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 AGI, TikTok Algorithm Stealth Persuasion, Kevin O'Leary, WaPo Tariff Reporting, Gitmo Terrorists Released, J6 Pending Cases, Mark Zuckerberg, META Censorship Modifications, Robby Starbuck, Anti-DEI Success, President Trump, Greenland Acquisition, Don Jr. Visits Greenland, Canada Caliphate Potential, Canada Acquisition, Trudeau Resignation, Elon Musk Raising Awareness, Andrew Tate's Talent Stack, Keir Starmer, Ed Davey, UK Diplomatic Ties, Reversing Biden's Executive Orders, Iran's Syria Assets Withdrawal, J6 Pipe Bomber Controversies, Victims of 46 Foundation, Jack Posobiec, 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.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I don't think you've ever had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels where they could never understand it in Greenland and Panama and those other places we're going to conquer, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tank of chalice, 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, the dopamine, at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
it's called the simultaneous step it happens now excelsior Well, so I've got lots of tech news and a bunch of political news.
I'm going to say most of the tech news.
Two after the political stuff, but there are a couple of cool things.
CES, the technology show, is happening right now for 2025. And one of the things that's being introduced is a 3D projector.
Now, not the kind that projects on a flat screen and it gives it the appearance of being 3D. It actually creates the 3D holograph and can put it on your table and have it dance in front of you.
Now, I don't know if they can do it with photorealistic stuff.
They did it with an animation.
So you look at the table, and sitting on the table, apparently, is a little character that's dancing right in front of you as a 3D object.
Kind of amazing.
I didn't think that was going to come.
Well, I did a little deeper dive on quantum computing, because I was trying to understand.
I've told you this before.
When I hear people explain how it works or why it works, it sounds like word salad.
And I thought to myself, hmm, I guess maybe it's because I don't have the technology background.
But if I did, I'd understand that word salad.
And I went deeper and deeper, and I'm quite sure that nobody knows why it works.
I'm fairly positive.
And you've heard things like, I think Joe Rogan said this the other day, That quantum computing works because it accesses the infinity of other dimensions?
Nothing like that's happening.
There's nothing like accessing other dimensions.
That's not happening.
We don't know what is happening, but there's no indication it's accessing another dimension.
If there is one, what is it even?
So the things they say are things like, well, you know, this probability wave interferes with another one.
And between the two of them, they can predict the future without using any logic or any calculation.
They just see the future.
And that future, they say, could be like the solution to a difficult problem, like a math problem.
And I say to myself, really?
You just interfere a couple of probabilities, and then you can see the future.
So what quantum computing is alleging to do is literally see the future.
Or to peer into the past, I guess, too.
None of this is really possible, as far as I know.
So I thought to myself, it must be me, right?
Just because I don't understand the field.
And I've now seen two experts who do understand it.
Kind of suggest that nobody understands it.
And we don't know if it could ever even be commercial in a big way.
I mean, it might have some niche, you know, specific things it can do.
But it's never going to be a general computer.
So forget about having your own quantum computer.
It doesn't look like that's going to happen.
But NVIDIA just created a $3,000 personal AI supercomputer.
And it's only this little box.
Which, if you wanted to work on AI, if I understand it right, it would be like a data center in a tiny little box.
So if you were working with AI, instead of having to access a data center, you can access this little box on your desk.
And apparently, you have full AI capability.
So I don't know the ins and outs and the pluses and minuses of doing that versus having access to the...
Actual full data center, but it's got 200 billion parameters, and it looks like a big deal.
And then they also have a secret chip that's going to go in humanoid robots.
So with all those new introductions, I guess the stock for NVIDIA would be...
And it's down.
I don't know.
Maybe people expected more.
Seemed pretty impressive to me.
I think Nvidia is worth well over $3 trillion now.
And, you know, they're talking about things that looks like it would have a big impact on Tesla.
Because if they put these humanoid chips in robots, does Tesla buy some of those chips?
Or do they have their own chips for the robots?
So I don't know who's smart enough to know if any of these Nvidia things have any impact on...
Tesla's future, but I don't know.
We'll see.
In The Guardian, they're saying that virtual employees could come this year.
In other words, an AI agent that can take instructions and act like a person and get things done.
I'm going to go contrary.
I'm going to say it won't happen.
And that's based on my experience where I tried to create over the summer.
I tried a lot.
I worked very hard on it.
Trying to create an AI agent that could just answer some questions on my Dilbert.com webpage.
And what I learned is it doesn't look like it's possible.
And here's the problem.
With the current AI, which would be different from the future versions, which are AGI, but the one that uses a large language model and just use patterns, It can't answer questions reliably because it hallucinates and you can't stop it.
Even if you have a database and you say, AI, do you see this database?
Yes, I can read it.
Can you tell me something that's on the page?
Yes, here it is.
You go, okay.
You can definitely read the data.
Here's my instructions.
When I ask you a question, only look at this database, which is just a document, and only answer from that.
Okay, got it.
And then you ask a question, it'll just make something up without even looking at the document.
So that was on a commercial product.
There was actually a launched commercial product that, as far as I can tell, doesn't work.
And I don't think there was any competitor.
So there was nobody who had figured out how to make it stop hallucinating.
And as far as I know, it might not be possible.
Because the large language models don't just follow rules.
They've got a whole different mechanism.
I don't think you could make that reliable.
I think by its nature, it's unreliable, and I don't know that you could tweak it, fix it, patch it.
I don't think you could get there from here.
So that's why they need the AGI. That would be a whole different technology that we haven't seen yet.
I don't think it's invented, but I guess Sam Altman thinks they're getting close, and it could happen pretty soon.
But I'm going to go contrarian and say the current AI is not going to create an employee that you can rely on.
So I'm contrarian there.
All right, so there were at least two things that were fake news that I reposted yesterday without knowing they were fake news.
Now, how much worse is this going to get?
How many times am I going to get fooled by something that really looks real?
It didn't make much difference.
One of them was a parody that showed a company that would be the reconstituted Enron creating a nuclear egg, something that you could hold in your arms that would be a nuclear power plant for your personal home.
It was just like a big egg.
And the commercial for it was really well done.
It had specifications and how to use it and everything.
