say it's closer to a guarantee.
Because we're watching it happen in England, right?
So we're watching it happen in Europe.
We don't have to guess.
Is that the way it goes?
The violent people have a lot of power.
It's just always that way.
So, Tommy Robinson, what I understand, is saying maybe a more provocative version of what I just said.
And I don't think anybody disagrees with what I just said.
Do you?
Is there anybody here who disagrees that these are not similar systems?
So let me say it in the summary.
You cannot treat the immigrants who have a philosophy of getting along with the immigrants who have a philosophy of conquest.
If you treat them the same, you can't be in power.
That's a problem.
Now...
Did Tommy Robinson do anything I don't know about that if I did, I'd be mad at him?
I don't know.
But I'm also not caring.
Because I think the Tommy Robinson thing has everything to do with the public saying, if he can't talk, we can't talk.
And we want to talk.
So Tommy Robinson is nothing about Tommy Robinson.
That's the first thing I learned.
Or it's my opinion based on what I've looked into.
If you think Tommy Robinson is about some crime he did or didn't do, I don't know what he did or didn't do, you're on the wrong topic.
It's about whether somebody can say something that's true and obvious and really important, or if he's going to be suppressed.
Now, why are we all talking about Tommy Robinson more than we've ever talked about him before in the United States?
What's causing that?
Now, you're going to say Elon Musk, right?
I think it's simpler.
I think it's the Trump effect.
Because the Trump effect allows us to see this as essentially a kind of censorship that will destroy the country for sure.
And so we're reacting to Tommy Robinson, and I see many of you backing him on about in jail.
And it's not because of anything he did or didn't do criminally.
It's about as long as he's in jail.
The Muslims are winning, and there are the few of them within the group that want to conquest.
So if you want to defend yourself against what seems like an obvious risk, having a system come in where conquest is the primary element of it for 25% or less, you've got to be able to talk about it, and you've got to be able to offend people when you do it.
Ideally, you wouldn't offend anybody, but you've got to have the right to do it.
Otherwise, you're going to be censoring yourself to the point of being useless.
So Tommy Robinson is more about showing incredible bravery for something of incredible importance.
And I believe like, not to overuse the analogy, but like Nelson Mandela and like Trump who got law fared, we're starting to see the legal process working against him.
As a plus for his message and his authority.
Do you think that Tommy Robinson will someday be in charge of Great Britain?
Do you think he'll someday be the Prime Minister?
I don't know.
Probably not, because the Islamic population is big enough to prevent it, I would think.
But he's got more of a shot than he ever had before.
Because going to jail and being jailed unfairly and unreasonably by your competitors, that opens people's eyes a little bit.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Is he really in jail because of these alleged crimes?
Or is it really all about just the one thing, that we don't have freedom of speech in the UK, and he's trying to say things, and we don't like it because it'll hurt feelings of the people trying to conquer us.
As well as the 75% that we're not.
So, you were asking me for my opinion, and my opinion is that I want Tommy Robinson freed because I want free speech in my country.
I want free speech for the people in Europe, if they can get it back.
I think it's too late.
I think, actually, Europe's largely going to just become Islamic, because there's a point of no return.
You know, once your population reaches a certain percentage of the conquering philosophy and they're willing to die for it, you're pretty much going to go that way.
We're not there, but we're trying to avoid getting there.
All right.
Biden, there's another story that says Biden's going to ban some offshore drilling before he left office.
And you probably had the same thought I did, which is...
Well, then Trump will just reverse it because it's an executive order.
And then somebody said, he can't reverse it.
And then I said, what do you mean he can't reverse it?
If it's done by executive order, another executive order can't reverse it?
And the answer is, maybe it can't.
Because it turns out, the AP was reporting this, but I think the Hill or somebody said that...
There's some kind of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act that gives the president the right to block drilling in certain areas, but not the right to reinstate it.
What?
What?
How could there be an existing act that says the president can do a thing but not undo it?
To me, that sounds like Supreme Court, right?
If...
If Trump on day one reversed it, which, by the way, I'm not sure we even want to.
We'll talk about that.
But if he did reverse it, would the court say, oh, you can't do it because the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act?
Or are they going to say, no, there's a reason we give presidents broad authority.
We like a strong president.
And executive order is simply how to interpret something.
You know, it's more about not changing the law, you just change how it's interpreted.
Do you think that Trump could just say, well, I interpret this Continental Shelflands Act as, you know, a political law and not a functional law, or something like that?
Now, it seems like there'd be some argument he could make that he could do it, and then just take it to the Supreme Court if you think it's important.
But here's the thing you should know.
The places that were banned...
We're places that nobody's doing any exploring and was unlikely to ever become a place that got energy.
So the main places that we do the offshore drilling are still unaffected.
So it's not the biggest thing in the world, but since Trump said drill baby drill, he might want to give the industry at least the option that so far they've not been that interested in.
Sam Altman, the head of the ChatGPT OpenAI, has a few interesting things to say today.
One, he said that AGI, which is the superintelligence, which is a whole different technology than the current AI, the current AI is just looking for patterns and it hallucinates and there's a limit to what it can do.
It's amazing, but there's a limit built in.
But AGI would be a different process.
I don't know what it looks like.
But Sam Ullman says in a new blog post, quote, we are now confident we know how to build it, AGI. That's the good kind of AI. And so they're ready to build it.
Now, that would be not just news, but the biggest news in human civilization, if it's true.
If we really know how to build this advanced intelligence, which nobody's done yet, that's effectively a new life form.
Yeah, the current one just looks like a mimic, so it doesn't look like...
I mean, to me, the current version of AI, after you use it a while, it doesn't become more human.
It just becomes more obvious that it's a machine with a lot of flaws.
So the more you use the current version of AI, the less it seems like a person.
Because it just doesn't have the same characteristics.
But could they get AGI to be legitimately smarter?
Now, remember my prediction that if we invented something that was smarter than us, we would have to mechanically turn it off when we didn't agree with it, because most of our ideas are not logical.
They're emotional.
So we're going to turn off any logical argument that doesn't agree with us, and we'll program it out of it.
So I think AGI will be so crippled by humans not wanting it to change other people's minds about what's a reasonable thing to do that I think we'll find a way to make it useless even if the technology does everything they thought it would do.
I think humans will just ban it.
It'll just become illegal.
We'll see.
The other interesting thing is that...
Sam Altman said that ChatGPT is currently losing money on their subscriptions.
And he said that he personally set the price of the app because he didn't think people would use it that much, but they're using it so much that the usage is driving the costs up and they're losing money currently.
So I think that's a hint that the price is going to go up, but we'll see.
In other news, Candace Owens, This is making some more news.
This is reported by Shadow of Ezra.
I saw this on X. So in a recent interview, Candace Owens said that pedophiles are intentionally placed in positions of power because it's easier to control them, because you can blackmail them, etc.
And she further suggested, here's where it gets really interesting, there's not a coincidence that Justin Trudeau, Barack Obama, Zelensky and Emmanuel Macron of France are all gay, she says.
This is her claim.
And she alleged that Macron is married to a transgender man who molested him when he was a child.
Now, I would bet against that last part.
But, you know, anything's possible.
I guess I wouldn't be shocked.
If the most outrageous claims here turn down to be true.
But I don't have proof of these claims.
However, what do you think of the general concept that we have an unusual number of leaders who are in the closet or they're doing something illegal with children?
What do you think?
Do you think it's a coincidence?
That so many leaders appear to be in the category of blackmailable.
And when they're not blackmailable for sexual reasons, isn't it weird that Biden got selected and he was so blackmailable for his overseas crime family activities?
And that Clinton was president when it was so obvious that he had a past and probably a current.
I feel like...