But it was parody.
It wasn't labeled clearly parody, though.
So I looked at it.
I'm looking for the parody part.
I didn't see parody.
So I reposted it.
But at least I was aware enough to say, is this real, when I reposted it.
But if it was real, it would be a big deal.
It wasn't real.
It's not real.
So I think that they cheated.
The rules on X is that it must be clearly labeled.
It was labeled, but I think the whole clearly part maybe is in question.
Meanwhile, there's a new study according to Just the News.
Stephen Richards is writing that a new study says that TikTok suppresses anti-China content.
So it has both anti and pro-China content, but it suppresses the anti and promotes the other.
Now, is there anybody you know who's been telling you this for years?
Is there anybody who said, you know that China's got their finger on this and there's no way that this is all objective?
I talked to a TikTok user the other day and I mentioned it would be banned unless an American buys it.
And I said, it's because it could be persuasive in a way we don't like.
And the person I talked to said, but you don't understand.
You don't use TikTok.
If you did, you'd know that I see both sides of every story.
And I said, do you?
How do you know?
Well, because I see both sides.
Now, I think that's true.
I think both sides of every story are, in fact, on TikTok.
But...
The problem is which ones you see the most and who sees it.
And as I explained to the TikTok user, who shall remain anonymous, I said, what if there are some people using TikTok that TikTok can tell for sure they cannot be influenced, meaning that you're a hard Democrat or you're a hard Republican, you're not going anywhere.
But do you think that TikTok can identify people who are on the fence?
Because everything depends on the people on the fence, the independents.
Do you think it can identify an independent?
And if it did, do you think the independent would get exactly as much content as you're seeing?
So the thing is that you can't tell if persuasion is happening.
You just see what you see, and if the only thing you know is that you're seeing both sides...
You don't know if you're the person they're trying to influence, and maybe you're not.
So maybe you're just seeing regular content.
But there's no way that they're going to keep their finger off the button if it's so easy to move the persuasion needle.
So anyway, it's not peer-reviewed yet, but it will be.
So maybe it's not valid.
We'll see what the peer review says.
But I think it's just so obvious.
You know, you could have just asked me.
You didn't have to do the study.
Do you think China will use this to influence the world?
Duh.
Duh.
So China did make a weapon of mass persuasion, and Kevin O'Leary seems to be one of the people who's part of a group looking to buy it so it would stay, TikTok could stay in business, but become an American thing with American data and American control.
I don't know if that's going to happen, but we'll see.
All right.
Oh, so the Washington Post is reporting, according to the New York Post, is reporting about the Washington Post that Trump is talking about scaling back his tariff threats and making them more about specific industries instead of making them broad.
Now, here's my question.
Why is the Washington Post working against the interests of the United States?
100% of the people watching this story know that Trump is using tariffs for negotiation.
Everybody knows that.
Do you think the Washington Post doesn't know that he's using it for negotiations?
So the main thing that you do if you're negotiating is you come in with your hardest offer, the toughest one, so that you can negotiate from that.
Should you need to?
So Trump has been consistent.
Oh yeah, we're going to tariff everything from Canada if we have to, or everything from China.
I don't know if he says that, but he acts like the tariff is just going to be wonderful and great and good for the country.
And then the smart people say, but it's like he doesn't understand tariffs.
He doesn't know that the American company pays for it, not the foreign companies shipping in.
To which I say, settle down.
It's for negotiating.
He doesn't have to say your version in order for this to work.
He has to pretend, I'll say pretend, that he wants tariffs so badly and they're so good that the more tariffs he has, the happier he's going to be.
And then go into the negotiation.
But the Washington Post has tried to kneecap him.
They're broadcasting to the world that he doesn't mean his starting position.
What are they trying to accomplish?
Is that just trying to ruin the country?
Is it just an anti-American entity and they decide what to write about based on how bad it is for America?
Now, I don't think that's the case, but it looks like it.
Why does it look like it?
I guess they want to attack Trump in any way they can, so there's still a resistance publication.
They're nowhere near the middle.
And they think this is somehow what?
Advancing the interests of who?
Who?
And then, of course, you have to ask the question, what would tariffs do to Amazon.com?
Probably not good for business.
So this is the kind of reporting that, even though I'm sure it's accurate, I don't think it's inaccurate, but this is the sort of thing you should brush over, as in, Some people say that it's a negotiating position, because that's not telling anybody anything.
But if you say it's a negotiating position and he's already saying that he's not going to stick with it, well, that's not reporting.
That's just ruining his negotiating position.
That's like getting in the story.
So, I'm very unhappy about that.
Well, yesterday, the Democrats, who have been saying for eight years that Trump is Hiller, They were quite proud of their peaceful transfer of power to Hitler.
Do you think that anybody in their base has noticed that they called him Hitler for eight years, said he's the biggest risk to America, and then they're acting proud that they rolled over and gave him the win to protect democracy?
That's right.
The Democrat message is, Trump is Hitler.
And we're going to protect democracy by peacefully putting him into power.
Does anybody on their side see that?
Is it just us?
Are we the only ones who see that nothing they did makes sense unless the primary thing they've been telling you for eight years was known to be a lie when they said it?
Which is the case.
Obviously, it was a lie.
Unbelievable.
Just unbelievable.
Then Biden is going to release 11 Yemeni detainees from Guantanamo Bay.
In other words, people with suspected terrorist tendencies.
Two of them were, I think, Osama bin Laden's bodyguards.
But the Biden administration is assuring us...
That they've been either rehabilitated or vetted and checked out, and they just want to send them to Oman, to which I say, Oman?
How is that a good idea?
Now, if he said we're just doing it to save money, then at least I could say, well, it seems like a dangerous thing, but at least it saves money.
But they're not really saying that.
It looks like a prank.
It looks like somebody sat down and said, alright, what's the worst thing we could do?
Let's do something that's just so indefensible that it'll just be funny.
Why is it that his actual policies are indistinguishable from what I would call a practical joke?
That would be a good practical joke.
Oh, we're going to free a bunch of terrorists.
Why?
It's just the power the president has.
I know, but why?
Well, we're going to release 11 of them to Oman.
But why?
Well, we checked them out and we think this is a good play.
But what do you know that we don't know?