I do feel like the hypothesis that something like the deep state is choosing our leaders to be able to control them as opposed to getting good leaders, I can't rule that out because the pattern seems so screamingly obvious.
How do I ignore that?
Now, on one hand, you could say, well, they're men and they're powerful.
And wherever you find powerful men, you know, there's a good chance they're doing some things behind the scenes you don't like.
So maybe it's just we just find out because they're leaders and otherwise we just don't find out.
Maybe.
But it sure looks like a pattern.
I'm not going to claim that it's valid, but I wouldn't ignore a pattern that's that obvious.
I mean, I think it looks obvious.
That they all look blackmailable.
But it could be just because the news tends to get into stuff and makes us think that way.
Maybe.
I don't know.
So Biden lost a little bit.
He was asked about something he didn't like, maybe something about his age, and he said, quote, and this is on video.
This is brand new.
My being the oldest president, I know more world leaders than any one of you ever met in your whole G.D. life.
G.D. filled in with the actual, you know, using the Lord's name in vain part.
Why would he say that in public?
Who in the world says that?
Somebody with dementia.
I mean, obviously.
Isn't it super obvious that that's just a dementia anger?
Who talks like that?
You know how I compliment Trump for his strategic cursing?
He doesn't use GD. I've never heard it, have you?
He uses the F word and the S word, but he uses them maybe once every now and then, and then they're perfect.
If he only uses it once now and then, it's just a nice, nice, powerful accent that causes the news to hold whatever point he made.
Very strategic and smart.
But here's Biden just using really the most offensive curse that you can use in America, right?
It's the most offensive one because there's so many Christians who are...
And by the way, I often use the same curse word, and I get slapped down every time I do it.
100% of the time, I accidentally let that one fly, because I've done it on the live streams.
100% of the time, the comments turn to, you know, we don't like that one.
That one's a little too far.
Because that's not just a curse word.
People take that as an insult to their faith.
So, a politician using that one, that's just bad impulse control?
Not understanding how anything works.
But it's notable that Trump doesn't use that one.
Because it's a pretty common one.
Privately, it's a pretty common one.
In my defense, there is no defense.
But I'll give you context.
There's no defense.
So if it offends you, you have a valid feeling.
So I'm not going to argue against your feeling.
If you feel it, you feel it.
And you're certainly...
You're certainly welcome to express your feelings.
But here's what you should know.
I'm not a believer.
So if I were a believer, I think you should be really mad at me because I would be accepting that I was insulting you and something that I believed in too.
But as a non-believer, these words don't mean anything to me.
It's just a popular couple of swear words.
Just know that even though I agree with you, I'm trying to use it less.
So I agree with you completely.
100% agreement.
Just know that if somebody doesn't use the same vocabulary in the same way you do, it doesn't mean anything.
It just means it doesn't mean anything to me.
But since it means something to you, your point is 100% accurate, and I will try to adjust.
All right.
And then, Biden was asked at the same event if he still thinks Trump is a threat to democracy.
And then Biden, dementia or not, used some clever weasel words.
And he said, what Trump did is a threat to democracy.
So the question is, is Trump a threat to democracy?
But he weaseled it and said what he did was a threat to democracy, meaning the old January 6th.
Now, that's actually closer to a fair statement.
If you say Trump is a risk to democracy, that's a little too far.
If you say that what he did on January 6th was a risk to democracy, even a lot of Republicans would say, yeah, that was too far.
Now, I don't think it was a risk to democracy personally, but it's not crazy to say that...
The way he acted on January 6th was not ideal for our system.
That'd be, you know, a reasonable difference of opinion.
But then Fox immediately reported it, that Biden said that Trump is a threat to democracy.
And that's not what he said.
So I'm calling out Fox News for some fake news that was as obvious, obviously fake as anything could be.
Because I would show you the quote in which he very carefully says, That what he did was a threat to democracy.
There's no way to interpret that other than January 6th.
And then immediately, the reporter comes on and says Trump's a threat to democracy.