Unless you've put internal bombs in them so they blow up when they reach Oman.
How is this good for America?
It's...
It looks like a joke.
Meanwhile, CNN's Harry Enten did a survey and asked people what their biggest memories of Trump were from prior administration.
And apparently the January 6th event, only 5% of the people surveyed said that was their biggest memory of Trump.
Now, this poll is ridiculous.
So if you thought, oh, that's telling me something, the whole world has moved on.
No.
The question was, you know, what's the first thing you remember?
And Trump is somebody who reminds you of a hundred things.
So if you ask a poll and you say, what's the biggest one?
And they don't pick January 6th.
I don't think that means they don't care about it.
I mean, I don't think people do care about it that much, but I don't think this poll is useful.
What's interesting.
Is that CNN would feature it.
Because it has the...
I think it's a biased, absurd poll with no credibility whatsoever.
But it's on CNN. And it's unambiguously pro-Trump.
Meaning that the country doesn't care about the thing that they've been reporting on for, what, four years?
The country doesn't care what CNN's reporting, which would be consistent with their...
You know, decline in ratings.
So forget about the accuracy of the poll.
Just look at the fact that it was on CNN at all.
That's kind of interesting.
Apparently, speaking of pranking, the Biden Department of Justice is going to bring 200 more people up on charges for January 6th.
And not this January 6th.
You know, the original.
Now, the Gateway Pundits reporting this.
Why in the world would they do that?
Don't they know that they're just going to be granted clemency or pardon?
Again, this one looks like, okay, that's a prank, right?
You're not serious, are you?
You're actually going to charge $200 more, spend all that money and all that time to ruin their lives when you know they're going to be released.
How in the world does that make sense?
None of it looks real.
It just doesn't look like real people made these decisions.
It looks like a bad dream or a prank or a practical joke or something.
Well, one of the big fun stories today is that Mark Zuckerberg did a video in which he says he's quite radically going to change how Facebook slash meta is censoring.
And he seems to have gone full Trump.
He said that the Trump election was sort of a cultural pivot point.
So he starts out by saying directly that the mood of the country is very clearly, you know, MAGA-looking and that he wants to adapt to it.
Now, these are my words, not his exact words, but very clearly he was saying, you know, we live in a world in which Trump won the majority and Facebook...
Would be better off as a company if it started to be more compatible with that point of view.
Now, that point of view is less censorship and better processes for the censorship.
So he described what he's going to do, which is remarkable.
Now, as I'm talking about this, I know exactly what you're going to be thinking.
You're going to say to me, Scott, but what about all the terrible, terrible things he did in the past with Facebook?
You know, banning people and censoring and all that.
Those are true things that I don't care about.
Because I don't live in the past.
If I lived in the past, I would care about it.
Now you might say, but Scott, what took him so long?
To which I say, everything good takes too long.
I'm not going to judge him for taking too long.
I'm going to be happy if it's a good idea.
I think, and I'll tell you more details, but I think he is right on point.
It's one of the most brilliant CEO moves you'll ever see.
He is so smart.
And again, I know that you're going to say, but I'm so mad at him, I can't get over it.
I get it.
I get it.
You don't like what he did in the past, and I'm not defending it.
I'm just saying that the moves he's making now probably are exactly what he says, and they're good.
Listen to this.
He's going to get rid of fact-checking.
He's going to get rid of the fact-checkers because they're biased.
What does that sound like?
That's MAGA. That's pure MAGA. The fact-checkers are fake, and you have to get rid of them.
Do you know what he's going to replace fact-checking with?
He's going to copy community notes from X, and he says that's what he's going to do.
I'm going to basically copy X and use community notes because it works.
So Musk went first.
Community Notes is quite successful, I would say.
And Zuckerberg noticed, and so he's copying.
Now, it's not easy to be a social media network and say, you see my kind of a competitor?
I'm just going to copy that because it was a good idea.
That's what Zuckerberg can do.
Like, it's just brilliant.
But there's more.
They're going to get rid of the automated censoring and only consider sensing some situations where somebody's being reported.
So there'll still be things censored, you know, the worst violent stuff, you know, the usual stuff.
But it won't be automated.
You'll have to report it.
Now, do you approve of that?
Yes, you do.
Because you want humans to decide whether humans can or cannot do something.
You don't want the algorithm deciding.
So yeah, that's good.
He says explicitly that the new process is going to let a lot more inappropriate stuff on the platform, but that the principle of free speech is more important.
Do you have a problem with that?
No, that's America.
He just described a perfect MAGA opinion about free speech.
It's messy, it's violent, sometimes it's dangerous, but it's free speech.
And the alternative is worse.
Now here's one that will blow your mind.
The moderation, the human moderators, apparently they're in California.
What's going to happen if your moderators live in California?
Well, it's all going to be liberal opinions of what should be allowed and what should not.
So here's what he's doing.
He's moving the moderation from California to Texas.
Let that sink in for a moment.
He's moving the moderation from California, because they're too biased, to Texas.
Does that sound like MAGA? Yeah.
It sounds like exactly what you would have done.
It's exactly what you would have done.
You would have moved it to Texas.
And he says he's going to work with Trump.
To, I'd say, influence or pressure other countries to not try to put Facebook better on a business.
And that's smart.
So he's completely aware that he needs the Trump administration and the government of the United States to back him and threaten other countries and say, look, if you're going to censor us over there and that has an impact on our American company, We're going to tariff you, or we're going to stop protecting you, or something.
So, I love this.
So, some other countries probably had back doors and everything else, and he wants to get rid of that, I think.
So, a lot of people said, is Zuckerberg just chasing the money?
And this is not his own philosophical opinion.
He just knows he has to do it to chase money.
To which I say, So?
So?
Why is that bad?
He's the head of a major commercial enterprise.
He's not allowed to chase money.
Chasing money means being compatible with the country you're serving.
So, I don't care.
I don't care if that's his only motivation.
If it's his only motivation and he can clearly say that getting out of that censorship business is good for business, Working with Trump productively is good for business.
Supporting systems that would give you more free speech is good for business.
If the only thing you wanted to do was make money, I would say, good job.
Excellent.
You nailed it.
If you just want to make money, I'm completely supportive of that.
Now, some of you might say, but, but, Scott, it's a trick because he did all those things in the past to bias the system.
It's pretty transparent.
He's either going to do things he said or he's not.
I mean, that moderation will either move to Texas or it won't.
You know, the automated system will either catch things or it won't.
We can watch.
It's all transparent.
I think it's brilliant because he was in a tough place and I think he's completely cognizant of the way Facebook and maybe even his personal donations to try to fix the elections.
Fix as in improve.
He probably knows that that was a huge mistake and that it distorted the system in a way that the system wasn't built to be distorted.
So to me, it looks like he thought he was doing the right thing and thought he was working with the government of the time, productively, as he saw it, I guess.
And now he knows that those are all mistakes.
And so he's doing a really hard pivot.
Hard as in, it's hard to explain it.
It's hard to...
You know, especially to his own company.
Imagine how much trouble he's getting from his own employees today.
Do you know how hard that would be to go against all your liberal employees and just do a pure MAGA version of the service?
Now, when I say pure MAGA, I want to be really careful with my words.
He's not saying I want to be right-wing.
When I say pure MAGA, I mean just compatible with the Constitution, and that's it.
We just want free speech.
So if he gives us that, pretty happy.
We'll see.
I mean, I agree with you that the jury's out.
He has to perform.
But everything about his history suggests he knows how to perform.
All right.
So, all good.
Wall Street Journal is talking about the success of Robbie Starbuck.
And I guess he's got a staff of people who have gotten now, how many?
15 public companies to change or abandon their DEI and LGBTQ policies.
And what's interesting about this, since you already knew Robbie Starbuck was having a lot of success there, what's different is that it's now a big article in the Wall Street Journal.
Do you know how big that is?
Every major corporation...
That was somebody paying attention to the Wall Street Journal.
So it's one thing when, you know, Robbie Starbuck is bragging on X that things are working.
And he has a right to brag, by the way.
He's doing amazing work.
But once it's in the Wall Street Journal, that's the thing that every business has to pay attention to.
You can't ignore the Wall Street Journal if you're in a business.
So it kind of raised Starbucks' profile.
And it raised it in the context of he's winning like crazy.
That's how you want to be elevated.
Because if he's winning like crazy and is creating a pattern in your brain that these big corporations that you figure are no dumber than you are are making this change, then the 16th, 17th, and 18th corporation that he talks to, he's going to say, I got 15 in a row.
Do you think that's an accident?
No.
Because if you say no, the Wall Street Journal has already lifted my visibility.
People like me with big accounts are backing him hard.
We're in trouble.
So he has very cleverly assembled a set of supporters on X that are enormous.
You know, just big accounts who are willing to say, yeah, do more of that.
So he isn't using his own power.
He's doing such good work on behalf of people who have big accounts in the rest of the country, I would say, that we want to back them.
We want to see more of it.
So he's built a perfect little machine to roll over the DEI excesses.
Perfect.
It's all good news.
Well, you want me to talk about Don Jr. recently just landed in Greenland, maybe an hour ago.
And it does seem that this trip, he's with Charlie Kirk and a few other people, and it does seem that the intention of the trip is to set the groundwork for a deal to buy it.
That's like a real thing.
And this, again, I hate to be gushing.
About smart people doing smart things.
But can you even think of a smarter way for Trump to approach this than to have Don Jr., of all people, of all people, Don Jr., visit personally and interact with the residents?
Now, have you seen the early pictures?
The residents of Greenland are pretty happy that Don Jr. is there.
No, for one thing, they probably don't get a lot of celebrity excitement, so they got that going for them.
But they don't seem like liberals.
I don't know much about Greenland, but from the little bit I've seen, they seem like working-class people who want to be left alone.
Does that sound like anything you've heard of before?
Working-class people who just want the government to leave them alone?
I've got a feeling...
That there's a lot of smartness behind Trump's idea of buying Greenland, that he might know that the population is just ready to be seduced.
And if Trump himself went there, you would agree that would be the wrong move, right?
At this point, he's not even sworn in.
So it would definitely be the wrong move for Trump himself to go.
But who would be more perfect?
To basically seduce the blue-collar people who probably like outdoorsy things, they're probably just like Don Jr. It's probably just a bunch of Greenland Don Juniors, and he lands in the middle of it.
And here's what I think he's going to do.
First of all, he takes this wild idea and he turns it concrete.
Because there's a real person who really matters, who's really there.
It's not conceptual.
So Trump has already turned it from conceptual to it's underway.
It's amazing.
The level of his persuasive instincts are just crazy.
I mean, I've never seen anything this good, honestly.
So I ask you again, is there anybody on the planet who would have been a better choice to send to Greenland today?
Answer, no.
Best one on the planet.
For what the intention is.
Is it likely that Don Jr. will touch a lot of people, meaning that a lot of people will know he's there, see him, interact with him?
Yes.
There are only 56,000 people in the whole country of Greenland.
My little town is twice that size.
He's going to be able to reach, touch, have some impact on a healthy little chunk of that.
And it's probably enough to make them all get serious about it.
Now, I think that the only thing required for Greenland to say yes is for the Greenland people to feel good about Trump.
How are you going to feel when he sends his son out to hang out with you?
You're going to feel good about it.
You're going to feel like, oh, this Don Jr. is like a regular guy.
Don Jr. does the best job.
Of being a rich guy acting like a regular guy?
I don't think he's acting exactly.
I think that's his actual personality.
He's perfect for this job.
Just perfect.
I love everything about this.
Anyway, let's talk about these other countries.
Oh, and just one last thing about Greenland.
I'm sure it would be good for Denmark to sell Greenland.
Because they can't afford to protect it, and it will be important to protect it going forward because the ice melting above it, and Russia and China are going to be having their ships around there, and it's got resources that people care about, rare earth materials, minerals, etc.
So Denmark would not want to admit it because they'd rather stay in a negotiating mode and say, no, no, there's no way we'd ever sell this.
But they would be better off.
I don't think they're getting a lot of...
International prestige for being colonizers of Greenland?
Do the people in Denmark wake up and say, I feel good about my country because of our control of Greenland?
There's nothing in it for Greenland except expense.
They're just paying for what's there.