That didn't happen.
That didn't happen.
Oh, I'm hearing that Trudeau is resigning right now.
Is Trudeau resigning right now as I'm doing this?
Yeah.
Anyway.
So, fake news everywhere.
The Washington Post is losing star reporters, and as Molly Hemingway pointed out, Ben Smith, who used to be at the New York Times, but then he founded Semaphore, is writing that those leaving the Washington Post, and then they give a name of some star reporter, I don't know, are leaving because they want to do resistance propaganda against Republicans and are worried they can't do it there anymore.
This is somebody who was from the New York Times saying in direct language that the people you thought were writers at the Washington Post didn't even see themselves as writers.
They saw themselves as resistant propagandists.
Now, that's according to somebody who was in the same space.
Not the same paper, but he was working at the New York Times.
I feel like when he talks about it, He knows what he's talking about.
So, I guess it's just confirming everything we knew, that the Washington Post was a resistance propaganda rag, and Jeff Bezos, to his credit, seems to be putting some energy into making it more of an actual newspaper, or at least pretending to be an actual newspaper better.
I don't know which one he's doing.
But I'll tell you what.
The Washington Post was the first one that cancelled me.
And the first thing I feel about that is, honestly, it is a great relief that I don't take money from my comic strip from a fake news organization that saw themselves as resistance propaganda.
I always felt uncomfortable about it.
But I'm so glad they cancelled me.
Now, Now that you know that the Washington Post has essentially tipped their hand as, you know, even though this is not their own word for themselves, I think Ben Smith has probably got his finger on the pulse there when he says they're resistance propaganda against Republicans.
I think you got that right.
Now, knowing that the Washington Post is literally resistance propaganda against Trump, does that make you look at my cancellation any differently?
Given that they were the ones who led it?
No, they're resistance propaganda against Trump.
Canceling me is part of resistance propaganda against Trump.
Do you know that zero Republicans canceled me?
None.
Not one.
Do you know that not a single person has disagreed with what I said, if they've heard it in context?
None.
Not a black person, not a white person.
People have said they wish they hadn't said it.
They said they were offended.
But when they hear it in context, which you never hear in the news, it's always out of context.
When they hear it in context from me, they understand it differently.
And 100% of people are completely aware that a black man or woman would not have been canceled for anything I said.
It was...
Propaganda and resistance.
And I was just a prominent voice in favor of Trump, and so they just took me off the field, or tried to.
They tried to.
So that's how you understand that better.
Meanwhile, over in China, NBC News says that President Xi in China still says corruption is the biggest threat to the Communist Party, and there are all kinds of examples of him removing people and making big changes, which he says are...
Aimed at reducing corruption.
Now, it's important because Xi said this years ago and has been working diligently, or so it seems from the outside, to get rid of China corruption.
But now it sounds like it just got worse.
So he's been working on it for years, and it sounds like it's the worst it's ever been.
And so here's the thing.
Number one, Do you believe it's the biggest risk to China?
I think it is.
Because I don't think they're going to die in a nuclear fireball.
I think they'll find a way around their crumbling economy because they're smart and they're adaptable.
But if the corruption just takes all the good stuff out of the economy, well, then they might be in real trouble.
And my question would be, is it possible, To have a dictatorship without corruption.
And I'll go further.
Is it possible to have a government without massive corruption?
It seems to me that America's biggest institutions are massively corrupted.
Maybe in a different way.
They're not all taking money.
I think in China it's more about taking money.
In the U.S., whatever makes our FBI act the way they are, it's not money.
It's some kind of brainwashing, Trump derangement syndrome, something.
So I don't think that he's able.
I don't think he will have the capability of taking the corruption out of China.
I think it's the whole system.
I think the whole system depends on the powerful and rich being able to abuse the system, and therefore they want to keep it.
If the rich and powerful...
Could not abuse the system to make a little extra money and stay in that upper class.