So it's good for Denmark.
It's probably good for Greenland.
Almost certainly.
And it could be good for the United States.
And definitely good for Canada to have us protecting on both sides.
So that would put Canada between Greenland and Alaska.
If you can tell me that there would be a safer place on Earth than being between our two assets of the United States, that's a pretty good situation.
I don't know if the deal is going to happen, but it is in everyone's interest, somewhat unambiguously, like clearly, obviously in everybody's interest.
I think he's going to get it done.
I think this will be amazing.
Meanwhile, Trump also talks about Canada becoming a state, and he keeps joking about it, but not really, which is fascinating.
Now, here's what I think.
You know, it sounded like just...
You know, a Trumpian joke to make fun of Trudeau for being like a governor instead of a leader of a country.
But given what's happening in Canada, I don't think the United States can take a chance that a caliphate forms on our northern border.
And that's what's happening.
Now, you might say, Scott, Scott, there are so few Muslims in Canada.
You're crazy.
To which I say, that's how it happens.
It happens with too few.
That's the whole way it happens.
You have too few, and then you say, well, a few more wouldn't matter.
A few more, well, no problem so far, so why not have a few more?
And so far, no problem.
Stop being racist.
Let's get a few more.
At some point, when you reach around 10% of the population, the radicals within that group will come to control the moderates, because radicals are willing to die for what they want.
The moderates are not.
They're just trying to get along.
So the most extreme people in any group tend to rise to control of it, right?
It's just natural.
It has nothing to do with Islam.
It's just the natural way anything works.
The people who are willing to die for it, literally, are going to be in charge or die trying.
So I don't think we can take a chance that Canada is heading really hard toward getting that 10% population, which could easily turn into the seeds of a caliphate.
We could have an Islamic country in our northern border.
that's no good because of the compatibility with the systems.
So the other thing is that if you put it into the mix that you might want to buy Canada or have them merge with us, I guess not buy it, it makes the Greenland thing seem more normal.
Somebody was pointing out that Trump is ruining the Overton window or something.
So he's got so many things going on that you don't know where to stop to criticize him.
You're just whipped from one topic to another.
So I love the fact that you simultaneously...
Talking about Panama Canal, Canada, and Greenland.
That's just so Trumpian perfect to be talking about all of them at the same time.
It's very strategically smart.
Because even if he just wants one of them to happen, or two of them, it's good to throw Canada in the mix.
So, as you know, Trudeau is stepping down.
I saw it eventually.
You announced it.
And I saw Scott Jennings, the Republican guy that they have on CNN, who does a great job.
And he said that the removal or the leaving or the quitting of Trudeau, you could draw a direct line from the Canadian truckers situation.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think that the evil that he put on the Canadian truckers for protesting, you know, canceling their...
Banking and, you know, just my God.
Do you think that that was sort of the thing that pushed Canada over the line and eventually led to Trudeau having to step down?
Do you think there is a straight line?
I think there is.
Obviously, it took more than that.
But, yeah.
I think the truckers kind of got it done.
So, congratulations, Canadian truckers.
BJ? Take a bow.
I know he's listening.
All right.
So, should we talk about Elon Musk angering Canada or angering Britain or, let's see, angering Germany or angering France?
Where would you like me to start?
So, after Elon Musk becomes the determinant factor, maybe, For why Trump gets elected, he seems to have changed his focus for at least some of his time on other countries.
And so let's just run through the list of who he's made mad recently.
So up in Canada, there's a report.
We don't know if it's true.
So Musk asked for a fact check on it.
But allegedly, some Islamists in Canada are holding a conference.
Which, again, is not confirmed.
It's just being reported.
On how to defeat all non-Muslim nations and create a global caliphate.
Now, they're pretty far away from having enough power to do that sort of thing.
But the way it starts, the first meeting to talk about it.
So Elon's looking at that with one eyebrow up, like the rest of us should be.
And, of course, he's accused of racism.
So Canada has that problem that we've kind of solved in the United States.
And I'll call it the Andrew Breitbart solution.
It goes like this.
You, wanting to close the border, you're a racist!
You're a racist!
You're a racist!
And then, as Andrew Breitbart teaches, you say, so?
Well, but you're a racist!
You're a racist!
You're a racist!
So?
And I don't think that's literally what's happening.
And I don't think that anybody wants to be a racist and they're not agreeing they're racist.
They're just not interested in your opinion.
That's the win.
The win is to not be interested.
So?
Yeah.
Yep.
Yep.
That's true.
So?
But Canada still thinks that if they complain about somebody being a racist, that the person they complain about will have to change their ways and apologize and get in line.
To which, Elon Musk does not say, but may indeed be thinking.
So, that's what Canada needs, just two letters.
So, yeah.
Yeah, this would be terribly bad for one group.
Everything is, so...
You'll get there.
The other fake news that I sent around yesterday accidentally was a video of Trudeau resigning in a bar watching it, and as it happened, the bar erupted in wild cheers.
That was actually a fake video.
The bar was real, but they were reacting to a sporting event, but somebody put Trudeau on the TV screen and it made it look like they were...
They were celebrating his stepping down, but that was fake news.
All right, so you think things are bad in the UK? If I had to describe to you how bad things are going in the UK, what would be the fewest words that I could use to describe how bad it is over there?
Well, let's see if I can do it.
The fewest words...
To describe how bad things are in the UK. All right, I'm going to go with this.
Andrew Tate's running for prime minister.
Anything else you need to know?
But it gets better.
Now, first of all, I do know that you don't run for prime minister.
So before you jump in and say, Scott, you don't understand the system.
The prime minister is selected.
By the other elected people to be their leader, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I don't care.
He says he's running for prime minister, which presumably he knows he needs to get into the government and then be part of a party that has enough support to make him the prime minister.
So I'm not worried about the details.
Now, Andrew Tate is serious.
He's serious about it.
But he also says, whether he wins or loses, he can sort of force the conversation.
To be about the things they need to talk about.
And he can bring attention to the worst parts of their system.
And he can.
Now, I'm going to say something that will shock you.
Because you're not going to be ready for this.
Remember in 2015, when I was one of the first people in the country, besides Ann Coulter, to say that you don't understand.