If they couldn't do that, they might be looking for a change of government until they can.
So I don't think he's going to fix that.
I think that corruption is going to be the big thing.
Meanwhile, according to the New York Post, Chris Nezzi is writing that the LGBTQ community...
Are starting to arm themselves.
So far more likely they're getting weapons.
And it's because they're afraid of being placed in concentration camps by Trump.
Trump is literally trying to prevent the people who would kill them for their beliefs or their sexual orientation.
He's trying to prevent people who would do harm to them from coming in the country.
And he's doing everything he can to prevent that.
Like really risking his life.
Trump is literally risking his life to prevent people who would come into the country to kill the LGBTQ community.
He's not even slightly anti-LGBTQ. Not even slightly.
There's nothing you can point to that would give you any comfort if you had that opinion that he was.
Nothing.
And, you know, there are never any examples.
Nobody ever says, well, I think he's going to round us up and put us in camps because of those other three things he did.
No.
No, it's not based on anything.
Not based on anything.
And what kind of news are they watching?
I would guess that 100% of the LGBTQ people who bought weapons to protect themselves against being rounded up by the American government I'll bet 100% of them get their news from MSNBC. I'll bet 100%.
Now, they might also sample some other stuff, but I'll bet it's mostly MSNBC. Because even if you read only the New York Times, it wouldn't tell you to buy a gun so you can avoid being rounded up.
That's kind of only on MSNBC. That's a big platform.
It might be smaller ones.
Good job, MSMBC. You just ruined the lives of the LGBTQ community who thought they were succeeding in life and doing a great job with their overall national brand, which I always say is the best I've ever seen.
The LGBT community, if you look at their success in going from have to stay in the closet to run for any office in the country and get elected, unbelievably successful.
Like, I am blown away by the level of bravery in the LGBT community.
The level of bravery in every sense, physical, economic, social.
The level of bravery pushing that movement is stunning.
I'm just so impressed.
Anyway.
Waymo, there's some, according to Clean Technica, and Zachary Shea in his writing, that it looks like a reinsurer has done some analysis of the Waymo self-driving cars and found out that they're way safer than human-driven cars, based on the number of miles driven already.
Listen to these numbers.
The Waymo driver, the Waymo, you know, the self-driving car.
It's an 88% reduction in property damage claims per mile driven.
88% less property damage, meaning running into cars and flagpoles and stuff.
The self-driving car, the Waymo, was a 92% reduction in bodily injury claims.
92% improvement in basically harm to the driver.
92%?
And the Waymo car was involved in nine property damage claims over the period they looked at and two bodily injury claims.
So it's not 100% safe, but nothing is.
So nine property and two bodily injury claims.
Over 25 million miles driven.
For human drivers, how does that compare to nine property damage and two bodily?
If you control for miles driven, the total expectation for the human in the same miles driven would be 78 instead of nine claims of property damage and 26 bodily injury claims compared to two for the self-driving car.
Now, I remind you that not too long ago, Elon Musk made the prediction that when he said it, he said we're not there yet, but we're really close.
And he said, it will very soon be true that the self-driving cars are way safer.
Not just as good, but way safer than human-driven cars.
And we're there.
We are there.
Now, this is one of the biggest days.
In the history of Tesla, even though we're talking about Waymo, a competitor, because Tesla probably is going to have the best self-driving car situation, and it's a major part of their business going forward, it looks like.
This is a turning point.
Here's the bad news.
It is my opinion that the way the world works, you know, for example, requiring you to use a seatbelt.
How many of you are old enough to remember when that wasn't required?
Seatbelts.
I am.
I remember when they first said you have to put it on.
And I remember thinking, oh my god, the government is like overreach.
Like they're telling me what to put around my waist?
You know, when I'm on my own?
And, you know, for, I don't know, maybe a year or two, every single time I put it on my seatbelt, I bitched about it.
Even maybe mentally.
I'd be like, ugh, the government making me do this unnecessary safety thing.
Now, fast forward 20 years.
I can't imagine not putting a seatbelt on because it's just common sense.
Of course you're going to put a seatbelt on.
Of course you are.
And even if you don't want to do it for yourself, don't you have any loved ones that would prefer to see you survive a car crash?
Don't you have any respect?
For the healthcare system and other drivers on the road and everything else and cost of insurance.
So to me, it starts as like this huge government overreach.
But then when you live with it and you get used to it, because you can get used to anything, you look back and you go, how did we ever not have seatbelts and not have them required?
Now look at self-driving cars.
If they're 10 times safer, Ten times safer.
You think it's not going to be against the law for a human to drive a car in the future?
Of course it will.
It's guaranteed.
These numbers guarantee that maybe not everywhere, maybe it will be urban areas first, maybe just some highways at first, but eventually it would be kind of crazy to be on the road at the same time as a human driver.
Once you get to the point where 80% of the cars are self-driving, and you're in one, and you're just happily in your safe self-driving car, and then you see some human drivers go by, what's going to be your first reaction?
Look at all these human drivers.
I don't feel safe anymore.
Right?
Because the only person who's going to run into you is a human.
You can look at every self-driving car and say, well, I mean...
There's some chance we might crash, but really small.
But you see the human go by, and you're like, I don't know how drunk that guy is.
He looks like he didn't sleep.
I don't think he's even paying attention.
How old is that driver?
My God.
Oh, they're 16, just got their license?
No, that one's 100. We're going to talk ourselves out of driving so quickly.
It's going to happen in the future.
I think it's still several years in the future.
But it's coming.
There's nothing to stop it.
Your driving will be illegal in populated areas.
All right.
So here's some science.
Round it out with some science.
So according to SciPost, Eric Nolan is writing, that your romantic relationships are better if you have a positive view of the world.
They have to do a study.
To find out if you would be more romantically attractive if you had a positive outlook.
You didn't really need to do that.
You could have just asked me, Scott, are optimists better off?
And I'd say, what domain of life are you talking about?
And then the person would start to answer, and I'd say, no, I'm just kidding.
You don't have to tell me what domain you're talking about.
Everybody who is an optimist is better off in every situation you could think of.
Romance, business, everything.
Optimism makes you healthier.
So you don't have to study it.
Yes, having a positive outlook does make every single thing the person does better, on average.
I think I need to give science my phone number so they can just call me.
Hey, we're thinking about doing a study.
I can add that off for you.
Also, same writer, Eric Nolan in SciPost, says there's a new study that challenges the assumption about social media's harm to mental health.
So they did a study and they found out that the people who used it more wasn't much different.
But here's what I think they did.
I think they studied the same people and they looked at...
Whether they had just looked at a lot of social media or whether they hadn't.
I don't know if that's the right way to test that.
I'd rather see people who just routinely and organically use a lot of social media and compare them to people who just routinely and organically don't really pay attention to it.
I feel like they would be different populations and that there'd be some population that they're worse off and there'd be some population that's better off.
For example, people who have really strong mental health, and I put myself in that category, I feel lucky.
I don't know if it's because I was born before some pollutants or what it is, but anyway, we have a couple other studies coming up here.
The assumption about social media, I think is maybe the study is not valid because if you studied me looking at social media where I don't have any real mental health problems, I'm pretty sure it doesn't affect me much, if at all.
In fact, it just makes me happy sometimes.
If I'm watching kittens play with dogs, it's not making me unhappy.
But if I had poor mental health and I also had a strategy that kept me with poor mental health, which is...
Spending time looking at sad things, maybe my social media would start to become full of sad things.
And then I would get sadder because I made the mistake of thinking I should look at sad things.
When I go to social media, I'm like, ooh, kitten hugging a dog?
Let me watch this for a while.
And then next thing you know, my feed is full of kittens hugging dogs.
And I'm like, oh, these are great.