Trump's not like normal people.
He has this persuasion skill stack that will eviscerate anything he comes in contact with that challenges him until he has hollowed out the Republican Party and become president.
Now, of course, everybody laughed at me and said, oh, you're so stupid, because he's just a crazy clown, and he doesn't have any government experience.
So I can tell you one thing, a crazy clown with, oh, and he also has lots of scandals.
Like, you probably did things with women that you don't like.
Does that sound familiar?
Well, you may know that there was some press coverage that Andrew Tate had, at least for some number of years, I don't know if he still does, an actual hypnotist who was in his inner circle.
An actual hypnotist.
Like, now somebody who just read up on it.
When you saw his popularity rise, did it seem to you like it was unnatural?
Like, how in the world did he pull that off and become, like, the number one thing in a lot of...
And the answer is he has the talent stack.
Now, you don't have to like him.
I don't like him, right?
So you might know I have a little history with him, and we're not friends.
I don't endorse him.
I don't think I want him to be the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
But nonetheless, if you were looking at it as just a talent, A talent story.
Does he have the talent to break through the system?
And the answer is yes.
The answer is yes.
Because he has the ability to mobilize males.
And if he gets enough of them, he's just Trump.
It's a Trump strategy.
The men in Great Britain are completely underserved and know it.
They just don't have any politician who's willing to say, men, you're underserved.
Let's change that.
If Andrew Tate gets enough traction that the men of Great Britain hear him say that, or some version of, men, you're completely underserved.
I'm going to help you protect the country.
I know you want to, but the government's preventing you.
Now, we're going to protect the country.
We're going to keep out the bad elements, etc., I'm assuming, and get rid of the grooming gangs and stuff like that.
Now, what's interesting is that...
Tate allegedly is converted to Islam.
So, is it possible he would get some Muslim support?
As long as he said some version of, you know, I'm Muslim too, but you guys are crazy.
You know, we're not going to make a caliphate.
That's crazy.
I'm going to prevent you from trying to form a caliphate.
I'm going to prevent you from trying to create your own society within England.
I'm going to stop it.
And I'm one of you.
I'm one of you, and I'm going to stop it.
That'd be pretty strong, right?
You know, Trump went from Democrat to Republican.
Is it a stretch that Tate went to Islam, and then he could control, not control, but he would be influential, potentially, with other Islamic citizens.
And with men, we already know he has a superpower, because men kind of like his...
You know, audacious.
They like the whole act.
So here's the thing I'm going to warn you about.
I wouldn't bet that he will become prominent in the UK political system.
I would bet against it.
I would bet against it.
However, if you think it's crazy, or you think he doesn't have the talent, you're wrong.
He has the talent.
He does have the talent.
He has the talent to...
To just hollow out their entire government and wear it like a suit.
Like Trump did.
Exactly like Trump did.
So, if you don't think there's a path, there's a path.
There's a path.
I've bet against it, but there's a path.
Alright.
The only defense that they could have against his persuasive abilities would be the legal system.
Just put him in jail.
And, of course, control the media so the media never gets him any attention.
So that might work.
I don't know if it's enough.
Didn't work in America.
Let's see.
So Musk did a poll on X. He said he wanted a response to this.
America should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government.
58% of people said yes.
I have no idea how serious he is about that.
I don't think it's serious.
I think he's just sort of making a point and trolling them a little bit.
But now the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, who needs a name I can pronounce, I demand he change his name, is accusing Musk of spreading misinformation.
Blah, blah, blah.
They're all mad.
And then other countries like France.
So Macron in France is complaining that Musk is interfering with other countries.
So what did Musk say when Macron said in public that Musk was interfering with other countries?
Musk says, oh, like the time Starmer called real Donald Trump a racist and said the British government should do everything to stop him?
That happened.
Good point.
Or how about when Starmer sent British Labor Party members to campaign in the U.S. against President Trump?
Was that interfering?
And those aren't even the good ones.
You want a good one?
Have you heard of something called the Steele dossier?
Where an ex-intelligence person from the U.K. came up with this whole fake thing?
Yeah, an ex.
Intelligence person from the UK. There's no ex-intelligence people.
That was just the Great Britain interfering with the United States.
That's what that was.
And then my funniest part was this British politician named Ed Davey.
He went on X to speak his mind.
He said, quote, So, there's nothing funnier than a person saying that Elon Musk Doesn't understand their complicated situation.
Because, you know, that's not been his domain.
To which I say, really, Elon Musk doesn't understand a complicated thing and doesn't have the ability to get up to speed really quickly because, I mean, how could he?
Come on.
Listen to Jordan Peterson's book.
I probably won't.
All right.
So, nothing's funnier than telling Elon Musk he can't handle a complicated situation.
And Elon said, in response, he said, what exactly do I fail to understand about your failure to stop the mass rape of little girls in Britain, you sniveling cretin?
Okay.
That covers it.
Nothing else to say.
But the audacity.
To imagine that his world is the complicated kind that somebody like Elon Musk couldn't possibly understand.
Like, oh, well, we don't understand the complications of why you're allowing these horrific crimes.
Maybe he doesn't know the nuance.
I swear, every time somebody says that Elon Musk is dumb or doesn't understand something, I just shake my head.
It's like, have you watched anything he's done for the last 30 years?
Anyway, it's literally all he does.
The reason he's world famous is he enters domains in which he knows nothing about and almost immediately is the best one in the domain.
Like, that's literally what he does.
All right.
And Keir Starmer said he's considering cutting ties with the U.S. unless Donald Trump distanced himself from Elon Musk.
To which I say, well, it's about time.
Yeah.
Why don't we cut our diplomatic ties?
I'm totally okay with that.
I think if the U.K. is really threatening free speech in America, and Elon He's in America, and he has free speech.
If they're going to attack the United States because of free speech of anybody, it doesn't matter if he's part of the government, elected, not elected, advisor, citizen, recent citizen, it doesn't matter.
He gets to say anything he wants within certain decency standards.
So now, if Great Britain is trying to squelch the free speech of anybody in America, we should cut ties.
We've done it before.
Yeah, we should cut ties.