I can't wait to do this a little bit more.
But if you are starting out as a negative person with a mental health problem and you click on the wrong things, UK police commissioner threatens to extradite and jail US citizens over online posts will come after you.
Oh, that can't possibly be true.
Oh, Great Britain.
The UK is just dead.
They're so gone.
Yeah, try it.
Just come for us.
Let's see how that works out for you.
Nobody will ever visit your country again, nor should they.
All right.
Then there's another study that interacting with your family may boost your immune system, of course.
But they talk about in the study, this is in Tech Explorist, Pranjay Malawar is writing.
And so it points out that we know that loneliness...
Is implicated in heart disease and some other health problems.
But if somebody is lonely, and that causes them to have more health problems than they normally would, and let's say they die of one, what's the cause of death?
So loneliness causes you to have poor heart health, and then you die of poor heart health.
Was the cause of death heart, or was the cause of death loneliness?
Loneliness caused the heart problem.
Well, of course it would be scored as the heart problem.
But I think if we coded it as a loneliness death, not that we'd be able to measure that very well, but if we called it a loneliness death, we would treat it differently.
We'd say, oh, there's a national loneliness crisis.
But if we say that people are dying of heart disease, Then we say, oh, the lonely people just need to try harder and get some friends.
It doesn't seem important, does it?
But if you knew that 30,000 seniors a year were dying from loneliness, I'm just making that up, but I wouldn't be surprised, then it would be like this national thing.
So the way you code it as the cause of death really makes a difference.
And I think that we're ignoring the loneliness crisis because it doesn't have a death rate attached to it.
And that we measure to things that we can count.
You can count deaths.
You can't really count loneliness as easily.
So it won't ever be treated until you can measure it in some objective way.
So that's bad.
Then I saw the Daily Mail is writing about a mysterious fog sweeping the US. Now, first of all, I don't know if the fog people keep talking about is mysterious.
I have not seen any Local mysterious fog.
But I will say again that in the past year or so, the clouds where I live are completely different than any time in my adult life.
What is that?
So where I live in California, we don't have the same weather as other people.
So in the summer, it would typically be, you know, 100% blue sky or In the winter, maybe 100% overcast and rainy.
And sometimes, but not often, there'd be mostly blue sky, but, you know, a few little patches of fluffy clouds.
And it would be the same kind.
You'd look up and if you saw some fluffy clouds, you might see more than one, but they're all the same type.
Fluffy, fluffy.
Maybe there'd be a little bit of a second kind of cloud, you know, a different part of the stratosphere or something.
Lately, if I walk out, I will see every kind of cloud at the same time.
And there'll be contrails going through it, and I'll see wisps, I'll see rows of things, I'll see things that look like they're symmetrical.
And I'll just look at the sky and I'll think, did I live my whole life and never see this sky?
It's routinely completely different than it's looked before.
So much so that I've been taking pictures of it for a long time.
And my pictures are just, I've never seen this before.
So is there something going on?
Well, did you know that in 1950, the U.S. Navy sprayed a massive amount of bacteria in the air two miles off the coast of San Francisco?
This is in the Daily Mail.
And what they wanted to do is they thought that the bacteria was harmless, but they had some way of tracking how far it went and whether it got into people or something.
But it killed at least one person and hospitalized a bunch of others.
But if you're wondering, Scott, would our government, without telling us, gas the citizens?
And, you know, use it in fog or something.
Use it as a way to spread some deadly thing.
And the answer is yes.
Yes, they would.
They did it in the 1950s.
What changed?
Nothing.
Nothing changed that would cause them to think differently and not do it in current times.
They would just have to have an argument that it made sense or an argument that it wasn't hurting anybody.
So I don't think the fog story is real.
I don't think there's any kind of experimenting going on.
But I hate the fact I can't rule it out.
Can't rule it out.
I hate that.
Anyway, that's all I got for today.
I'm going to say hi to the locals people just quickly because I went too long.