Then, of course, Musk has been advocating, I think, for what they call the far-right alternative party in Germany, the AFD. Part of the story you need to understand is that when Musk says the, quote, far-right party in Germany is the one that would do a better job, it's not far-right.
So that's just something the news says.
If you looked at their far-right, it would sort of look like MAGA. That's my understanding.
Now, unlike Elon, I don't know a lot about Germany, so I'm not going to pretend to.
But I don't think it's true.
That there's some kind of extremist group.
I do think maybe they had something in their past like that.
But remember, the Democrats have the KKK in their past.
But if you hold it against them today, that would be just stupid.
And I see people doing it, and I just always bristle when I see that.
It's like, that was a long time ago.
If they're not currently supporting the KKK and they couldn't be further from it, then it doesn't really matter what they did in the past.
All right, and then there's, let's see, so Emmanuel Macron is directly accusing Musk of interfering with elections, including Germany.
And I guess that's all I need to say about that one.
Meanwhile, you heard that we've already talked about this, Biden banned offshore oil drilling before he leaves office.
Only in certain places that there isn't a lot of drilling right now.
So I don't know how big a deal it is in the real world.
But it looks like he was just trying to kneecap Trump so Trump couldn't allow drilling there.
But here's the weird part.
All the experts are saying it's irreversible.
That Trump doesn't have any way to back out of it.
And it has to do with...
A previous court ruling called Chevron deference.
I'm going to get all this wrong because this is not my expertise, the law.
But as best I understand it, there was some prior situation that went to the Supreme Court in which an agency of the government had made a ruling that we should do something this way.
And somebody else said, no, you can't do it that way.
We're going to stop you or reverse it.
And then the Supreme Court said, We're not going to reverse an agency's opinion unless you've got a really strong reason that is beyond just we have a different opinion.
And so as long as it's just a difference of opinion of how things should be, and nothing more than that, the courts won't touch it based on precedent.
Now, so that would suggest that the ruling is made.
If Trump wanted to overturn it, you imagine the courts would be involved.
But the smart people say, but you won't win.
And it could take years to get through.
But here's my take.
There's nothing that you can't cancel in reverse.
That's not a thing.
It might be that it's hard.
It might be that somebody didn't yet figure out how to do it.
It might be that you have to be messy and take some hits to get it done.
It might be that you have to do something that's never been done.
Maybe you have to take some penalties.
Well, I think you can reverse anything.
That's a decision that the country made.
So I'll just give you some examples.
So if the reason it's staying is because an agency has ruled on it, then Trump simply has to give a better reason that's not just a better opinion, but like really overwhelmingly, you know, unique situation, this really needs to be reversed.
He could probably do that.
I don't know.
He could probably come up with an argument of why it needs to be reversed, but it might take a few years to do it.
So I don't even know if it's worth doing, but we'll see.
Trump did say he would reverse all the executive orders from Biden, but we wonder if that one's going to be an exception, because if he reverses the executive order, the courts won't accept it.
So we'll see.
Wall Street Journal is reporting how Iran has pulled pretty much everything of their assets out of Syria.
And if you didn't know, that's a really big deal because Syria was sort of their land bridge to Hezbollah and their ability to equip and fund their proxies.
So now Iran has no air defenses.
Israel has taken out their air defenses.
They've lost Syria.
Which means that they can't reinforce Hezbollah, at least in any efficient way.
And Hezbollah has been beaten back at the moment.
And Hamas is just annihilated.
And apparently Iran spent billions of dollars to get Syria up and running as their proxy base station.
And they lost all that.
Now, I would agree.
That this is the perfect setup for Trump to get some kind of a deal done.
I don't think I've ever seen a better setup.
Trump is coming in exactly at the time when we can make deals and there's a way to do it.
It almost seems like, you know, God-inspired kind of thing.
It's like, really?
All these things need to be handled, you know, from Ukraine to Iran.
It needs to be handled with deals.
And the best, you know, well, most famous, I don't want to say best, but the most famous dealmaker in the world is coming into office at exactly the time.
Everything's just perfectly set up to make a deal.
When have we ever seen that before?
It's like weirdly great.
It's like almost too good to be true.
Everything from Greenland to Ukraine is just all things that he can make a deal on.
And it looks all doable.
It's weird.
It's going to make you think that Biden was even worse than you already think.
Because if Trump comes in and immediately wraps up some things that Biden couldn't wrap up, any questions about who was the best president ever and who was the worst will be answered.
I think that's going to happen.
I saw the Amuse account on X pointing out that Soros prosecutors, the people that Soros funded, those prosecutors, 40% of the homicides in the U.S. take place in districts with Soros-funded prosecutors.
Now, some of that is because, you know, he funded the ones in urban areas, so there's going to be more murder.
But that's a lot.
But 75% of those districts, the ones that are Soros districts, 75% of them stopped reporting murder statistics to the FBI in 2021. So that doesn't look like a coincidence, does it?
So when Elon Musk said, he said it a while ago, and he's reinforced it, that in his opinion, Soros hates humanity, and that is how you explain all of his seemingly charitable actions that apparently are designed to destroy the world.
I don't know what, we don't know what he's thinking when he's doing it, but if you looked at the outcome, you'd say, well, I mean, there's no way you would do all of those things.
Unless you had a unified theory to destroy the world.
Because they just seem so obviously unproductive.
So, I love that we're shining a light on it.
And I think that gives you a chance to reverse it.
So we'll see.
Well, there's an update on the pipe bomber.
So you remember the original January 6th, there were reports and videos of somebody planting pipe bombs in two different places.
And there have been lots of sketchy accusations and information that makes it look like it was part of maybe an FBI op or at least a government op.
Here's what we know.
Liz Wheeler is reporting on this.
So there's a Newhouse report about that January 6th pipe bomber.
And it's shocking.
So apparently, this is from Liz Wheeler.
The FBI tracked the phone data, and they narrowed it down to 186 phone numbers.
So remember, the bomber hasn't been caught.
So they narrowed it down to 186 bomb numbers.
And then they narrowed it down further to one.
Now we're talking about one of the pipe bombs by the bench.
So the FBI narrowed down the possible suspects based on the phone he had with them.
To one person.
So, obviously, that person got picked up.
No.
You know what they did after they narrowed it down to just one person?
So, basically, they knew who it was.
Here's what they did.
They suddenly dropped the case without explaining it.
What?
And then today, there's a new video.
Of a different angle of the guy who planted the bomb.
Why is that now just available?
There's a reason that we just found out there's a different camera angle.
And then surprisingly, it looks like the eyes of the perp seem to be digitally blocked out.
Now, I'm not 100% sure that it isn't just shadow or something.
But if you could see the eyes, then something, you know, you might have some way to identify them better.
So everything about this is sketchy.
Apparently the FBI agent in charge had told Congress that the telecom company data was corrupted.
But when the telecom companies were approached, they said nothing was corrupted.
We gave them everything.
So it appears the FBI lied to Congress.
Knew who it was and dropped the investigation.
So that's the allegation.
And now the FBI and other agencies are stonewalling Congress about why the investigation that was supposed to be about this really big problem just sort of stopped without an explanation.
Good question.
And the two people who found the pipe bombs on January 6th were, quote, a woman carrying a basket of laundry.
Who is actually, as Liz says, a swamp creature who works for an Intel-connected organization where she works on, quote, disinformation.
That's convenient.
And the other was found by a plainclothes Fed.
Really?
So the two people, so one was found by a plainclothes Fed and the other was...
Placed by somebody with some connections to the intel world.
Okay.
Both bombs sat in plain sight undetected for 15 hours or more until both were found independently within 15 minutes of each.
Obviously, the order went out to pretend you found the bombs.
And also, that happened within 15 minutes of the breach of the Capitol.
It's all timed to be exactly what it looks like, some kind of an op.
Further, the frame rate of the one video that the FBI released was 1.2 frames per second.
There's no such thing as a video camera that is only 1.2 frames per second.
You couldn't buy one if you tried.
There's not an old one, there's not a new one.
So it's obviously digitally altered.
For some reason.
So this can't be the original video.
It's some kind of modified version.
And who would have done that?
Well, the usual suspects.
I don't know if we're close to solving this, but I'm willing to say it's exactly what it looked like.
It looked like a government, I don't know which part of the government, plot to make the January Sixers look like real insurrectionists.
Because apparently they were very rude by not bringing weapons.
So if they could make something blow up, then they could say, well, you know, they're all part of this bombing thing.
And then they all have to be killed or something.
So I think what we know so far is enough for me to say, oh, that was a government help.
Now, I could change my mind if there's new information, but I'd say it's obvious at this point.
Anyway, Jack Posobiec is pitching an idea of having a Victims of 46 Foundation, a charity for the people who suffered under Biden.
He was president number 46. And it could exist for the January Sixers and the pro-lifers and the people who were kicked out of the military for the vaccine denial and other stuff.
I guess that would be good for the people who were the victims.
But it's also good framing.
So if you see it as persuasion, if you knew that we needed a recovery fund from American citizens who suffered the Biden administration, that's a pretty strong message.
Just the fact that this is even considered or it's a thing kind of reframes everything as Biden being evil instead of just a normal, different party was in charge.
Meanwhile, Toyota wants 2,000 people to go live in its brand-new city for inventors.
It's going to be at the base of Mount Fuji, and it's going to be all the people who are technologists for AI and space rockets and cars and everything.
If they put them in one place, they can cross-pollinate and get more done, I guess.
So basically, they'd be creating like a little Silicon Valley artificially.
I think that's worth a try.
Now, you might say, why does Toyota do that?
And the thinking is that Toyota is going to transfer from just making cars, which might be something that in the self-driving car day, you know, if you don't have one, you're not really in business anymore.
So there's some kind of general mobility company now.
So this all makes sense in some way.
Meanwhile, Aptera, according to Interesting Engineering and Christopher McFadden, they're an electric car company.
Been trying to build this thing for 10 years, and now they've got a version that's getting close, and it's got a 1,000-mile solar-powered battery, and you can get top speeds of 101 miles per hour, and it's super aerodynamic.
So that's a big deal.
You know, the more competition there is in that space, the better.
And there's a study that says that video conferencing, where you see yourself on the screen like I'm seeing myself, I'm talking to you, The picture on the screen is the same thing you're seeing.
Like a Zoom call, you know, you see yourself.
And the study finds, according to the Boston University School of Medicine, that the pandemic caused people to use Zoom more and Google meetings and stuff.
And that people want, they feel bad about themselves when they see themselves all the time on screen.
Because it would be like looking in a mirror all day.
And if you don't like how you look, it's really getting, you know.
Impressed on you that you don't look the way you look.
And it apparently is making some people have some mental illness about their body image.
Now, here's what I noticed.
It feels to me like every time there's a technical innovation in society, there's some demographic of society that is made crazy by it.
Like actually get mental illness because of something about it.
Like your phones, Make a lot of people go crazy.
Not everybody, and there's some dispute about whether that's even true.
But don't you think it's always the women?
No, sometimes it's men.
But who's having all the body image problems because they're looking at themselves on Zoom?
I mean, I have the same feeling when I play back my recordings and when I'm looking at myself.
I think, ooh, I wish I didn't have that or I wish that was different.
But it doesn't really make me sad, because I have a mirror.
I've seen myself.
I know exactly what the pluses and the minuses of me are.
So it seems like, again, it's the young female demographic.
If you force them to use Snapchat or Instagram or just Zoom, they're going to be focusing on what they look like, and it's going to give them a little mental illness problem.
So that, ladies and gentlemen.
It's all I wanted to talk about today.
There's just so much going on.
And weirdly, most of it's positive.
It's weirdly positive.
The Greenland thing just gives us...
It's such a palate cleanser.
Isn't it?
Like when we're talking about other things, it's like there's some horrible crime involved or there's some big unsolvable problem where somebody hates somebody.
But Greenland is probably a bunch of people who just are fine with the United States.
Wouldn't mind, probably think they'd come out ahead if they were part of the United States.
We think it'd be a good idea.
Nobody's really against it.
You know, Denmark will resist because that's negotiation.
Or maybe they really want to keep it.
I don't know.
But it's so just pleasant to think about.
Wouldn't it be nice to just add to the country?
It's just a good feeling.
All right, that's all I got.
I'm going to go talk to the locals, people privately for a moment.
